Waldsmith 1

Laura Waldsmith

Ms. Hackney

English 10 1st period

11 November 2016

Fighting Animal Testing

The leader of the Indian Independence Movement; Mahatma Gandhi, once said, The greatness of a

nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. However; in the United States and many other

countries, Animal testing is still a popular form of experimentation in which helpless animals are tested upon to

see the effects of vaccines or cosmetic products on living creatures. This experiment is supposed to mirror the

effects of a product on the human body, thus telling the scientist if it is safe or not for human use. Animal testing

is inhumane; millions of animals are mistreated and killed by the defective products when it can be avoided

entirely. America is far too technologically advanced to still have to rely on this immoral type of

experimentation. Scientists have found and adopted alternatives to this testing; these alternatives will solve the

animal cruelty problems in labs around the United States. By refining, reducing and replacing animal testing

with other methods, scientists and companies can gather accurate lab observations in a humane way

which does not mistreat animals.

Such alternatives do not harm animals in the process and the results are higher in quality because they

focus on what the product will do to the human body rather than to the body of a small animal. Cruelty-free

cosmetic author Natacha Cole wrote, Many cosmetic companies test their new products and ingredients by

forcing rabbits, hamsters, and mice, among others, to endure horrific practices such as breathing in poisonous

fumes or having lethal chemicals poured into their eyes and rubbed into their skin. Innocent animals are

tortured relentlessly for needless reasons. These animals could be pets to loving families but they are in a lab

struggling for their lives. Owners of pets around the world would never allow their beloved animals to be

treated so unethically; why are the lab animals any different? Alternatives such as In-Vitro, or in-glass tissue

testing, cost less money and the data is more accurate because it is tested on real human tissue. The complex

system of a human body is much different from a rabbit or mouse (Cole). In-Vitro is a cruelty-free method of
 Waldsmith 2
testing, no animals are even seen during this process and it yields trustworthy results. Since the body of a

human is more advanced than any animal on earth, tests on small creatures often fail to bring up important side

effects that may be prevalent in human consumption. Animal Cruelty authors Jean and C. Ray Greek wrote,

...modern medical advances such as antibiotics and vaccines are not the result of animal experiments. For

example, experiments with mice and rats failed to turn up any connections between cancer and smoking. It is

now abundantly known that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer; however, when tried on a lab animal,

there were no negative signs so scientists concluded it was harmless. If this failed to show signs of cancer, then

this will surely fail to show signs of deadly diseases in the future. Environmental health scientist Jim Moran

states, As a result, (of changing to cruelty-free methods), they cut costs and save time; animal testing is

expensive, slow and, because animals are not people, not always predictive . If companies and scientists switch

to alternative testing methods, no animals will be harmed and experiments will show results more accurate to

the human reaction.

To solve the animal-cruelty issue realistically, scientists have come up with the three Rs system: the

refinement, replacement and reduction of animals in this field. Animal testing researcher Carol Howard states,

Replacement is what most people think of when you say alternatives to animal testing- the animals are

replaced, either by methods that dont involve animals at all or by In-Vitro techniques, where the studies are

done with cells or tissues in culture. The first and most important R in this system is replacement; to get as

many animals out of labs as possible; this is the goal for animal testing activists. Many scientists believe it is

possible to get one-hundred percent of animals out of labs within the near future. Some replacement methods

include, human blood tests, cell lines, artificial skin, or computer models to test the safety of products

(Moran). These methods are attainable and reasonable for the multi-billion dollar cosmetic companies to afford

and use. By switching to cell or technological forms of testing, millions of animals could be saved. In-Vitro is a

testing method using human skin cell cultures in glass tubes (Greek). By using actual human cells, scientists can

see directly how an individual will react with a product. This experiment is completely safe and could easily

replace other forms of testing and do a better job. However, if replacement is not at all possible: the reduction of

the number of animals used in labs or the refinement of the experiment to result in less pain from the animals
 Waldsmith 3
should be practiced (Howard). The minimum companies can do is alter the way they test. Either by completely

switching to non-animal methods or by refining their methods to zero pain on the animals. Select scientists do

insist that animal testing is in fact necessary for well-rounded research. This is why the Rs of refinement and

reduction were created. Even if scientists argue animal use is crucial to the process, they should at least reduce

the numbers and treat them with care.

The American people have a big voice in this matter and must take a stand against the killing of helpless

animals because the effects on our world are detrimental. As citizens of the United States and consumers of all

drugs and cosmetics: we need to take a stand against animal-cruelty (Cole). The power is within the consumer.

Boycotting the cruel companies will make them realize their wrongdoing within the early stages of product

development and will force them to make major changes. This has worked in other countries as well. Europe

has banned the use of animals in the cosmetic industry of any kind (Moran). The European Union found it a

pressing matter that their animal environment was disappearing before their eyes. More countries should follow

in their lead and take a stand against the leading corporations of their countries. In addition, multiple millions of

animals are killed every year as a result of new consumer product testing (Feder). A large percentage of that

number is contributed by the U.S. If torturing helpless creatures for avoidable reasons is not what America

should stand for, then stop supporting the corrupt companies that do just that.

If animal testing is terminated altogether, the world will be a much more vibrant and forward thinking

place. Imagine all the vaccines that could be created but cannot be found due to the reliance on animal research

holding back. Many people are ignorant to the fact that animal testing still exists this day in age and at such a

maximum scale. Animal testing is a modern issue and it needs to be treated immediately. All people can

contribute to the creation of a cruelty-free world. Use products by companies that not only use alternative

testing methods but are also advocates who fight animal testing. Harming animals is not a requirement to

making scientific advancements and ground-breaking cosmetics. Animals testing in labs should be replaced

with reliable non-animal methods because they are better for the environment and do not limit any discoveries.

The animal testing battle can be fought and won in the near future with the help of all consumers within the

United States.
 Waldsmith 4

Works Cited

Cole, Natacha. Cruelty-Free Cosmetics 101. EBSCOhost, Natural Life, 2015, p. 1-4.

Feder, Barnaby. Saving the Animals: New ways to Test Products. The New York Times, Sep. 12, 2007.

Greek, C. Ray. Greek, Jean. Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical Research. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context, Animal Experimentation, 2004.

Howard, Carol. Yes, Dad, There are Alternatives. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
 Waldsmith 5
American Anti-Vivisection Society, 2005.

Moran, Jim. Locke, Paul. Beauty and Beasts: The U.S. Should Ban Testing Cosmetics on Animals. Scientific

American, May 28, 2014.