FREE ESSAY ON ANIMAL TESTING

ANIMAL TESTING

 Animal Testing 
"Beauty without cruelty" is the outcry that can be heard from animal right activists
around
the world. The FDA does not require companies to perform tests on animals but if the
cosmetic
product contains chemicals that can be seen as toxins, testing becomes a necessity. There
are
currently thirteen safety tests that are performed on animals. Anti-testing activists
deem these
unnecessary and consider them to be cruel. "Fourteen million animals are used currently
in the
U.S. to test toxicity and irritancy of cosmetics and household products" (Hannah). Many
new
forms of safety tests are being developed by companies to save money along with the lives
of
innocent animals.
There are three common safety test that are in use and considered to be the most
controversial. Among these are the Draize, LD50, and the skin irritancy test. The Draize
test is a
test of how a chemical effects irritation in the eye. This test is performed on rabbits
who under
controlled supervision have a chemical force into one of their eyes. The eyelid is then
held shut
to prevent the chemical from being flushed out. For the next couple of weeks the rabbits
are
tested for blindness and other damages that result. Besides being abusive, the test is
imprecise
given the fact that a rabbit eye is unlike the human eye in physical makeup. A rabbit eye
lacks
tear ducts to flush out foreign objects unlike humans who can produce tears to protect
the eye. 
The cornea in a rabbit eye is also much thinner and sensitive than a humans.
The LD50 is short for "lethal dose in 50 percent". In this test the chemical being tested
if
force fed to rats or mice in small amounts until the dosage is in excess. This is
continued until at
least 50% of the test subjects die. Although the test rodent may not die right away, it
may
experience seizures and internal damage. This test is considered to be the most cruel of
the tests
and can only determine how much of a chemical substance is needed to kill a small animal
not a
human being.
In the skin irritancy test the chemical is applied directly onto the shaved skin of a
animal. 
The skin is then monitored for irritation. This test is also inconclusive in the skin
makeup of an
animal differs greatly from that of a human. The amount of absorption between the two
different
skin types will have an influence on how the chemical will react once it comes in contact
with
human skin tissue.
Many companies such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have completely stopped the
use of animals in testing their products. Over 250 companies are also following in their
footsteps
and seeking new methods to generate the same effect. One company has gone as far as
performing tests on nuns who have sympathized with those against animal testing. "None of
the
nuns died." "For the first time in their lives, the nuns wore lipstick." (Penders2)
Using computer generated models is one example where researchers can predict the how
the skin will respond to the chemicals using cloned human tissue cells. The use of egg
membrane
has also replaced the Draize test. The membrane is removed from fresh eggs and then
exposed to
a small amount of a chemical. Researchers can then observe the reaction by noticing the
breakdown of blood vessels within the membrane. Although these methods are not considered
to
be as good as testing on actual living animals they have greatly reduced the number of
animals
being killed in the name of science. They have provided the consumer with a product they
can be
assured has not been tested on animals.
On the plus side animal testing has reduced and eliminated the use of dangerous toxins
from cosmetics. The fight to completely end the use of animal testing has not ended for
animal 
activists. Until definite methods can be developed to accurately test chemicals, many
companies
will refuse to abandon their traditional forms of testing. 
Bibliography

Animal Testing & environmental protection. Environmental Action, May/Jun90, Vol.21 Issue
6,
p25
Holmes, Hannah Cruelty-free cosmetics. Garbage, Jul/Aug90, Vol.2 Issue 4, p59 
Maier, Karyn Cruelty-free beauty. Better Nutrition, Apr99, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p64