Animal Testing: Animals Suffering for Human Healthcare

Ronnel Angelo T. Glorioso

Far Eastern University – Institute of Accounts, Business and Finance

Abstract

Isulat ang abstract gamit ang 150-250 na salita. Walang indent ang isang abstract
at ito ay naka-justified. Ilahad ang iyong pangunahing posisyin sa abstract at ang
mga argumento at ebidensyang sumusuporta dito. Ilahad din ang iyong konklusyon
at ang mga kalakip na implikasyon nito. Sa dulo, gumawa ng suhesyon sa maaaring
posibleng direksyon ng usapan sa hinaharap ng iyong paksa.

Introduction

No living creature especially the innocent ones like animals, regardless of their
classification in the hierarchy of living things, should experience mistreatments that cause fatal
effects to their welfare to aid in safety of human consumption. Poisoned, blinded and killed –
these are the usual endpoint and fate of animals that are used for animal testing. The market’s
demand for quality cosmetic, beauty and other products for human consumption poses a threat to
the welfare of innocent animals. The issue of animal testing has been a topic of discussion for
years, and yet 80% of the countries still practice it (Humane Society International, 2018). This
percentage of countries that still conduct animal testing manifests how inferior people look at
animals. Animal testing, according to Cruelty Free International, is any sort of scientific
examination or test in which a live animal is compelled to experience something that is probably
going to cause them torment, suffering, distress or lasting harm. And according to People for
Ethical Treatment of Animal (2018), the process of animal testing does vicious torture to animals
like burning, shocking, poisoning, isolation, starvation, drowning, addiction to drugs, and
damaging the brain. These torture the experiments cause to animals are primarily all in the name
of beauty.

The first animal testing procedure is uncertain for no one really knows when this
epidemic malpractice had begun. However, in 1938, The United States Food, Drug & Cosmetic
Act had become an official law, requiring some wellbeing substantiation of cosmetic items
forcing companies to start testing their products on animals (HIS, 2018), and the rest is history.
Since then, the practice of animal testing seemed to have become a rather ethical practice
because of it large-scale use. Also, with large brands like Avon, Johnson & Johnson, Chanel and
Proctor & Gamble testing on animals (Ethical Elephant, 2018) and 80% of the world where it
remains legal, the inhumane mistreatment and activities of animal testing trend became
rationalized and somehow accepted.
 Animal testing pose a major threat and safety to the animals forced to undergo the
procedure. The testing process is known to have irreversible effects on animals and most of the
time, death. Avon is a worldwide beauty and cosmetic brand that is patronized by people of all
genders and age for its affordability but Avon is also known to test on animals. In experiments
on animals of Avon to ensure consumers’ safety, PETA 2 (2018) indicated that Avon still pays
testing companies to poison rabbits in human’s stead. Rabbits are stored in caged barrels and left
for two weeks after putting unsafe chemicals on their shaved skin. The process burns their skins
and damages their tissues. In some experiments, chemical samples are dripped into rabbits’ eyes
and the side effects of these cruel tests include severe pain, swelling, ulcers, inflamed skin,
bleeding, bloody scabs, irritated and cloudy eyes, and even blindness. And after the testing is
done, the animals are usually killed. The worst part is that, it is not a requirement for the testing
companies to give animals pain killers. The procedure conducted by Avon is one of the standard
and probably is the same for many more brands. This means, the innocent animals who are
probably never even going to wear mascara or foundations suffer in the name of beauty and
human health.

This paper aims to discuss the factors surrounding as to why animal testing still continues
what harmful effects each of these factors pose to animals. The exact topics to be covered by this
paper are the following arguments:

 Animal data is not reliable for human health research;

It is important that animal testing comes to an end because the animals that are used in
this procedure are innocent and voiceless. Animals are vital to the ecosystem and with human’s
greed for money and demand out of meticulousness for quality products, the same ecosystem
will be put in danger. Moreover, animal testing cannot be primarily credited for the medical
breakthroughs, this is according also to PETA (2018). Animals surely help but the medical and
cosmetology systems shouldn’t just rely on animals who don’t have a voice but on sound
researches that can make the minor alternatives be the standard.

Animal Data Is Not Reliable For Human Health Research

In animal testing, as aforementioned, the stakes are high especially on the receiving end
of syringes and swabs that contain harmful chemicals–the helpless animals. Cosmetic and other
pharmaceutical companies test on animals to have a defense through data that they can use
whenever the injured consumers surface to sue them. So basically, it is a disclaimer that let’s the
consumer decide whether the product is really safe or not judging by the “tested on animals”
label. The issue revolves around cosmetology because some argue that animal testing is more
acceptable and ethical if it’s for medical research. However, it is also worth looking into medical
researches that utilizes animal models that don’t succeed.
 Animals may share some similarities with humans in terms of anatomical features but it
doesn’t necessarily mean that the animal samples and the data gathered from animals always are
reliable for human health research. To support the claim, National Anti-Vivisection Society
(2018) have stated that the usage of animal models in humans’ stead can arouse misleading
results because of the essential and intrinsic differences between humans and other species.
Human disease and human’s reaction to drugs should be researched in human-relevant and
human-related systems. In her research roundup in Live Science (2014), Theodora Capaldo
identified the key evidences of failures of animal models citing the following instances: a 2008
study in the journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals showed that 80 or more vaccines for
HIV/AIDS are successful in primates but failed in human trials, more than 4,000 studies in 2004
study of stroke report efficacy of more that 700 treatments of stroke in animal models and yet
none of the estimated 150 of the animal testing showed clinical benefit, and lastly, the drugs
intented to reduce inflammation in terminal patients that were previously tested in mice failed in
more or less 150 human critical trials according to a 2013 study. This goes to show that animal
models aren’t always reliable and further continuation of the animal testing should seek
alternative ways. Moreover, the dependence of science and technology on animals for majority
of its facets aren’t always reliable.

As an implication, as mentioned, the stakes are high for animals’ welfare but it can also
pose serious health threats among humans who are the prime beneficiary of these animal models’
testing, and it goes against the “point” of conducting animal testing which is to ensure human
health safety. Adding salt to the injury, in China, it is actually a requirement to test on animals
(Rose, 2018). Hence the rise of companies that pay grand just to get their product tested on
animals where it’s legal. But this rise on animal testing industry is not something to be applauded
for as the testing facilities rise, the risk of animals undergoing testing of getting harmed increase,
as well as the human’s whelm being at high risk.

Organic Ingredients as The Halt to Animal Testing

Ca

Reflection

As a makeup artist, it is important for me that I use products that will not cause my skin
to have allergic reactions or any kind of skin issues, that’s why I lean towards makeup brands
that claim to be hypoallergenic and clinically tested for sensitive skin. What I don’t know is for
the products to be free from allergens, it must be tested several times on animals for it to be safe
for human consumption–my consumption. They test the first batch of, let’s say, foundation
formula on animals to see if there are any harmful reactions, of course, it will fail somehow
because of the synthetic ingredients they use to alter organic ingredients to cut the cost of the
production to earn significantly more. After the first test, there comes the second, third, fourth
and more tests to come until they perfect the formula for humans. The animals go through so
much and it’s not even for their own good, but for people’s greed for revenue and market’s
demand for quality products.

Konklusyon

Muling ilahad ang mga pangunahing punto at ipaliwanag kung ano ang maaring
mahinuhang koneksyon sa mga claim at implikasyon na nilahad. Sa huli, ilahad ang posibleng
direksyon ng usapin sa iyong paksa sa hinaharap.

Sanggunian

Ipakita ang mga sanggunian na ginamit sa sanaysay. Sundin ang format ng A