Animal testing is a popular and controversial issue that has sparked numerous debates between each side throughout the years. Animal testing is a form of experimentation that involves testing different products on all kinds of animals to see if they produce any side effects. These products could be make up, drugs, perfume, cleaning products and various other things. In certain countries, the law specifies that a new drug should essentially be tested on at least two different species of live mammal, one of which must be a large non-rodent. (Retrieved from www.buzzle.com on July 30, 2010.) The Animal act states that animals should not be used for testing of drugs if there is a realistic alternative available. However this has not stopped it from being done. Animals have been the test subject for anesthetics to prevent any pain or suffering during surgery on humans. Some of the testing performed on these animals has caused tumors and the results of the testing were found not relevant for any human. It has been found that a lot of the substances used in animals metabolize differently than they do in the human body. Therefore the results cannot transfer safely to patients. Lemon juice is one example of this finding; while it is not harmful to humans it is a poison to some animals.
These tests are being conducted and are costing billions of dollars to perform and only a handful of them are providing any real kind of result. They are not only wasting their time but they are wasting money on something that isn?t beneficial at all. These animals are being put through torture on the hope that ?something big? will come out of it. The acts these people are performing are inhumane and unjust.
Proctor and Gamble is a large well known company and is also one of the companies that participate in animal testing. In 1989 P&G received a lot of press for their use of dogs as testsubjects. Since then the company claims to only use rats, mice, rabbits and other small animals for testing. Retrieved from idausa.org on July 30, 2010. The company has not released any facts that support this but they still claim to have reduced their animal usage by up to 90 percent. The company has stated that they continue to look for alternatives to animal testing and feel they are using good scientific, ethical, and business sense with their actions. However they fought a deal in 1987 that would have done away with animal testing by their company altogether. They also tried to convince people that testing on animals is humane and necessary. Retrieved from www.idausa.org on July 30, 2010.
Proctor and Gamble makes so many of the products in today?s market and it is hard to compete. However there are many companies that produce the same products and do not participate in animal testing. The bottom line is this company would rather spend billions on advertising and promotion then on alternatives to testing. Looking for alternatives to testing does not benefit them the way that promoting their product does. People are not going to respond to an alternative to testing like they would to a cool new shampoo commercial. None of the tests that they perform are required by law and very few of them actually produce any results. P&G is just one of the many companies that tests it?s product on animals. Cosmetics companies are another key player in the animal testing field. Eye shadows are tested on rabbits to find out how much damage or irritation they cause. Sunscreen is tested on guinea pigs to see how much of an allergic reaction it will provide. Many of these big companies will hire outside companies to avoid any bad publicity for their company. Another unethical decision made by a money hungry company.
These companies claim to be protecting the health and safety of humans with their testing. They claim these tests will prove the standards of their products beyond a doubt. However as I stated previously these tests are not an accurate representation of how the product would affect a human. These companies also claim to have a gain on the competition by testing their products on