Animal Testing Proposal

Animal testing has always been a controversial and emotive topic. Each year, millions of innocent animals suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests, as well as in biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities (“PETA Makes Its Case Against Animal Testing” 3). Think of any drug, cosmetic or household cleaner. Chances are, at one time or another, an animal suffered in order to put that product on the shelf. As many as 800 animals are sometimes tested, experts note, before a drug is determined to be safe enough to proceed to a clinical trial (“Animal Testing” 2). While some will argue that these tests are necessary, the reality is, it is cruel and inhumane to experiment

Those animals are subjected to this cruelty for the sole purpose of being used in classroom teaching, despite alternative teaching methods being available that have been reported as being more effective and actually saves the schools money. Supporters of animal testing will argue that in the past, most medical breakthroughs involved some form of animal research. That is true. Experimental drug testing on animals was a successful way of discovering cures for diseases in the past. An excellent example is the discovery of insulin to treat diabetes. That discovery was founded in the 1920s when insulin was given to diabetic dogs. However, with today’s technology, those extreme measures are no longer the only way to deem a product safe for human use. Scientists and researchers have now developed many testing alternatives with equally effective results without subjecting innocent animals to pain, suffering, and death. Cosmetic companies have developed testing facilities that can use human corneas supplied by eye banks, frozen corneas supplied by hospitals, or tissue cultures composed of cells from a cornea in order to test products that might irritate the eyes. An alternative to the skin version of the Draize test, a test that involves shaving the fur off of a rabbit’s back and applying potentially harmful chemicals to determine the results,

Luckily, the public started listening. With so many activists taking a stand against the unnecessary testing on animals, change began to take place. Beginning in 2013, the European Union would not allow any cosmetic that had been tested on animals to be sold in stores. In 2000, California became the first state to restrict the use of animal testing, forbidding manufacturers of cosmetics and other household items from testing their products on animals if viable non-animal alternatives exist. (“Animal Testing” 39). New York and New Jersey have similar restrictions. Since scientists continue to make great advances in alternative testing, many feel that the need for animal testing will soon be no longer needed, or tolerated. Until that day, consumers can stand up for animal rights by buying only cruelty-free products and supporting those companies who do not test on