a) Many of the animals used in these test die from the intense pain and suffering. 2. Costumer Product Safety Commission (cosmetic and household products), the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency (pesticide formulations and ingredients) require agencies to experiment on animals before selling their product. II. There are alternate methods for researching.
Millions of animals die each year because scientist unfortunately test, practically everything on the animals before people. Cosmetics, medications, and hand sanitizers are some of the things tested on animals. Gillette is one company who tests their products on animals. I remember reading an email once showing where Gillette researchers put things like shaving cream, etcetera into the eyes of defenseless bunnies to see if it burned, and the bunnies screamed. Drug manufacturers test medications on animals after they have been injected with viruses and diseases to see if the medications work on the animals.
Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals were blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science. Substances that are used everyday, such as lipstick, soap, moisturisers and shower gels, may be tested on rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and other animals. These tests are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of products and their ingredients. No antidotes are ever given, so the animals that are injured must live with the pain. These tests are not required by law, so why would companies continue to torture peaceful animals?
Annotated bibliography cynthia holmes Devry University English 147N Annotated Bibliography American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ASPCA (2010). Factory farm animals. Retrieved from http://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal-cruelty This report, by the field investigation response team on factory farm animals’ cruelty reported that factory farm workers who raise animals for human consumption, inject the animals with antibiotics and hormones. They stated in the report that this act will allow animals to have severe painful and short lives. The report gives insight on the inhumane treatment of during their entire lives until they are slaughtered for human consumption.
In David Suzuki’s, “The Pain of Animals” (2002) he attempts to highlight how for many years, scientists have utilized animals to examine the effects of experimental diseases, drugs, and vaccines as a way to skirt around the ethical consequences of experimenting on humans. As a geneticist, environmentalist, and award-winning academic Suzuki’s attempt to increase public awareness for various issues is apparent within this article. Suzuki utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his article to express his discomfort on the subject of testing on these animals. Suzuki’s interest in this subject is unending, no matter how many illnesses are destroyed through extensive scientific testing and research. Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive.
Rhetorical Analysis of The Evil of Animal Rights “The Evil of Animal Rights” is an article that was written by Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook. The article addressees the medical testing that is being done on animals. The author of the article talks about the medical advances that have been done using animals as testing. Without the animals, there wouldn't be as many new medicines and new cures that there are now. The author also talks about the protesters and the problems they have given to the companies that have any relation with animal testing.
Many argued that alternatives for testing products should be utilized. Although there are other alternatives, to this day, animals are being experimented on for people’s needs such as cosmetics and medical purposes. Animal testing for cosmetic purposes first started in 1933 when a woman used Lash Lure mascara, it burned her eyes, which made her blind and eventually led to her death. The Food and Drug Administration therefore passed a law called the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Two common tests performed on animals to determine the toxicity of a chemical are the LD50 and the Draize test.
I understand medication being tested on animals but the cosmetic industry should not test on animals because its animal cruelty, the testing is not accurate, and there are other ways to test products. First reason they should not test on animals is because it’s animal cruelty. In America animal abuse is illegal. Testing on animals is abuse! Everyday millions of animals are locked in small cages giving them only enough room to turn around, and they have makeup put on them, and thousands die from it everyday.
They suggest and promote an efficient defence and recovery for disease and save lives. However, several ethical issues are raised due to the investigation of research and development behind. Here is the main issue raised. Both in monoclonal antibodies and vaccines, the production and development of existing antibodies and vaccines involved the use of animals. That is actually an exploitation of animals’ lives, especially mice.
People have yet to realize that their favorite type of deodorant or those good-smelling fragrances they like to put on were once tested on animals. These animals are forced to swallow or inhale large quantities of a test substance or endure the pain of having chemicals applied to their sensitive eyes and skin (Peta). Many times the results of animal tests are often not applicable to humans, but even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you. Many testing centers keep such animals out of their natural surroundings, until time to experiment on them. Throughout that time these animals become so unadapt to their new surroundings, they become less likely to return to their natural state which gives those experimenting more reason to test them.