We, as humans, have made numerous advancements in the world. We have firmly established the scientific evolution, but in doing so, it seems that our ethics and morals have failed to progress as well. The knowledge we have acquired is remarkable, but with it comes responsibility to use it wisely and ethically. We torture and heartlessly kill creatures that we arrogantly consider lesser beings simply at our disposal. For something as simple as eye makeup animals are tortured and blinded by tests performed at the laboratory. Where they are hardly fed, often forced to live in filth, and sometimes have their vocal cords removed to keep them quiet (CAAT).
We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the waters in which they live; we wear and display the tusks of the last few of their species in our homes, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes and body parts to determine the harmful effects they might cause on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between humans and the animals they use is drastic. On a daily basis most people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the pain as well. Mankind often fails to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific specimens and items that we may manipulate at our own convenience and for vanity?s sake. Laboratory research involving animals is cruel and merciless treatment of helpless creatures. No law requires that cosmetics and household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, every day hundreds of animals will have had their eyes, skin or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed (PETA).
The Essay on Penguins Human Eye
... its survival. In general terms, a penguin eye and a human eye are almost identical. Both have the same ... gained into how animals deal with two environments may lead to knowledge of how humans, in the future, ... they " re able, like many other diving animals, to stay submerged long enough to search out ... any of the numerous irritants we land-bound animals subject ourselves-or are subjected-to during our ...
Two of the most common animal tests are the Draize, or eye irritancy test and the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50).
The Draize test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits, such as the Forida White, because they are cheap, docile, and are not ?equipped? with tear ducts to wash away the chemicals. During the test the rabbits are immobilized in a stock with only their head protruding and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of the rabbit; substances vary from mascara to aftershave and even oven cleaner. The rabbit?s eyes ate clipped open and observed at intervals of 1, 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours. It is important to note that, during this test, anesthesia is rarely used. Reactions include inflammation, ulceration, rupture of the eyeball, corrosion and bleeding. Some of these studies continue for weeks, and all the while no measures are made to reduce suffering or treat the rabbits. Survival, however, will only lead to and entirely new set of tests, such as the skin irritancy or the LD50. Lethal Dose 50 refers to the lethal dose that is required to kill 50% of all animals in a test group of 40-200. Animals are force-fed substances through a stomach tube; forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance applied to their rectum or genitals. These tests continue until half of the test animals die. During these tests, animals will often endure excruciating pain, convulsions, loss of motor function, seizures, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from every open orifice in the body. Any animals who somehow manage to survive these particular tests are subsequently destroyed (ALH).
There is also a Lethal Dose 100 test that determines the amount of a test substance required to kill 100%of the test animals. The skin irritancy test, similar to the eye irritancy test, is where and animal, most commonly a rodent, has a highly concentrated solution of a chemical in question applied to their skin. Their skin is then observed for signs of irritancy, such as redness and blistering. In some cases, the irritation can be so severe that the product actually burns through the skin. Not only are these tests cruel, but the results are unreliable and unnecessary as scientific evidence. As with the previously mentioned Draized test; rabbits eyes are not the same as human eyes ? there are profound differences, mainly the absence of tear ducts. In addition, different species react differently to various substances; substances that fail to damage a rabbit?s eye may be toxic to a human. For example, Nicotine in dogs is a staggering 9.2mg/kg, in pigeons 75mg/kg, and in rats, 53mg/kg (PETA Facts).
The Term Paper on Animal Test Animals Tests Testing
And Justice for All These things are happening in laboratories around the world according to Elshtain: The wings of 74 mallard ducks are snapped to see whether crippled birds can survive in the wild. (They can t. ) Infant monkeys are deafened to study their social behavior, or turned into amphetamine addicts to see what happens to their stress level. Monkeys are separated from their mothers, kept ...
Another example, results from experiences, which exposed a variety of animal species to cigarette smoke, led researchers to believe that smoking did not cause Cancer. Because of this, warning labels on packs were delayed for years and cigarette manufacturers still use animal data to question the harmful effects of their products. Similarly, 150 years of animal ?models? have produced 25 drugs ?proven? effective against stroke, none of which works in humans. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans, including death, that they were removed from the market, though animal experimentation had predicted them all to be safe. One of the few studies that examined the differences in species reactions found only a 5-25% connection between harmful effects in people and the results of animal experiments (MFAT).
The question of why such tests continue must be raised. Whatever the reason may be, animal research has achieved a certain level of status; and funding agencies often favor these projects (MFAT).
Mankind has a tendency to seek out the fastest and easiest way to devise an answer, usually for the cheapest cost. Sadly, it seems animals may not be entirely saved from this tendency soon enough.
While animals continue to be violated in laboratories, a consciousness about our responsibility toward our relationship with animals has begun and continued to rise. As a result of pressures from animal advocacy groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a number of large corporations have ceased all animal testing in recent years. These corporations include Avon, Amway, Benetton, Revlon and even General Motors, who used to subject animals to crash/impact tests. In addition, the general public has begun to lean toward and seek out those products which are not tested on animals, from personal observation, cruelty free cosmetics have led a trend among young, educated buyers. Consumers have begun to demand more application of the available alternatives to animal testing; some of which include cell cultures; tissue cultures; corneas from eye banks; and sophisticated computer and mathematical models (PETA facts).
The Term Paper on Animal Rights Animals Test Tests
... Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from laboratory to laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of animals, and extrapolation to humans in questionable.' 1 Animal tests ... using laboratory animals. I have conducted my own tests on animal tested products and non-animal tested products for a ... People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have continued these traditional fights as ...
Test results using methods, which do not include animals, have in fact proved themselves more accurate and less expensive (PETA facts).
For example, the Avon cosmetic company has personally endorsed EYTEX SYSTEM, an alternative to the painful Draize test (Rollin, B.E.).
Legal prohibition of the Draize and LD50 tests would accelerate the alternative approaches, to the benefit of science, animals and consumers (Rollin, B.E., 149).
Alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable, both for cosmetics and household product tests and for ?medical research.? In most cases, non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost only a fraction compared to the tests using animals, and are not questionable with inaccuracies concerning species correlation?s which make results difficult or impossible. Eytex, developed by InVitro International, assesses irritancy with a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea when exposed to foreign matter. The greater the irritation, the more opaque the solution becomes.
The Skintex formula, developed by the same corporation, is made from the yellowish meat of the pumpkin rind; and mimics the reaction of human skin to foreign substances.
The Term Paper on Animal Testing Animals Test Footnote
... to animal testing. Produced by Clone tics, Epi pack uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances. Test skin, which was produced by Organogenesis, uses human skin ... and unreliable. The results that are gathered from the Draize Eye test are inconclusive. The results vary from laboratory to laboratory and, ...
Both can be used to determine the toxicity of more than 5,000 different materials. Tissue and cell cultures can be grown in laboratory from single cells from human or animal tissues. NeoDerm, made by Marrow-Tech, begins with the injection of skin cells into a sterile plastic bag containing a biodegradable mesh. The cells attach to the mesh and grow around it. After the segment of skin is sewn onto the patient, the mesh gradually dissolves. Mathematical and computer models, based on physical and chemical structures of a substance, can be used to make predictions about the toxicity of a substance. TOPKAT, a software package distributed by Health Designs Inc., predicts oral toxicity and skin and eye irritation. It is ?intended to be used as a personal tool by toxicologists, pharmacologists, synthetic and medicinal chemists, regulators, and industrial hygienists?, according to HDI (PETA Facts).
Non animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace. Eytex testing kits can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50 (American); a Draize test of comparable range would cost more than $1000 (American), (PETA Facts).
There are a lot of steps the consumer can do to help and prevent the destruction of our animals. Buy cosmetics, personal care, and household products that have not been tested on animals, this involves taking on the responsibility of becoming an educated and compassionate consumer; encourage your friends, family and co-workers to buy cruelty-free products. If you need backup to encourage the people you speak to, inform them of the sickening situations involving lab animals. Instead of buying all of your personal care products, why not make some yourself? It is simple and inexpensive, kind to animals, and ecologically fitting. Boycott companies, which test their products on animals. Lists of companies who carry out these senseless tests and their addresses are available from organizations such as CAAT and PETA. Contact your elected representatives and federal agencies and demand that the validation of non-animal methods become a high-priority. Proven, that mankind often disregards the rights of other living beings, times are changing for the better due to the increasing pressure of the consumer. Society has begun to take notice of this serious global concern because intelligent life should not be subjected to this form of torture. It has been estimated that animal experimentation worldwide has decreased by 30-50% in the last 15-20 years, due to the reduction and replacement techniques (MFAT).
The Essay on Animal Cruelty Animals Test Products
Animal Cruelty The topic of animal cruelty is one of great importance to the wold today. Why we humans have the right reserved to treat animals as lesser individuals is beyond me. Animals are fulfilling their part in the ecosystems and communities of the earth, and to the best extent that they are able. For example, a spider is being the best possible spider that it can be, spinning webs and ...
Humans have to understand that this planet is not only ours, but the animals as well. Albert Einstein once said, ?Our task must be to free ourselves?. By widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.? In essence, the means of living a healthy and fulfilled life is to embrace and respect all life on this planet. There are a number of things that mankind can do to prevent this cruelty from continuing, it is simply a matter of taking the initiative to inform and involve yourself and others. Every individual effort is a step towards the annihilation of animal cruelty. We, as humans, have made numerous advancements in the world. We have firmly established the scientific evolution, but in doing so, it seems that our ethics and morals have failed to progress as well. The knowledge we have acquired is remarkable, but with it comes responsibility to use it wisely and ethically. We torture and heartlessly kill creatures that we arrogantly consider lesser beings simply at our disposal. For something as simple as eye makeup animals are tortured and blinded by tests performed at the laboratory. Where they are hardly fed, often forced to live in filth, and sometimes have their vocal cords removed to keep them quiet (CAAT).
We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the waters in which they live; we wear and display the tusks of the last few of their species in our homes, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes and body parts to determine the harmful effects they might cause on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between humans and the animals they use is drastic. On a daily basis most people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the pain as well. Mankind often fails to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific specimens and items that we may manipulate at our own convenience and for vanity?s sake. Laboratory research involving animals is cruel and merciless treatment of helpless creatures. No law requires that cosmetics and household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, every day hundreds of animals will have had their eyes, skin or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed (PETA).
The Term Paper on Animal Rights One Animals Test Tests
... treatment of humans who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a scientific neuro-chemist, states that: "Results (of animal tests) vary ... Animals have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin ...
Two of the most common animal tests are the Draize, or eye irritancy test and the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50).
The Draize test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits, such as the Forida White, because they are cheap, docile, and are not ?equipped? with tear ducts to wash away the chemicals. During the test the rabbits are immobilized in a stock with only their head protruding and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of the rabbit; substances vary from mascara to aftershave and even oven cleaner. The rabbit?s eyes ate clipped open and observed at intervals of 1, 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours. It is important to note that, during this test, anesthesia is rarely used. Reactions include inflammation, ulceration, rupture of the eyeball, corrosion and bleeding. Some of these studies continue for weeks, and all the while no measures are made to reduce suffering or treat the rabbits. Survival, however, will only lead to and entirely new set of tests, such as the skin irritancy or the LD50. Lethal Dose 50 refers to the lethal dose that is required to kill 50% of all animals in a test group of 40-200. Animals are force-fed substances through a stomach tube; forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance applied to their rectum or genitals. These tests continue until half of the test animals die. During these tests, animals will often endure excruciating pain, convulsions, loss of motor function, seizures, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from every open orifice in the body. Any animals who somehow manage to survive these particular tests are subsequently destroyed (ALH).
There is also a Lethal Dose 100 test that determines the amount of a test substance required to kill 100%of the test animals. The skin irritancy test, similar to the eye irritancy test, is where and animal, most commonly a rodent, has a highly concentrated solution of a chemical in question applied to their skin. Their skin is then observed for signs of irritancy, such as redness and blistering. In some cases, the irritation can be so severe that the product actually burns through the skin. Not only are these tests cruel, but the results are unreliable and unnecessary as scientific evidence. As with the previously mentioned Draized test; rabbits eyes are not the same as human eyes ? there are profound differences, mainly the absence of tear ducts. In addition, different species react differently to various substances; substances that fail to damage a rabbit?s eye may be toxic to a human. For example, Nicotine in dogs is a staggering 9.2mg/kg, in pigeons 75mg/kg, and in rats, 53mg/kg (PETA Facts).
Another example, results from experiences, which exposed a variety of animal species to cigarette smoke, led researchers to believe that smoking did not cause Cancer. Because of this, warning labels on packs were delayed for years and cigarette manufacturers still use animal data to question the harmful effects of their products. Similarly, 150 years of animal ?models? have produced 25 drugs ?proven? effective against stroke, none of which works in humans. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans, including death, that they were removed from the market, though animal experimentation had predicted them all to be safe. One of the few studies that examined the differences in species reactions found only a 5-25% connection between harmful effects in people and the results of animal experiments (MFAT).
The question of why such tests continue must be raised. Whatever the reason may be, animal research has achieved a certain level of status; and funding agencies often favor these projects (MFAT).
Mankind has a tendency to seek out the fastest and easiest way to devise an answer, usually for the cheapest cost. Sadly, it seems animals may not be entirely saved from this tendency soon enough.
While animals continue to be violated in laboratories, a consciousness about our responsibility toward our relationship with animals has begun and continued to rise. As a result of pressures from animal advocacy groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a number of large corporations have ceased all animal testing in recent years. These corporations include Avon, Amway, Benetton, Revlon and even General Motors, who used to subject animals to crash/impact tests. In addition, the general public has begun to lean toward and seek out those products which are not tested on animals, from personal observation, cruelty free cosmetics have led a trend among young, educated buyers. Consumers have begun to demand more application of the available alternatives to animal testing; some of which include cell cultures; tissue cultures; corneas from eye banks; and sophisticated computer and mathematical models (PETA facts).
Test results using methods, which do not include animals, have in fact proved themselves more accurate and less expensive (PETA facts).
For example, the Avon cosmetic company has personally endorsed EYTEX SYSTEM, an alternative to the painful Draize test (Rollin, B.E.).
Legal prohibition of the Draize and LD50 tests would accelerate the alternative approaches, to the benefit of science, animals and consumers (Rollin, B.E., 149).
Alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable, both for cosmetics and household product tests and for ?medical research.? In most cases, non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost only a fraction compared to the tests using animals, and are not questionable with inaccuracies concerning species correlation?s which make results difficult or impossible. Eytex, developed by InVitro International, assesses irritancy with a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea when exposed to foreign matter. The greater the irritation, the more opaque the solution becomes.
The Skintex formula, developed by the same corporation, is made from the yellowish meat of the pumpkin rind; and mimics the reaction of human skin to foreign substances.
Both can be used to determine the toxicity of more than 5,000 different materials. Tissue and cell cultures can be grown in laboratory from single cells from human or animal tissues. NeoDerm, made by Marrow-Tech, begins with the injection of skin cells into a sterile plastic bag containing a biodegradable mesh. The cells attach to the mesh and grow around it. After the segment of skin is sewn onto the patient, the mesh gradually dissolves. Mathematical and computer models, based on physical and chemical structures of a substance, can be used to make predictions about the toxicity of a substance. TOPKAT, a software package distributed by Health Designs Inc., predicts oral toxicity and skin and eye irritation. It is ?intended to be used as a personal tool by toxicologists, pharmacologists, synthetic and medicinal chemists, regulators, and industrial hygienists?, according to HDI (PETA Facts).
Non animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace. Eytex testing kits can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50 (American); a Draize test of comparable range would cost more than $1000 (American), (PETA Facts).
There are a lot of steps the consumer can do to help and prevent the destruction of our animals. Buy cosmetics, personal care, and household products that have not been tested on animals, this involves taking on the responsibility of becoming an educated and compassionate consumer; encourage your friends, family and co-workers to buy cruelty-free products. If you need backup to encourage the people you speak to, inform them of the sickening situations involving lab animals. Instead of buying all of your personal care products, why not make some yourself? It is simple and inexpensive, kind to animals, and ecologically fitting. Boycott companies, which test their products on animals. Lists of companies who carry out these senseless tests and their addresses are available from organizations such as CAAT and PETA. Contact your elected representatives and federal agencies and demand that the validation of non-animal methods become a high-priority. Proven, that mankind often disregards the rights of other living beings, times are changing for the better due to the increasing pressure of the consumer. Society has begun to take notice of this serious global concern because intelligent life should not be subjected to this form of torture. It has been estimated that animal experimentation worldwide has decreased by 30-50% in the last 15-20 years, due to the reduction and replacement techniques (MFAT).
Humans have to understand that this planet is not only ours, but the animals as well. Albert Einstein once said, ?Our task must be to free ourselves?. By widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.? In essence, the means of living a healthy and fulfilled life is to embrace and respect all life on this planet. There are a number of things that mankind can do to prevent this cruelty from continuing, it is simply a matter of taking the initiative to inform and involve yourself and others. Every individual effort is a step towards the annihilation of animal cruelty. We, as humans, have made numerous advancements in the world. We have firmly established the scientific evolution, but in doing so, it seems that our ethics and morals have failed to progress as well. The knowledge we have acquired is remarkable, but with it comes responsibility to use it wisely and ethically. We torture and heartlessly kill creatures that we arrogantly consider lesser beings simply at our disposal. For something as simple as eye makeup animals are tortured and blinded by tests performed at the laboratory. Where they are hardly fed, often forced to live in filth, and sometimes have their vocal cords removed to keep them quiet (CAAT).
We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the waters in which they live; we wear and display the tusks of the last few of their species in our homes, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes and body parts to determine the harmful effects they might cause on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between humans and the animals they use is drastic. On a daily basis most people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the pain as well. Mankind often fails to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific specimens and items that we may manipulate at our own convenience and for vanity?s sake. Laboratory research involving animals is cruel and merciless treatment of helpless creatures. No law requires that cosmetics and household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, every day hundreds of animals will have had their eyes, skin or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed (PETA).
Two of the most common animal tests are the Draize, or eye irritancy test and the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50).
The Draize test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits, such as the Forida White, because they are cheap, docile, and are not ?equipped? with tear ducts to wash away the chemicals. During the test the rabbits are immobilized in a stock with only their head protruding and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of the rabbit; substances vary from mascara to aftershave and even oven cleaner. The rabbit?s eyes ate clipped open and observed at intervals of 1, 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours. It is important to note that, during this test, anesthesia is rarely used. Reactions include inflammation, ulceration, rupture of the eyeball, corrosion and bleeding. Some of these studies continue for weeks, and all the while no measures are made to reduce suffering or treat the rabbits. Survival, however, will only lead to and entirely new set of tests, such as the skin irritancy or the LD50. Lethal Dose 50 refers to the lethal dose that is required to kill 50% of all animals in a test group of 40-200. Animals are force-fed substances through a stomach tube; forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance applied to their rectum or genitals. These tests continue until half of the test animals die. During these tests, animals will often endure excruciating pain, convulsions, loss of motor function, seizures, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from every open orifice in the body. Any animals who somehow manage to survive these particular tests are subsequently destroyed (ALH).
There is also a Lethal Dose 100 test that determines the amount of a test substance required to kill 100%of the test animals. The skin irritancy test, similar to the eye irritancy test, is where and animal, most commonly a rodent, has a highly concentrated solution of a chemical in question applied to their skin. Their skin is then observed for signs of irritancy, such as redness and blistering. In some cases, the irritation can be so severe that the product actually burns through the skin. Not only are these tests cruel, but the results are unreliable and unnecessary as scientific evidence. As with the previously mentioned Draized test; rabbits eyes are not the same as human eyes ? there are profound differences, mainly the absence of tear ducts. In addition, different species react differently to various substances; substances that fail to damage a rabbit?s eye may be toxic to a human. For example, Nicotine in dogs is a staggering 9.2mg/kg, in pigeons 75mg/kg, and in rats, 53mg/kg (PETA Facts).
Another example, results from experiences, which exposed a variety of animal species to cigarette smoke, led researchers to believe that smoking did not cause Cancer. Because of this, warning labels on packs were delayed for years and cigarette manufacturers still use animal data to question the harmful effects of their products. Similarly, 150 years of animal ?models? have produced 25 drugs ?proven? effective against stroke, none of which works in humans. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans, including death, that they were removed from the market, though animal experimentation had predicted them all to be safe. One of the few studies that examined the differences in species reactions found only a 5-25% connection between harmful effects in people and the results of animal experiments (MFAT).
The question of why such tests continue must be raised. Whatever the reason may be, animal research has achieved a certain level of status; and funding agencies often favor these projects (MFAT).
Mankind has a tendency to seek out the fastest and easiest way to devise an answer, usually for the cheapest cost. Sadly, it seems animals may not be entirely saved from this tendency soon enough.
While animals continue to be violated in laboratories, a consciousness about our responsibility toward our relationship with animals has begun and continued to rise. As a result of pressures from animal advocacy groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a number of large corporations have ceased all animal testing in recent years. These corporations include Avon, Amway, Benetton, Revlon and even General Motors, who used to subject animals to crash/impact tests. In addition, the general public has begun to lean toward and seek out those products which are not tested on animals, from personal observation, cruelty free cosmetics have led a trend among young, educated buyers. Consumers have begun to demand more application of the available alternatives to animal testing; some of which include cell cultures; tissue cultures; corneas from eye banks; and sophisticated computer and mathematical models (PETA facts).
Test results using methods, which do not include animals, have in fact proved themselves more accurate and less expensive (PETA facts).
For example, the Avon cosmetic company has personally endorsed EYTEX SYSTEM, an alternative to the painful Draize test (Rollin, B.E.).
Legal prohibition of the Draize and LD50 tests would accelerate the alternative approaches, to the benefit of science, animals and consumers (Rollin, B.E., 149).
Alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable, both for cosmetics and household product tests and for ?medical research.? In most cases, non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost only a fraction compared to the tests using animals, and are not questionable with inaccuracies concerning species correlation?s which make results difficult or impossible. Eytex, developed by InVitro International, assesses irritancy with a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea when exposed to foreign matter. The greater the irritation, the more opaque the solution becomes.
The Skintex formula, developed by the same corporation, is made from the yellowish meat of the pumpkin rind; and mimics the reaction of human skin to foreign substances.
Both can be used to determine the toxicity of more than 5,000 different materials. Tissue and cell cultures can be grown in laboratory from single cells from human or animal tissues. NeoDerm, made by Marrow-Tech, begins with the injection of skin cells into a sterile plastic bag containing a biodegradable mesh. The cells attach to the mesh and grow around it. After the segment of skin is sewn onto the patient, the mesh gradually dissolves. Mathematical and computer models, based on physical and chemical structures of a substance, can be used to make predictions about the toxicity of a substance. TOPKAT, a software package distributed by Health Designs Inc., predicts oral toxicity and skin and eye irritation. It is ?intended to be used as a personal tool by toxicologists, pharmacologists, synthetic and medicinal chemists, regulators, and industrial hygienists?, according to HDI (PETA Facts).
Non animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace. Eytex testing kits can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50 (American); a Draize test of comparable range would cost more than $1000 (American), (PETA Facts).
There are a lot of steps the consumer can do to help and prevent the destruction of our animals. Buy cosmetics, personal care, and household products that have not been tested on animals, this involves taking on the responsibility of becoming an educated and compassionate consumer; encourage your friends, family and co-workers to buy cruelty-free products. If you need backup to encourage the people you speak to, inform them of the sickening situations involving lab animals. Instead of buying all of your personal care products, why not make some yourself? It is simple and inexpensive, kind to animals, and ecologically fitting. Boycott companies, which test their products on animals. Lists of companies who carry out these senseless tests and their addresses are available from organizations such as CAAT and PETA. Contact your elected representatives and federal agencies and demand that the validation of non-animal methods become a high-priority. Proven, that mankind often disregards the rights of other living beings, times are changing for the better due to the increasing pressure of the consumer. Society has begun to take notice of this serious global concern because intelligent life should not be subjected to this form of torture. It has been estimated that animal experimentation worldwide has decreased by 30-50% in the last 15-20 years, due to the reduction and replacement techniques (MFAT).
Humans have to understand that this planet is not only ours, but the animals as well. Albert Einstein once said, ?Our task must be to free ourselves?. By widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.? In essence, the means of living a healthy and fulfilled life is to embrace and respect all life on this planet. There are a number of things that mankind can do to prevent this cruelty from continuing, it is simply a matter of taking the initiative to inform and involve yourself and others. Every individual effort is a step towards the annihilation of animal cruelty.
