Hobbes, the cat, has been under experimentation for most of his life. This is probably the last time that he will ever have to be experimented on again. Why? Because he is probably not going to make it through this time. The makers of Herbal Essences are about to force shampoo down his throat to see what happens to its organs. Even if the cat lives through the process, they will have to kill it to see which organs were affected by the toxic chemicals. If this was an actual human going through this deadly experiment, people would be in shock. Animal testing started numerous years ago to help provide humans with information.
The process of animal testing is of great importance to scientists that work in testing for toxicity, in most cosmetics and personal care products that are made every year and are put into the market after being tested on animals. “Animals in Product Testing” stated, “… these products have gone through a long and complex testing process that leaves millions of animals mutilated, burned, poisoned and gassed in outmoded and unnecessary tests. ” From these different experiments, animals are often left with different diseases like Syphilis, Herpes, or AIDS (“Animal Rights: Animal Testing”).
Manufacturers of these different products say that they are performing these tests to assure our safety for these products. They want to make sure that humans are not in any amount of danger (“Animals in Product Testing”). Animal testing is an unethical process, most of the testing is invasive and unnecessarily cruel torture to an innocent animal does that make us inherently evil even though many say we do the experiments for the greater good? Inflicting pain purposely is considered wrong in society and people are punished if caught.
How can we justify the killing of an animal no matter how small and insignificant, in the larger scheme is there an alternative that we can use that will not cause pain and suffering and even save costs. Yes there are several different ways we can eliminate the use of animals in testing. There are certain types of animals that scientists use for certain types of experimentation. Some well-known animals that they use for testing are: cats, dogs, mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, sheep, llamas, cattle, owls, deer, monkeys and other primates. These are not, by any means, all of the animals that they use.
These are just the most common (“Animal Rights: Animal Testing”). For example, the Draize Test is used on white albino rabbits (S. , Jeremy). They use white albino rabbits because of their sensitive eyes and also because the formation of their tear ducts stops tears from draining away all of the foreign substance (“Animal Rights: Test … “). In this process, scientists rub shampoo, soap, toothpaste, oven cleaner, lipstick, or lawn products into their gorgeous, red eyes. From this point, scientists record the damage that they observed. This test can last up to eighteen days with their eyelids held open with a clip.
Many of the rabbits end up breaking their necks trying to escape from the horrifying pain. First of all, it is pointless to keep the product in their eyes for that long of a period. There is no way that even a child would have something like that in his/her eye for very long. The second reason this is unnecessary to do to a rabbit is that the eye tissue of a rabbit is completely different from humans. (S. , Jeremy). Instead of using the Draize test we can use these alternative that provide better results and less cost from the government and private companies.
Nearly 50 different alternative methods and testing strategies have been developed, validated and/or accepted by international regulatory authorities. Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional “pyrogen” tests. EpiSkin, EpiDerm and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin—can save thousands of rabbits each year from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests.
The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry instead of live rabbits to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes. The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test can replace the use of mice and other animals in the testing of medicines and other products for their potential to cause sunlight induced “photo-toxicity. ” The Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay for skin allergy testing makes it possible to reduce animal use by up to 75 percent compared with traditional guinea pig and mouse tests.
When testing to determine chemical concentrations that are deadly to fish and other aquatic life, use of the Fish Threshold Method can reduce the numbers of fish used by at least 70 percent compared with standard test methods. Why do companies even agree with animal experimentation? Some companies, like Clairol, demand that they do not use animal testing on their shampoo product, Herbal Essences. Even though they have cut down on animal testing, they have not eliminated the complete line of cosmetics and other products of animal experimentation (“Consumer Companies… Animals”).
There are also some companies, like Mother’s Bath products, that do test on animals. The only difference is they shampoo their own dogs to see how it smells after being cleaned off with water. This type of procedure is not actual animal testing. The reason being is because it is not deathly and does not harm the animals in any way. Mother’s Products inventor did mention, “Beyond these happy volunteers WE DO NOT TEST ON ANIMALS. All other product testing is on ourselves, friends, & family. ” This is the best type of testing to do, on real human beings (“Mother’s Cupboard Bath…”).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has different laws about the safety of human’s health. In other words, the FDA and the different laws agree with animal testing. The FDA supports two different acts, the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy and Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (“Animal Testing”). The Animal Welfare Act is to assure the health of humane care and the management of dogs, cats and other certain animals that are used for research and experimentation.
As well as to make sure that humane treatment of animals during the transport to help protect the owners of the animals from theft (U. S. Fish… ). The Public Health Service Policy and Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is a law that assures animal care for farm animals, mice and rats (“Public Health… “). The FDA feels that if animals are used instead of actual human beings, then there is no risk of taking a human’s life. If animals are put under experimentation, then the loss of an animal wouldn’t be as devastating as an actual person.
Other companies like: Arm & Hammer, Gillette, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, SmithKline, Beecham, and Unilever still test their products on animals (S. , Jeremy). Another element why animal experimentation is wrong is because in multiple ways, it is pointless. The reason that companies even test their products on animals is because they are supposedly watching out for our safety. Most toxic products are tested on different animals. Some toxic products that are used are: soaps and detergents, oven cleaners, and toilet cleaner, etc. What is wrong with this picture?
The internet site titled, “Animals in Product Testing” stated, “… no amount of animal testing can change the fact that many of these products are harmful if ingested or used in a way not intended by the manufacturer. ” In other words, there is no reason to force animals to swallow any toxic products, when no matter what, they would harm someone if they digested it (“Animal in Product Testing”). Also, many different types of drugs are very useful to human beings, but are very dangerous and deadly to animals. For example, Penicillin can help people’s lives, but actually kills guinea pigs.
Another drug is Aspirin, which, in fact, causes birth defects in mice, monkeys, rats, cats, guinea pigs and dogs. Obviously, this is not a problem toward humans (“Animal Rights: Animal Testing”). There are many reasons why animal experimentation is meaningless, but, in many ways, it can be good according to Jack Botting and Adrian Morrison. Both of these scientist claim that animal experimentation is essential because that is the only way that cures can be invented for many diseases. Also, many other medicines have been developed through animal testing.
Morrison and Botting feel that there is no difference between humans and animals. Experimenting on animals helps store precise information for humans (Botting, 78). Animal testing is also unnecessary because there is not a law saying that you have to test any product on animals (Stevens). The only product that is forced by the law, to test on animals, are certain types of chemicals and pharmaceutical products (S. , Jeremy). To think that people are so cruel against animals, and there is no reason for it. Karen Lee Stevens stated, “Sophisticated alternatives to the use of animals in consumer product testing are readily available.
” So, from the Steven’s statement, there are obviously many other ways, besides animal testing, which can be used to test different products. These different alternatives could possibly be more effective, be a better indicator for humans, have much quicker results, and it would not be involved in any kind of animal unkindness. So, why don’t all companies realize that they don’t have to do testing on innocent animals? There are two main reasons why it is so hard for manufacturers to use alternatives: the fright for human safety and the fright of product assurance.
The first company that changed their ways of animal testing was Revlon Cosmetics. In 1979, Revlon gave $750,000 to the Rockefeller University to research different alternatives to test their products. Different organizations such as the John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Toiletry and Fragrance Association, the Cosmetic, the International Foundation for Ethical Research, and the Soap and Detergent Association started their own research to develop different alternatives.
While this research is going on, the amount of animal testing increases so that they can guarantee consistent results with the new alternatives (Stevens). The final reason why animal testing is so cruel is because innocent animals are being abused without reason. For example, many animals that are used in all of these experiments are animals that have either been stolen or are from different animal’s shelters. From there, they are taken to animal testing sites. All of these animal experimentation sites have been inspected, but just because the research centers are legalized, does not mean that animals aren’t being abused.
According to Jeremy S. , “A research scientist at Huntingdon Life Sciences was recently caught on videotape punching four puppies repeatedly in the face. ” This so-called “scientist” is trying to prevent humans from danger by punching puppies. The scientist tried to back up his crime by stating that he was only trying to do the puppies a favor because the product that he just made them sniff was giving them terrible effects on the body (S. , Jeremy). There is no reason to do this to such young animals, or any animals for that manner.
Today, many companies have turned from animal testing. They now feel that animal experimentation is a cruel process that leaves innocent animals dead for no apparent reason. Although many companies have agreed that it is an absurd process, animal testing still is a huge part of product testing (“Animals in Product Testing”). After all of the reasons of why animal testing is ridiculous, hopefully a law will stop the cruel process. Although, like stated in the previous paragraph, many companies have stopped these practices and tests, there are many that still practice this process.
Hobbes, the cat, could still be alive today if it wasn’t for the companies that still believe that it is okay to test animals with products. A question that is brought up in many peoples mind is, why would animal testing still be going on if there a Overall, animal testing is expensive, time-consuming, unpredictable, and not easily reproducible from one lab to another (i. e. , results lack reliability). Because of their expense, cumbersomeness, and scientific limitations, animal tests have not adequately addressed the vast number of chemicals already in commercial use, nor the estimated 700 new ones introduced every year.
According to Dr. Thomas Hartung, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, out of “some 100,000 chemicals in consumer products,…only about 5,000 have had significant testing so far because no one has the capacity for experiments using standard methods involving animals. ” While all new products must be tested for safety, using animals to assess human health risks is inefficient, unreliable, and has limited—if any—predictive value for what will happen in humans.
Thankfully, private industry and a growing number of federal agencies are now acknowledging the superiority of alternative methods for safety testing. While alternative methods have not received the full scientific, industry, and government support that they deserve, progress is being made, as the development of alternative techniques becomes more widely recognized as a legitimate and important area of basic and applied scientific investigation. For example, one traditional criticism of in vitro replacement alternatives was their inability to mimic or reproduce the consequences of long-term, chronic human exposure to toxic substances.
This is no longer the case. As cell culture technology has evolved, it is now possible to maintain in vitro systems for sufficiently longer periods of time—weeks or months. It is not necessary to maintain such cultures for years, as is done with some typical chronic animal tests. Long-term cell and tissue culture techniques can now allow in vitro studies of the effects of chronic, repeated exposure to toxic substances, as well as the recovery from such exposure in a shorter period of time.