The Use of Animals in Cosmetic and Medical Testing

People use many products that are tested time and again to unsure the safety of all that use it. These tests are conducted on animals. These tests are called vivisection. Vivisection is the "burning, shocking, drugging, starving, irradiating, blinding and killing of animals" to ensure the safety of users of products such as Cover Girl and Oil of Olay (NEAVS Factsheet, 1998). The use of animals and the conditions in which they are kept are unnecessary and immoral.

Fundamentally, animal testing is not necessary. Some say animal experimentation is essential by reason of it helps find cures for diseases and other illnesses. It is believed that it's the only way to completely ensure the safety of the consumer when new cosmetics, medicines, etc. are invented. In reality, animal testing is completely unessential because there are alternative methods. One such method is the Eytex method. In this process, vegetable proteins, from the jack bean, mimics the reaction of many sensitive body areas such as the cornea. Also, there is tissue and cell cultures which can be grown from a single human or animal cell, which may be removed painlessly. Furthermore, a few different companies have developed a artificial human skin, which can used to replaced animals in testing as it has the same reactions. There are also many "mathematical and computer models, based on physical and chemical structure and properties of a substance, can be used to make predictions about the toxicity of a substance (PETA Factsheet, 1998)." The software TOPKKAT is used by many companies, like the Food and Drug Administration and the US Army, to test different substances for toxicity. So as it is stated, the use of animals in the testing of cosmetic and medical research is unnecessary.

Another reasoning some have for the use of animal testing is that it is cost effective. This is also the reason behind the cruel and barbaric conditions in which the animals are stored to await their grim and agonizing death. The truth is that the alternative methods for experimentation are more cost-effective than the use of animals in experiments. Alternative methods are "generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon (PETA Factsheet, 1998). The Eytex method costs generally around a hundred dollars, while Drazie, a method used on animals for testings, costs more than a thousand dollars. Also, the conditions in which the animals are kept are not very cost-effective. Companies that use animals have been known to neglect animals to the point of death before experimentation can begin. Forty-three percent of the animals purchased for an experiment die before the actual experiment. Therefore, money spent on those animals that died went to waste, making the neglectful conditions as not cost-effective as animal testing in general.

A third reason animal testing should be prohibited is it is not required by law. A fallacy in this country is the belief that animal testing is an FDA requirement for a new product, but it is in no way required by the government. The government does not ever require that personal and household products are tested at all before distribution. The alternative methods are completely legal and approved by the government. It is neither a law nor a requirement that the testing of a product on an animal is necessary. Hence, animal testing is not necessary on a government level.

The use of animals in the testing of cosmetics and medicine as well as the condition in which they are kept is unnecessary and immoral. Animal experimentation may seem necessary, but it really is not. The legal standard believed to exists is erroneous, there for there are no legal standards met by the use of animals in testing. Also, many alternatives to animal testing exists. These factors make the used of animals in testing purposeless.