Cosmetic Testing on Animals
In 1983 the pharmaceutical company Pfizer carried out a special study to see if animal experiments could correctly identify cancer-causing chemicals. The results would be vitally important because despite costing millions of dollars, no one really knew whether the tests provided adequate protection against hazardous substances. Human findings were compared with experimental data from rats and mice for all chemicals known to cause cancer in people. The outcome was disturbing: in most cases animal tests had given the wrong answer. The report concluded that we would have been better off to toss a coin! The quarrel between those who would endow animals with "rights" and those who say that animals must be used if science is to move forward remains as heated as ever. Despite the widespread practice of harmful animal testing, there are numerous viable alternatives that prevent the unnecessary torture of innocent animals. Today, most people agree that causing unnecessary harm to an animal is wrong and our laws reflect that sentiment. Neglecting a pet by depriving it of food, water, or medical attention is a misdemeanor crime penalized by costly fines or in some cases jail time. Felonies include more sever fo
Some efforts have been made to standardize claims like "cruelty-free." Robyn Wesley, the cruelty-free product campaign coordinator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals located in Norfolk, Virginia, says several animal protection organizations, including PETA and the American Anti-Vivisection Society, have banded together to develop their own consistent beauty product labeling system. In November of 1996, the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics was born and so, too, was a uniform method for identifying cruelty-free beauty products. "The new standard is much tougher. It says that manufacturers may not purchase any ingredients from suppliers that conduct or commission animal testing," says Martin Stephens, vice president for Animal Research Issues, The Humane Society of the United States based in Washington DC (Fennessey 2.) It has been difficult to halt animal research altogether because many scientists still believe it serves a valuable purpose. Proponents argue that animal research facilitates medical breakthroughs, thereby saving human lives. It also determines whether products are safe for human use. "Anybody who accepts the notion that disease is caused by a disturbance of anatomy or physiology is going to agree that animal research is necessary," says Adrian Morrison, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinarian Medicine in Philadelphia (James- Enger 1.) "Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals." (Importance 1.) The knowledge gained from animal research has extended human life and made it healthier through many significant achievements, as illustrated by the following examples: vaccines to prevent poliomyelitis and other communicable diseases; surgical procedures to replace diseased heart valves; corneal transplants to restore normal vision; new medicines to control high blood pressure and reduce death from stroke; anti-psychotic drugs to treat mental disorders; broad spectrum antibiotics to treat infections; and chemical agents to cure or slow childhood cancers (Importance 1.) A number of major brands and large amount of small companies are now advertising themselves as "cruelty-free."(Animal 1) About 250 companies in the country make and sell cosmetics without testing on animals (Holmes 2.) Despite the claims of being cruelty-free, it is unclear just what this means. Sometimes the parent company is still carrying out animal tests on ingredients and on its other brands (Animal 1.) "The word 'natural' has become a buzzword," says Wendy Rogel, spokesperson for Petaluma, California based Beauty without Cruelty. "Natural" ingredients may have been tested on animals (Fennessey 2.) "Beauty without Cruelty (BWC) has always maintained a cruelty-free and vegetarian ethic since its inception in 1959," reports Rogel (Fennessey 1.) Since March 1989, Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have announced bans on animal testing (Holmes 2.) In November of 1997, companies in Britain announced that they would voluntarily stop cosmetic testing on animals at the request of the Labor government (Firms1.) However, there are many large companies who are frequently criticized for their use of animals. Procter & Gamble is one of the most infamous of these companies. "In July 1991, BUAV revealed that P & G had conducted tests on about 300 guinea pigs to determine irritancy and allergic sensitivity to sunscreen ingredients. Human data was already available. In 1992, using US government records, 'In Defense of Animals' reported that P & G had increased its use of dogs, hamsters, and ferrets between 1986 and 1989. Total animal use is estimated at about 50,000 per year." (Animal 1.) Colgate-Palmolive is another amongst the list of animal testing companies. "Colgate-Palmolive has animal testing undertaken for it by outside contractors. A few years ago, BUAV recently uncove
Some common words found in the essay are:
Responsible Medicine, Institutes Health, Animal Testing, Welfare Act, Royal SPCA, Jacob Sivak, Drug Administration, James- Enger, American Canadian, Newark Jersey, animal testing, animal research, draize test, holmes 2, guinea pigs, animal 1, testing animals, animal protection, cosmetics toiletries, animals research, gained animal research, research extended human, message 2 researchers, cosmetics testing animals, animal research extended,
Approximate Word count = 3297
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
