This was inexcusable. He got his rifle, and he began to shoot them, one by one. Somehow, though, he couldn't hit the last woodchuck, the wiley one. That night, he dreamed about that woodchuck, the one that got away. He dreamed he shot that woodchuck. Blaming the whole debacle on the woodchucks, he told himself, "If only they'd all consented to die unseen, gassed underground the quiet Nazi way." (Kumin, poemhunter.com) Non-animal testing methods that are more reliable than animal testing and a lot cheaper have been developed. Some are computer and mathematical models. Others use cell and skin tissue or corneas from eye banks -- providing information from human genes. Some companies simply avoid testing by using all non-toxic ingredients or ingredients that the Cosrmetics, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association has already approved as safe.

According to groups on both sides of the argument, the American public -- particularly the young people -- are becoming more and more opposed to biomedical testing as they learn about it and its abuses to animals. But the proponents are trying to fight back. Recently, a billboard appeared in Inman Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts, that read "GOT LEPROSY? -- a scare tactic. Leprosy is a deadly disease that everyone has heard about, usually from stories of outcast leper colonies, but no one knows anyone who has had it. Leprosy is gone, and the message on the billboard is clear it is gone thanks to animal testing. It made a splash, but didn't get as many converts as hoped.

The big news is that on April 6, 2010, United States and the United Kingdom sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in federal court. They accused the FDA of failing to act on the 2007 petition they had submitted. Its purpose was to require the use of scientifically-sound alternatives. This would follow the European Union's direction: for 20 years it has required that animal testing would not be used when non-animal procedures were available. The groups also asked the FDA to issue regulations that would require all FDA-regulated...

They are also concerned about hazardous drugs that are approved for human use, but animal tests were used that were not capable of detecting and preventing these results. Drugs such as these have already harmed millions of people.
Regulatory agencies don't require cosmetics to be tested, but some cosmetic companies do continue to use animal testing even though effective non-animal tests have been developed. The European ban on animal testing became effective in 2009, and a complete sales ban will be effective in 2013. It's hard to see why some American companies still use those cruel animal tests. Perhaps one reason is that industry technicians and researchers are trying to protect their jobs. Corporations may want to use the animal tests to avoid liability in case they are sued. Consumers who buy their products are partly responsible as well.

Consumers who object to animal testing should send a strong message to cosmetic companies that animal testing is cruel and should not be tolerated. What everyone should do is to buy products from companies that don't test on animals, and ask their friends and relatives to do the same. A list of these companies is available at www.leapingbunny.org. Something else these consumers can do is to let companies that test on animals know that they won't buy their products if they continue their testing with animals. Most of these companies have toll-free numbers to call. And something else that consumers can do is to tell their friends and relatives to make these calls, too.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

McConville, Christine. "Laboratory Animals, Animal Rights." Boston Herald Oct. 2009: 29.

Poetryhunter.com/poem/the fish. April 22, 2010

Poetryhunter.com/woodchucks. April 22, 2010

www. Using Animals for Testing: Pro's Versus Con's. April 22, 2010