Animal testing is a scientific experiment that is conducted on animals. The animals are subjected to torture, that may take the form of exposure to radiation, injections, removal of organs tissues and frightening environments. A wide variety of animals are used, especially those who are not categorized to be animals are therefore not catered for under animal rights, such as rodents, monkeys, animals that are used for food and birds. This essay discusses the background of animal testing, its consequences and effects and the importance of the ban as a solution to deter the consequences.
Maxwell, Gavin, et al. "Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: A feasibility case study for skin sensitization." ATLA-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36.5 (2008): 557.
The author addresses the issue of the use of animal testing. He argues that there are other means that can be used to ensure that human beings are safe from the use of these products. Due to the improvement in science and technology. He focuses on the ban that was established in the European Union in 2009. In his analysis, he discusses the harmful effects of animal testing and advocates for other methods for use. The European Union ban had stipulated exemptions which were broadly categorized as a REACH. This ban would also be facilitated by AWA; animals welfare act. This seeks to protect animal’s rights and prevent their mistreatment.
Pfuhler, Stefan, et al. "A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis." Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 57.2-3 (2010): 315-324.
The author evaluates, the research on the products that were done using animal testing by the committee that ensures consumer safety before enactment of the ban. The author also addresses the use of alternative methods of animal testing such as in vitro methods. The author points out that irrespective of the ban, studies that were conducted by animal testing were still being accepted and their products were marketed. The author tries to distinguish between research conducted before the ban and after. The author concludes that there is no difference between the two. Therefore people should embrace the use of in vitro methods as they are more environment-friendly and will promote the continued existence of animals.
Höfer, Thomas, et al. "Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation." Archives of Toxicology 78.10 (2004): 549-564.
The author defines what is animal testing and tries to explain why it is carried out and what significance it holds to scientists. The author also establishes the effects this procedure has on animals. The author analyzes that these consequences cause adverse effects on animals and tries to answer the question of whether there are any alternative solutions to animal testing. The author points out that animals are like human beings and the same torture and pain human beings go through; they too go through it.
Doke, Sonali K., and Shashikant C. Dhawale. "Alternatives to animal testing: A review." Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 23.3 (2015): 223-229.
The author discusses the use of animal testing and the many negative effects it has on animals. The author is against this test as it interferes with the rights of animals and makes rare species to become endangered. The author stipulates that animals are like human beings and conducting the test, exposes them to pain. The process interferes with their body functions. The author advocates for measures that will promote the health of both animals and human beings.
Adler, Sarah, et al. "Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and prospects—2010." Archives of Toxicology 85.5 (2011): 367-485.
The author acknowledges the existence of animal testing in a country like the USA, whereas there are other countries that had already established the ban. The author offers an alternative to this procedure whereby human beings voluntarily donate human cells. They are subjected to food, chemicals or even medicine. The cells are therefore examined by chips that perform the same function as the human immune system. The author also advocates that the animal testing procedure is not significant due to the immense differences between them and humans. The author calls for the society to embrace the alternative mechanisms for conducting research. The author advocates that scientists should embrace technology and avoid outdated means of conducting research.
Goldberg, Alan M., and John M. Frazier. "Alternatives to animals in toxicity testing." Scientific American 61.2 (1989): 24-31.
The author explores how animals are used to determine the toxicity levels in various chemicals. The author describes the measures that are used to expose the animals to these toxins. The author stipulates the various instances where the toxins were tested on animals and then the products were marketed. People who got exposed to the product suffered from various kinds of diseases and attacks. The author, therefore, stipulates that study of animals is quite inadequate to be able to reflect it on humans. The author indicates that human beings have complex features which cannot all be featured in parts of the animal.
