Animal Testing Cosmetics and Toiletries

Animal Testing: Cosmetics and Toiletries Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in a variety of experiments (Wikipedia, 2005) Many experiments aim to test certain substances to determine their effect on humans, or to test medical or psychological hypotheses. Animal testing is a very controversial and well-researched topic. Proponents and opponents constantly argue over both ethical concerns and the effectiveness of the practice of using animals for scientific research.

The term "vivisection" is now used as a blanket term for all animal experiments, although it originally only referred to those that involved cutting the animals (Wikipedia, 2005) Many dictionaries and encyclopedias now use the term "vivisection" to describe any type of animal experiment that causes suffering, whether it involves cutting or not, although those animal experimentors dislike this trend as they feel that "vivisection" is a term that spurs emotion (Croce, 1991).

For many years, people have debated on the topic of animal testing and the moral implications involved with this procedure (Wikipedia, 2005). Some argue that the perceived benefits to humans is outweighed by the moral issues. Research advocates in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries argue that humans in some parts of the world maintain a better standard of living, in terms of their health and well-being, due to advances in health and manufacturing knowledge derived from animal testing.

Opponents of animal testing argue that that testing, especially testing for non-medical substances, is excessive and unnecessary, causing a great loss of animal life and inflicting suffering for the diminished pursuit of producing non-vital, socially irrelevant products, like perfumes, cosmetics, and toiletries. Vivisection, the practice of experimenting on animals, started as a result of religious prohibitions against the dissection of human corpses (WAVA, 2005).

By the time these prohibitions were taken away, the practice of animal vivisection for medical, cosmetic and military purposes, had become common practice in various institutions around the world. Animals are subjected to tremendous suffering for the sake of science and technological advancement (WAVA, 2005). Estimates of animals tortured and killed in U.S. scientific laboratories range from 17 to 70 million per year. Many people see animal experimentation as a cruel and unnecessary process (WAVA, 2005).

Millions of innocent animals are tortured for the benefit of research, while results obtained from experimenting on animals are often unreliable and inapplicable to the human race. There have been many cases that illustrate the absurdity of assuming that humans and animals are sufficiently similar, biologically, for experimentation (WAVA, 2005). For example, morphine relaxes humans but excites cats, cortisone causes birth defects in mice but not in humans, penicillin kills guinea pigs and hamsters and aspirin poisons cats.

Thus, it is apparent that animals and humans cannot be adequately compared for research purposes. Cosmetic testing on animals Of all the areas in which animal testing is performed, the area more criticized is the cosmetic industry (Wikipedia, 2005). A great deal of time and money is spent on the controversy over animal testing to determine the safety of cosmetic products to human consumers. Many people feel it is unethical to harm or kill animals for the sake of human vanity.

Cosmetic testing on animals includes the following practices "Testing a finished cosmetic product (e.g.

lipstick) on animals (see below for examples of toxicity tests); Testing individual ingredients of cosmetic products on animals; Testing any combination of ingredients on animals; Contracting a third-party company to perform any of the above tests; Using a subsidiary or third-party company to perform any of the above tests in countries where animal testing is not banned." As a result of the major public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, many cosmetic manufacturers claim that their products are "not tested on animals (Wikipedia, 2005)." However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws to prove their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous.

In many countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. However, the United States often insists on animal testing. Some cosmetic manufacturers have come up with alternatives to animal testing, including the follwing Reliance on existing natural or synthetic ingredients, compounds and substances. These have already been extensively tested on animals in the past, and thus do not need to be tested again. Avoiding novel ingredients or combinations of ingredients that have not fully been tested and may not be safe.

Testing on human volunteers. Alternatives to Animal Testing Animal rights supporters, animal welfare supporters, scientists, doctors and even government officials usually say that they agree that animal testing should result in little suffering to animals as possible, and animal tests should only be performed where absolutely necessary (Wikipedia, 2005). According to Wikipedia (2005): "The "three Rs" of Reduce (the number of animals used), Refine (animal procedures) and Replace (animal tests with non-animal tests) are used as the basis for animal testing codes of practise.

In some countries, the three Rs are mandated by law. In other countries, many animal testing facilities voluntarily ascribe to this code to publicly demonstrate their ethical position." Numerous scientific studies and institutes are researching both alternatives to animal tests, and improvements to existing tests to reduce the suffering of animals or to reduce the number of animals killed (Wikipedia, 2005).

These groups cliam that their efforts are not only for the sake of ethics, but also because the research may improve the accuracy of tests or make them more time- and cost-efficient. Conclusion Alternative research methods exist, and have been proven to be more accurate, less expensive and less time-consuming than cruel animal experimentation (WAVA, 2005). However, those who benefit financially from experimenting on animals or.