A couple weeks ago, we were contacted by a student who was working on a science project about cosmetic animal testing. She gave us a few interesting 
questions which we thought we would pass along here.
Seeking Student Says…Could you answer the following questions about animal testing for my school science project?
Left Brain Responds:
Animal testing ban?
1. Do you think that animal testing for cosmetics should be banned? Explain.
While I don’t like animal testing, there are currently no suitable alternatives for some types of tests. I don’t think animal testing should be banned until there are alternative tests that help prove products are safe.
Medicine versus Cosmetics
2. Should animal testing be banned for cosmetics, but still be allowed for medicine?
Animal testing is not something that anyone wants to do. We scientists feel the same affection for animals as everyone else. (I love my cat!) But until alternative tests are better developed, banning animal testing for either cosmetics or medicine seems unethical. All life is sacred, but human lives are more sacred than animal lives.
EU and Animals
3. The European Union has recently agreed to a ban on animal testing for cosmetics said to happen in 2009. Do you agree with their decision? What could be the Pros. and Cons. of this decision?
I don’t agree or disagree with the decision made by the EU. The truth is cosmetics are not vital for living a healthy life. The result of banning animal testing will be that no new cosmetic products will be made. All you will get in the future are color & bottle changes using the same products you have today. Cosmetic innovation will stop. Solutions to acne, dandruff, dry skin, frizzy hair, etc. will not be developed. Fortunately, the products available now are often good enough. If these problems were never solved and there were never a new cosmetic made, the world would be just fine.
However, it seems strange people get upset about animal testing, but still eat meat, kill mice & rats, and wear leather products.
Pros of a ban: fewer animals will be killed
Cons of a ban: Cosmetic problems will not be solved, no new ingredients will be used, innovation stops
Naturally better?
4. Would you rather use cosmetics made with natural ingredients (that don’t need to be tested), or with toxic ingredients that have been tested?
It is not true that natural ingredients do not need to be tested. ALL ingredients in cosmetics have been tested on animals. Whether they are natural or not doesn’t matter. Chemistry is not as simple as classifying ingredients as “toxic” or “natural”. We’ve done a variety of posts on natural ingredients that can kill you.
When it comes to chemicals exposure level is what’s important. Sometimes small amounts of “toxic” ingredients are safer than large amounts of “non-toxic” ingredients.
Do You Use?
5. Do you use cosmetics products that have been tested on animals? Would you think twice about using these products, or even try to reduce or stop using them?
Yes I do. So do you. Everyone uses products that have ingredients that were tested on animals. It is a lie when companies say they don’t test on animals. ALL cosmetics have been tested directly or indirectly on animals.
The truth is, very few cosmetic companies directly test their products on animals. Animal testing is expensive and terrible for public relations. Companies who say they don’t test on animals either use ingredients that were already tested on animals or have their raw material suppliers do the animal testing. They can argue that they never tested their formula on animals (which they technically don’t) because they know they are using only raw materials that have already been tested on animals (by someone else).
Since all ingredients have been tested on animals, there does not seem to me to be any moral high ground to avoiding companies based on whether they claim to test on animals or not.
Animal Testing Ended?
6. With all the efforts to stopping animal testing for cosmetics, do you think that it’s possible to one day completely get rid of animal testing for cosmetics?
Yes, I believe one day animal testing of cosmetics will be a thing of the past. Everyone wants to get rid of this type of testing. No one wants to hurt animals. Scientists are working hard to create testing alternatives that work. We are just now seeing some tests that are receiving approval from governmental agencies. I believe withing 10 – 20 years animal testing of cosmetics will be practically non-existent. But until there are reliable testing alternatives (there aren’t yet) animal testing will still be necessary.
What are your thoughts on cosmetic animal testing? Does it affect your decision when deciding what products to buy? Leave a comment and let the rest of the Beauty Brains community know.
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
Thanks so much for posting this. I could not agree more–some things just can’t be studied without animal research, in medical research especially.
LB, I disagree with your comments about the prevalence of animal testing. There are some ingredients that have not been tested due to their similarity to existing cosmetic ingredients. It would be VERY hard, however, to formulate a product with ingredients that no one has ever tested on our furry friends. BTW, your last sentence in response to question two reminded me of /Animal Farm/ – some animals are more equal than others!
Glad you caught the allusion.
I find it hard to believe that a raw material supplier could sell a product to a finished goods manufacturer without the supporting animal safety testing information available (if asked to produce it anyway). But in this area of laws, lawyers and regulations, life gets a bit “fuzzy”. You could be right, but this is certainly a tiny minority of ingredients.
@LB yes, it is a small minority, but every company has different requirements for testing. In many cases in vitro irriation tests are sufficient. Some may require additional iv toxicity tests. It was very rare in my experience that specific animal tests were requested. Again, these were ingredients that were analogous to existing, tested materials.
I have to admit I don’t see the point with cosmetics for precisely the reason she specified: they don’t really improve lives. I can live in a world without major eyeshadow innovation perfectly happily. Leather is at least used from food animals so that none of the animal is wasted. To me, food and medicine matter enough to harm an animal although I’d still like to avoid it. Lip liner just doesn’t.
I agree with Janis. I can live without new product formulations. Using an animal for food and then the remains for leather etc makes much more sense than hurting one so I can wear a breakthrough mascara.
But I like that you pointed out the potential hypocrisy of those so against animal testing, it is something to think about for sure.
I’ve seen previous posts on this site regarding the hypocrisy of eating meat / wearing leather but still caring about animal testing, etc., and while I think it’s important for people not to be hypocritical, I think that those of us who really care about the animal testing debate are persons who already have made some commitment in other aspects of our lives that demonstrate that we care about animal welfare. I honestly don’t know many people who eat meat and care about whether their shampoo or lipliner was tested on an animal. It is usually people who are already vegetarian who really care about this sort of thing.
As far as I am concerned, any little bit of conscientiousness and curiosity expressed by anyone is worth something. I don’t think it’s fair to knock someone who has an interest in animal welfare (even those considered less important, i.e. non-humans) just because they eat meat and wear leather. I realize it’s easy to feel attacked when someone protests against animal testing, as this is a part of your profession, and you feel the need to defend it from its detractors.
That being said I enjoy this site and thank you for the information you share (even if I do think that sometimes the tone is a bit sanctimonious towards vegetarians and others interested in eco-friendliness, ecc). Nobody’s perfect.
If you got to read all the hateful, vicious, unintelligible attacks we’ve gotten over this subject (and about synthetic/natural chemicals), you might better understand our sanctimoniousness & defensiveness.
Not everyone is as kind & thoughtful as you.
It just really hurts to hear people expressing intolerance of other people’s opinions when they haven’t even bothered to educate themselves on the realities of the situation. (The same thing happens in politics).
The real, unsung heroes in the animal testing saga are the scientists who have dedicated themselves to developing alternatives. These are the people who will stop animal testing.
Wow! If that’s your cat in the post picture, Lefty, then you’d better stop bringing so many products home to test!
Brains, is there some type of scientist guild (heehee) that are trying to develop alternatives? I’d love to know more about the ones who are doing that, they seem like amazing people.
Just one thought came to me when I was reading about the EU ban on animal testing:
Big deal. They will ban. But whattayawanna bet that the EU companies will then just ride on the coattails of the US, Japanese, Mexican laboratories that will be left to do the dirty deed?
Just as it has always been historically (as bb pointed out) that every ingredient has been tested but some companies just don’t acknowledge it was done by someone else….. it will now be done geographically as well… the EU companies will tout no animal testing but use ingredients passes for safety in the rest of the world.
Buggers.
Minor comment:
All life is sacred, but human lives are more sacred than animal lives.
This does not strike me as a terribly scientific argument. And no, the removal of human vertical brow wrinkles is not more sacred than animal lives. I love my cat as well — far more than I cherish the absence of crow’s feet. And at the age of almost 43, they’re starting to show up. I’m at the age where the mortality of the flesh is making itself quite evident, and when most women grow increasingly paranoid.
But I agree with you guys that, since cosmetics aren’t going away — because apparently the “all-natural” fad doesn’t extend to accepting our faces and bodies as nature made them — the best thing to do is develop as many trustworthy alternatives to animal testing as possible. That’s the only way we’re going to do away with it in the end.
I’m surprised that nowhere in the article was mentioned the three Rs of animal testing: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Nor do you mention the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. If people are really going to have a dialogue about how scientists feel about animal testing, they really should know the specifics of what scientists are already doing to address the issue.
And to those who feel comfortable with the state of cosmetics as they are today, that’s fine for you, but setting arbitrary limits on innovation because you’re satisfied with the status quo seems selfish. There are other human beings who suffer from allergies and cannot wear make-up as it is formulated today – so these men and women must be left without recourse? A lot of psychology and well-being can be tied-up in physical appearance and I (personally) hope that innovation AND testing continue so that lives in general and in every aspect may be improved.
Finally, what of about incidental discoveries? Science isn’t linear, and one of the most fantastic biochemical discoveries of the twentieth century came from molded bread. Who knows where the next major cure will come from? If we knew what we were doing it wouldn’t be called research and testing. As long as ethical guidelines are established and followed, I personally feel it is myopic to limit innovation.
Aren’t products such as soap, deodorant and sunscreen considered cosmetics? They may not be vital for living a healthy life but I’d rather not try it.
You are correct, they are all cosmetics. Not vital for life, but like all cosmetics, they make life better.
WHAT?
All life is “sacred”, but human life is MORE “sacred”?
If that is supposed to mean that life should be “respected” / pain should be avoided then AGREED.
But why human pain MORE than other animal pain?
When it comes to pain we are NO DIFFERENT!
I can´t believe that was an alleged scientist;
that DEFINITELY reminded me of something a Christian would say! Ew.
And just pointing out:
ANIMAL TESTING IS AN ABSOLUTE NO!
No altervatives? WE DO NOT CARE.
Animal testing violates the rights of the animals: we are trading their basic interests for ours!
Totally out of question. If you can´t get a product, whatever it be, without testing, then just don´t.
At least the first step is to get LABELS.
E.g. a V for vegan or a T for tested. THAT SIMPLE!
So we compassionate people know to distinguish the unethical products.
@Henrik – Are you suggesting scientists can’t be Christians?
I guess I’m guilty of speci-ism because I believe harming a human is ethically worse than harming a rat. But you’re free to equate the two. We can just disagree.
Labeling is not such a simple matter. Who decides something is Vegan and who decides whether it was tested or not?
The truth is, almost no cosmetics are tested on animals. Every company could claim it.
“All life is sacred, but human lives are more sacred than animal lives.”
^^^
so untrue, humans are animals.
who gives us the right to treat animals the way we do????
what if tests were done on human like being force fed chemicals.
“All life is sacred, but human lives are more sacred than animal lives.”
Real beauty is inner beauty… And your brain is everything but beautiful.
The similarities between the statements on this website and the spin of P&G etc. makes me wonder whether this website is a front for commercial cosmetic company interests?
One of the reasons I raise this concern is there is a sweeping denunciation of companies that claim they don’t test on animals on the grounds that all substances have been tested on animals somewhere/sometime. That may be largely true, but is irrelevant as that is something that companies have no control over. What they can control is the ethics of their supply chain. The ‘gold standard’ of non-animal testing policies is the fixed cut off date whereby companies refuse to purchase and use ingredients that have been tested on animals by them or their suppliers since a fixed date. That means they are not perpetuating animal testing for cosmetics.
These companies are very different to other companies (e.g. Avon, Estee Lauder) who make the meaningless claim that they don’t test their products on animals. Most testing in this sector is for ingredients, so ‘products’ are often referred to as a way of confusing and misleading consumers, while the company continues to animal test ingredients or purchase ingredients without checking the providence of the ingredient or supplier.
And I have to say that the idea that it is justifiable to poison and kill sentient creatures merely for the sake of another new cosmetic is totally indefensible. To claim that such gratuitous torture is permissible for such trivial products is exactly the line taken by the big animal testing companies such as P&G, L’Oreal and Unilever.
@Dan – we don’t and never have worked for P&G.
The fixed cutoff is BS. Who sets the date? Didn’t all the animals murdered before that date count?
No one claims that gratuitous torture is permissible.
This is really is very straight forward.
Companies can only send a clear message that they will not fund the demand for new ingrdients or new combinations of ingredients tested on animals if they choose a date and draw a line in the sand there. If there were no companies demanding new animal tested chemical ingredients for cosmetic purposes – then this area of animal testing would stop.
As for innovation of new cosmetics it will still be feasible but using non-animal testing methods.
Everyone can be a winner in this battle.
OK left brain. I note you specify you don’t work for P&G in particular, so which company/institution do you work for?
You might dismiss the FCOD out of hand (which again tends to betray where your loyalties lie) and without any sensible analysis, but it is the criteria used by the animal protection movement world-wide.
The FCOD date is set by the company, it has to be a date in the past, and as long as they stick to it long term, it is effective.
Obviously, for those of us who do believe that cruelty to animals is wrong, any abuse at any time ‘counts’.
Unfortunately, in the absence of time travel, there’s no way we can save them. What we can do is encourage companies to implement policies that will prevent and discourage animal testing in future.
But if you have a reasonable objection to the FCOD than I would be interested to hear it.
Subjecting animals to toxicity tests merely for the sake of another new cosmetic to the add to the tens of thousands already in existence is, by definition, ‘gratuitous torture’ as it involves the knowing infliction of pain and suffering for a trivial purpose.
I understand the rationale for some applications of animal testing in the medical research field, and that until alternatives that meet current safety regulations are developed then there is going to be a tension between the welfare of the animals involved and the desire to make new medicines.
However, I don’t really understand the argument that getting rid of animal testing on cosmetics would make them de facto unsafe, since there are already a multitude of brands that do not use animal testing.
You say that the ban on animal testing in the EU will mean that no new cosmetics will be created there, but plenty of new cosmetics are created each year without animal testing. Just look at the explosion of companies like Burt’s Bees and Toms of Maine.
Can you explain your “no new innovation argument” to account for the existance of brands and companies that are already doing without animal testing?
Excellent question JP. What I mean is that no cosmetics using new technologies will be developed. That means every cosmetic you use now will be as good as they will ever get. To improve a cosmetic, you need to develop some kind of new technology.
For example, sunscreens used to leave a white film on people’s skin. Using new technologies (nanoparticles, new emulsifiers, etc.) formulators were able to reduce that undesirable effect and create the much better products we have today. Without animal testing, sunscreens would still have the undesirable, whitening effect.
Burts Bees & Toms of Maine don’t have to do animal testing because they use ingredients that have already been animal tested. They also will not develop any “innovative” products. Their stories/brands are innovative but that is only because of the story. Not because of the technology they use. Anyone can copy a Burts Bees formula.
Getting rid of animal testing will not make cosmetics ‘de facto’ unsafe. Cosmetics will just be stuck in time & will not develop new technologies to solve problems. No doubt there will be new stories, but no real, improved products.
Hope that makes sense.
This is full of bull. How are our lives more sacred than animals? I love my pets and I treat them the same as I do with any other human being. There are alternatives for testing if a product is safe or not without the use of animals. If you don’t like animal testing then why are you for it? Just because there’s no animals to test on does not mean that people will stop making new inventions on make-up. We just need to think harder and anything is possible.
It would be fair to say that real scientists have a pretty good grasp of evolution – the theory that all current forms of life developed and diversified from earlier forms of life. It’s kind of… recognized worldwide.
By my reasoning, evolution indicates all forms of life are different but equal. Different in makeup (pardon the pun), but equal. Because we all made it this far. Existence = success. That’s life in a nutshell. Which is why I love when people lament shark attacks. Hello, you’re swimming in its soup, people!
I am a vegetarian. I try to avoid animal products, but it’s impossible. My carnivorous dog eats meat. (So does my carnivorous husband.) Sadly, I cannot bend the universe to my will.
But I do decry animal cruelty. It is 100% unnecessary. Why can’t we ban factory farming? And animal testing? Because nasty things are done by people who make money, and they make more when they streamline the process. And some people hold their hand by insisting that there are no alternatives.
Innovation in cosmetics?!?! Humans have survived this long without fluffier eyelashes. Here, I’ll solve your innovation problem. I’m going to put all my will and might into creating an alternative for a new sunscreen to prevent skin cancer. EUREKA, I’ve done it. I shall name it “hat” and it shall shade the cells of people everywhere.
There are options when we insist on having them. When I eat eggs, for example, I choose the “free run” option. It costs about a buck more. I find it hard to believe that there’s even a non-free run option.
It kind of breaks my heart that mainstream “against animal testing” and other such claims are bunk. But I admire the heck out of other companies trying to change the status quo. Sure, they are using ingredients once tested on animals, since probably every ingredient has fallen into that category at one point or another. But what else are they going to use?
Perhaps LeftBrain knows of some magic new imaginary ingredients.
Keep on making the effort, decent people! Refuse to be discouraged.
@jakiefu – Sadly, Left Brain does not know of any new, imaginary, non-animal tested ingredients.
@Jess – Governmental regulations require that all new cosmetic products be proven safe. The only form of proof that the government accepts as “safe” is animal testing. No amount of thinking will change that fact. Until the regulations are changed, animal testing will continue.
I don’t believe that any major alternatives for animal testing will be created until animal testing is banned and scientists have more incentive to create them. Our society has shown fantastic ability to invent things quickly to serve our needs. Right now, there are plenty of animals for testing, and not many laws banning or strictly regulating testing, so nobody is putting forth more than the minimum of funding for alternatives. My opinion, ban testing and you will see good alternatives within a few years. And I’m sure what we have now can keep us satisfied for a few years.
@Anna – That’s what’s already happening.
” All life is sacred, but human lives are more sacred than animal lives.”
I don’t believe that. I agree that all life is sacred, but humans lives are not more sacred then animals lives. For instance what if I was a scientist and I decided to test cosmetics on a bald eagle. I would be in HUGE trouble because its almost extinct. But its an animal is it not? So because of humans lives being more important than animals I should be able to do such a thing as that right? If you can’t test on something almost extinct then you shouldn’t test on anything that is not. People often think animal testing is cruel, evil, and heartless. After all how could you own a pet and see an animal writhe in agony over an injection or any other method you personally gave it. Is it the whole better you then me principle? NO! Then why do we do it? Its not like we need 70% more plump lips and longer extended and fluffier eyelashes. Preying on the weak is not the answer. We should be protecting the animals not harming them. We have voices, they don’t.
What I want to know is why if left brain thinks it may be okay to test products on animals but cares about their cat then how would they like it if the cosmetic products were being tested on their cat?? cause i think that we should just stop animal testing because people are animals so why should it just be cats, dogs, mice, etc. being tested on why do our lives matter as much as theirs? if we end up killing all of our animals then our food chain will be disrupted and eventually fall apart. Just think about that!!
I am not a hypocrite just because I eat meat and disagree with animal testing. I eat meat and by dairy products ONLY from companies that treat their animals humanely (such as Organic Valley) or buy their products from places that do so. If a pizza has cheese on it and I’m not assured that it came from a humanely raised cow or goat, I don’t get it. But our bodies need those nutrients and vitamins that come from dairy and meat and I don’t think popping pills is the way we should get them. I’m a Christian, and the Bible says God intended for us to use and eat animals. We are not to misuse them and abuse them (that’s not in the Bible, but come on, torturing an animal doesn’t glorify God in any way and shouldn’t be done). There are humane options (many fewer options than what you can get from factory farms) and I can eat animal products without the guilt of knowing they have basically been tortured their whole lives and then slowly slaughtered.
As far as animal testing goes, there have GOT to be better ways to do this. Heck, scientists, could we take two or three years off from making new cosmetics and just focus on finding alternatives to animal testing?! Certainly the combined efforts of all those researchers and scientists for that short amount of time could be very worthwhile and productive. And in the meanwhile, we can continue using the bushiest, waterproof, high rise mascara that came out this year and will wait patiently for the next one that’s even better.
i dont agree with scientist testing on animals,
or torturing them.
its ok if people just whant them for food if they need it, but not just for fun.
I will applaud the EU for once again acting on behalf of innocent animals. I don’t eat meat or wear leather or suede. I try very hard to confim to my convictions. I am a Biology student and plan to work very hard with the rest of the compassionate scientists like PCRM (physicians committee for responsible medicine) that work tirelessly to stop the use of animals for our petty and vain testing.
We need to attack the views of the agencies that demand animals to suffer (yes, that is what the object of these tests are – to evaluate the level of suffering). In so many cases of medicine, drugs pass animal testing and then we find out they are lethal to humans. That’s because my body doesn’t react in the same way that a beagle’s body reacts. We need to either test on human volunteers or use synthetic skin and computer models. There is no excuse to test on animals. As well, I’ve met people that ‘take care’ of laboratory animals and they can only be described as animal abusers. There are plenty of hidden videos that show how deranged and vile some of these disgusting ‘testers’ really are.
Hi, I was wondering…could I use this for a school project if I give credit? This is exactly what I need to give some information on testing animals (cosmetics, medications) I would love it so much if I could! This would really help sum up the project, and be a great source of education! Great Questions by the way!
Thank-you, I understand if you would not like me to use this as a source but I would be very appreciative if I could!
Sure, you can use it for your science project.
I do think that animal testing is wrong but right now it is the only option we dont have many options and if we don’t have animal testing we might not get the new shampoo and such but I am doing History and would like to use this article how would I cite this in MLA format?
you son of a bitch fuck your mother and father go get some life u fuckin piece of shit…i wish u da most painful death the world has ever seen!
If you don’t want death wished upon yourself then don’t wish it upon others.
@ jackiefu “I’m going to put all my will and might into creating an alternative for a new sunscreen to prevent skin cancer. EUREKA, I’ve done it. I shall name it “hat” and it shall shade the cells of people everywhere.”
Fff, so very true. I don’t eat meat and I try to avoid animal products. However, I have no problem with people who do eat meat, as long as they animals they eat were treated well. Animals eat animals in the wild, but just because we eat animals doesn’t mean we have to test lipstick on them. Why do we need new cosmetic products, anyway?
i think it should banned because testing animals is very cruel but if you do it for medicine not so much.
human lives are more sacred than animal lives, honestly? How can you live knowing that an animal died in order to plump up your appearance. They have no choice! All lives are precious, animal and human and to say that one is more sacred than the other, when the humans are performing this terrible procedure is outrageous. what’s more sacred than life?
The information provided here in this article is extremely misguiding and false.
Seriously, I can’t believe how evil people can be. How can you point your finger at an innocent dog, cat, rat or monkey and tell him: “Your life, your suffering and your death is less worth than my eyeshadow”. What kind of sick person would agree with that? Besides, the “animal-testing-is-needed-for-cosmetics” excuse is 100% false. Because how do they explain that companies like Clinique, Revlon, Nivea etc have created all kind of new cosmetics and ingredients of extreme high quality WITHOUT animal-testing? People only defend animal-testing because it’s CHEAPER. But the fact that other companies can do the same (even better!) without animal-testing proofs enough.
Do you seriously believe that all medicines were tested on animals? People can be against animal testing and still use medicines. How, you ask? The same answer can be given to people who are against slave/orphan/jews testing but still use medicines. Before animal testing came into existence, they tested on slaves and orphans without their consent. The succesful medicines and formulas were never thrown away, even not after the ban of slave/orphan testing. A looooot of medicines on the market today were tested on slaves and orphans. While 98% of animal testing fails, 100% of slave/orphan-testing was succesful, since they were people, too. People use medicines all the time. Still they are against slave/orphan testing and don’t ever want it to happen again, despite the fact that it helped people and despite the fact that cancer, aids and many other diseases wouldn’t even exist today if slave-testing continued.
3Rs keep that in mind. as soon as the scientists come up with somethig better to replace the pain of other spiecies, we need to let them do their work and focused ,the sooner they done with this the better . the more we talk the more the delays .NEGATIVITY IS NOT GOOD!!!!!
Greetings,
I’m an American. I prefer to Build an Animation Studio in India. Currently i’m researching for animators. I picked India considering it is more inexpensive compared with U.S. I really want to learn the methods for starting off a business in India, particularly an animation studio.
Can you guys please guide me out?
We, as civilians, will complain about animal testing and how inhumane it is… but we will be even more prone to complain when it suddenly disappears because our lives would change. Humans don’t like sudden changes and we would want things to go back to “normal”. So… instead of complaining, why don’t we look for more ways to replace animal testing?
I originally came looking for ways to deal with dry scalp, and I know this thread is months old, but some of these comments have completely derailed me.
@Romani Did you not read the part where the article (and subsequent comments) pointed out that the reason those companies can produce new cosmetics is because all of the ingredients they are using have already been tested on animals?
Also, what’s your basis for animal testing being cheaper? Animal testing is ridiculously expensive. You don’t think they just grab animals off the streets to test, do you? These animals have to be bred, fed, kept clean and healthy by a whole bunch of people (who have to be paid, too). Breeding animals costs money. Their food costs money. Their housing costs money. Bedding costs money. Economically, it would be far cheaper NOT to do animal testing.
Your claim that 98% of animal testing fails is pretty bogus. You have any actual backing for that?
@Anna I hope you’re just referring to animal testing in cosmetics, because sorry, the people who need treatment for various diseases can’t really afford to wait a few years.
@Melody Citations for any of your claims that so many medicines tested on animals turned out to be lethal in humans? Your suggestion that we should test drugs on human volunteers is already being done – after the animal testing (because drugs go through multiple tests before being released to the public). And what “synthetic skin” are you talking about? What synthetic skin out there actually reacts the same way to drug application as real skin? The same goes for computer models. This is one of the weakest “alternative suggestions” to animal testing I’ve ever heard, coming from people who don’t know the first thing about what computer modeling is actually capable of. Listen, we can’t make computer models of things we don’t know fully about (we can come up with hypothetical models, sure, but that’s useless for testing drugs). We are barely able to model CELLULAR interactions at our current level of knowledge, and you want to be able to model an entire organism and its response to a drug?
So, @spad, scientists are already trying to come up with alternatives. But it sure as hell isn’t going to take the 2-3 years you’re suggesting, especially since much of the alternatives are going to need data that comes from animal testing to become viable.
@ Jackiefu Your facetious comments about fluffy eyelashes & about hats being preventions to skin cancer are insulting to people who need various cosmetics to live a healthy life, and you must know it yourself. Not all “cosmetics” are frivolous. People plagued with acne and even more serious skin conditions deserve something that can ease their symptoms and maybe eventually cure it.
Look, if you guys genuinely think that non-human animal lives are just as sacred as human lives, and therefore animal testing needs to be banned RIGHT NOW, then I guess there’s nothing more to say. But it’s not just a matter of cosmetics. You should probably be prepared for a grinding halt on newer treatments for life-threatening diseases. And this applies to non-human animals too, actually, since where do you think advances in veterinary medicine come from?
Next Comments →
{ 2 trackbacks }