Society Should Ban the Use of animals in Cosmetic Testing
Every year, millions of animals suffer and die at the hands of scientists who perform outdated and inaccurate tests that prove no benefit to humans or animals whatsoever. Before these animals die, they are routinely burned, scalded, poisoned, starved, given electric shocks, addicted to drugs, subjected to near freezing temperatures, dosed with radioactive elements and driven insane. They are deliberately inflicted with diseases such as cancer, diabetes, oral infections, stomach ulcers, syphilis, herpes, and AIDS. Their eyes are surgically removed; their brains and spinal cords damaged, and their bones broken. The use of anesthesia is not mandated by law, and consequently, it is rarely administered. Cosmetics companies attempt to justify all of this cruelty by claiming that the tests are performed to determine the possible dangers of cosmetics for human use. Substances such as eye shadow and soap are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that the test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury at all. Experimentation on live animals, or "vivisection" began as early as the 17th century. During that time period, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) rejected Philosopher
Despite all of this pain and suffering on the animal's part, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. The overall adult cancer rate has risen in the past 40 years and a fatal heart attack strikes a person every 45 seconds. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 70-80% of the common diseases killing humans are preventable given a responsible diet and lifestyle. We as consumers can help our animals by purchasing only products that have not been tested on animals. By changing your shopping habits a bit, it is easy to become a caring and conscientious consumer. When you shop, look for products that say "Cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals". Just weeks ago, the European Union (EU) moved closer to an agreement that would enforce a ban on the use of animal testing to develop beauty products in the EU. Negotiators for the EU's 15 national governments and the European Parliament reached a compromise that would introduce the ban in 2009, giving cosmetics companies' ample time to find and implement alternative ways of testing. The ban will cover animal tests in Europe and also calls for a ban on imports of cosmetics produced outside the bloc that have been tested on animals. The compromise still needs to be approved by the full European Parliament and ministers from the 15 nations. Cosmetics are not required to be tested on animals and since alternatives exist it is hard to understand why some companies continue to use these types of tests. Cosmetic companies kill millions of animals every year in the quest to improve their profit margin. According to the companies that perform these tests maintain that they are done to establish the safety of a product and the ingredients. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates cosmetic products, does not require animal testing. Among many others, some of the tests used on animals are eye irritancy tests, acute toxicity tests, and skin irritancy tests.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Administration FDA, , Act Sophisticated, Disease Control, Institutes Health, European Parliament, Cosmetic Act, Rene Descartes', Drug Administration, Department Agriculture, irritancy tests, tested animals, food drug, animal testing, drug administration, animal welfare, food drug administration, eye irritancy tests, skin irritancy, eye irritancy, national institutes health, department agriculture, acute toxicity tests, lethal dose, products tested animals,
Approximate Word count = 1596
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
