Then Who Do We Believe? Essay Example

to prevent future legal actions. While safety testing is necessary, it should be acknowledged that a significant number of animals are killed each year, raising ethical concerns (McCoy, 88). Using animals with lower intelligence levels than humans for renewable resources is considered unethical. Moreover, conducting experiments on animals for non-essential products contradicts moral principles. All individuals, including animals, should have basic moral rights such as the right to life, liberty, happiness or well-being, and freedom from suffering (Fox 54). Despite this fact, animals often endure suffering while being forced to adapt to human lifestyles even if it means sacrificing their own well-being (Planet for the Taking Series: Ultimate Slavery).

The use of animals for cosmetic testing is extremely cruel because many of these tests cause pain and suffering (Planet for the Taking Series: Ultimate Slavery). Two common tests are employed in cosmetic testing.The LD50 test determines the lethal dose for 50% of animals exposed to a chemical by administering increasing amounts of the substance to dogs, cats, rodents, and primates until 50% die (Finsen, 17). This test assesses the potency of cosmetics, detergents, pesticides, and food additives with severe toxic effects in a short time frame. However, it requires a large number of animals and only provides information on acute effects rather than chronic effects (Hunter, 26). These animals not only die during the experiment but also suffer beforehand. Another frequently conducted test involves rabbits and is known as the Draize Eye Irritancy and Skin Test. It focuses on products used around or in the eyes. In this test, a chemical is applied to one eye while the other serves as a control. Over three to

four days, researchers observe signs such as bulging, broken blood vessels or hemorrhaging (Hunter 26). After these tests, typically either euthanized or used for further experimentation.

Both animal testing and in vivo toxicology tests are highly controversial and cause harm to a significant number of animals simultaneously. Moreover, these tests do not demonstrate long-term effects or the reactions of animals when exposed to other substances (Finsen, 18). However,
there are alternatives available for product testing that offer quicker,
cost-effective,
and more compassionate ways
to collect data.
Manufacturers are introducing reliable techniques that can reduce
the need for animal testing.Corporations should utilize alternatives to animal testing whenever possible in order to promote the reduction of animal testing. Efforts by the John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, along with its Department of Environmental Health Science, are underway to encourage corporations to replace in vivo toxicology with in vitro toxicology. In vitro experiments involve using cells, tissues, and organs in test-tube experiments rather than live animals. The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) is focused on enhancing in vitro testing for various toxicities such as neurotoxicity, skin irritation, eye irritation, and liver or kidney toxicities caused by different products. CAAT achieves this through providing grants (Hunter, 26), including specific grants that aim to determine whether a test chemical would cause pain or not and develop human skin models using keratinocytes found in the skin as an alternative to animal-based skin tests and allergen testing (Hunter, 26). These models can also be utilized for testing corrosiveness instead of relying on animal testing. In addition to these benefits, in vitro tests do not cause pain or stress to animals and can serve as alternatives

to the Draize test for cosmetics and toiletries like eye shadows, shampoos, perfumes, skin creams, and cleansers. The irritations caused by these products are evaluated based on color changes in a synthetic mixture that imitates the living cornea of the human eye.The text discusses various methods and alternatives to in vivo tests for assessing the effects of colors on tissue at a molecular level. In 1988, in vitro tests cost significantly less than in vivo tests. Additionally, corneal tissue from eye surgeries can be used as a readily available source for testing purposes. This tissue is considered more accurate than rabbit corneal cells. The Agarose Diffusion Method, which uses agarose instead of gelatinous gels, has been effective in reducing animal usage in eye safety testing since 1989. The method involves placing the test product on a paper filter disc positioned on top of the agarose surface. The Alternative Dilution Method (ADM) evaluates water-dilutable products like creams or powders and observes their impact on cells. Bacteria have also been utilized as an alternative to the Draize test for evaluating products' effects.Some bacteria emit light, which can be used to determine the irritancy of a substance when mixed with it in a solution (Hunter, 27). Proctor and Gamble, along with other companies, have made significant efforts to decrease animal testing. They have reduced their use of animals by 80% since 1984 through data mining, analysis, and modeling techniques (Anthes, 44). This approach is known as "testing on software instead of on animals." Proctor and Gamble uses a comprehensive database containing information about existing chemicals and previous tests to assess the safety of their products. For new chemicals,

they analyze the molecular structure and compare it to 450,000 known and previously tested substances. The Oxford Molecular Group Inc., based in Campbell California, also employs "structural analogues" for comparing untested chemicals with those that have been previously tested (Anthes, 44).

While cosmetic manufacturers must continue testing their products for safety reasons, relying on methods that harm millions of animals is unethical when there are viable alternatives available. Although completely eliminating testing may pose challenges for corporations, reducing animal testing should be pursued due to moral concerns.There are now numerous alternative techniques available to corporations, providing little reason for them not to reduce their reliance on animal testing. These newer methods offer faster, cheaper, and more humane ways to gather data (Hunter, 26).

Works Cited Anthes, Gary H. "P&G Uses Data Mining to Cut Animal Testing." Computer World 33 (1999):44-45.Finsen, Lawrence, Susan Finsen.The Animal Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect.New York: Twayne, 1994.Fox, Michael Allen.The Case For Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective.London: University of California Press Ltd., 1986.Hunter, Beatrice Trum."New Alternatives in Safety Testing." Consumer Research Magazine 83 (2002): 26-30.McCoy, J.J.Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts.New York: Franklin Watts Inc., 1993.Milmo, Sean."Ultimate Showdown Looms For Animal Tested Cosmetics." Chemical Market Reporter 261 (2001):6, 28.Planet for the Taking Series:Ultimate Slavery.Dir.Nancy Archibald.Film Incorporated.