ANIMAL TESTING

THE PRO S AND CON S

KAT - CELI NE
JUNE 24 | 2014
COLLEEN MAYO-PANKHURST
LETS START WITH A FEW
QUESTIONS.
Why do you think animal testing occurs?
What do they use them for?
Do you believe animal testing is ethical?
Unethical?
THE PROS
To advance scientic understanding
As models to study disease
To develop and test various forms of treatment
To protect the safety of people, [animals] and the environment
SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING
Adding to scientic knowledge through basic biological research helps us understand
how living things tick, and apply that understanding for the benet of each individual, be
it human or animal alike.
Many basic cell processes are similar in all animals, and many state how its comparable to
humans due to sharing the functions of breathing, digestion, movement, sight, hearing
and reproduction.
A great deal of knowledge of the bodys anatomy and functions stems off of animal
research; comparing different species (differences and similarities) is a way to gain
insight.
Even simple animals can be used to study complex biological systems such as the
nervous or immune systems, which follow the same basic organisation and function in all
animals. For example, much has been learnt about the function of neurons from studying
the giant squid axon.
MODELS FOR DISEASE
Humans and animals share hundreds of illnesses, and consequently animals can
act as models for the study of human illness. (I.E. Rabbits suffer from
atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries); dogs suffer from cancer, diabetes,
cataracts, ulcers and bleeding disorders such as haemophilia)
Studying disease mechanisms in animal models leads directly to the development
of new technologies and medicines that benet both humans and animals.
Animals altered to create models of disease are known as induced animals.
Recent advances in genetic technology have allowed the development of
transgenic animals, which have new genes inserted into their DNA, allowing them
to develop human diseases which do not naturally affect them; allows harder to
dissect diseases become easier.
TEST TREATMENT
Animals are used to develop and test these potential therapies as part of the
applied research process.
Models such as these are an essential part of applying biological research to real
medical problems, allowing new targets for disease intervention to be identied.
Data from animal studies is essential before new therapeutic techniques and
surgical procedures can be tested on human patients.
Diagnostic tools such as scanners, and implants such as heart pacemakers or
articial hips, are safe and effective only because they were developed and
tested in animals. Many surgical techniques, such as open heart surgery and
heart transplants, rely on methods and equipment that were developed using
animals.
PROTECTION
Medicines and other products are tested before use to reduce risk upon
interaction. It helps give an outlook to the negative outcomes, or the positive,
before distribution.
The animal tests provide data on efcacy and safety. They not only identify
potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to
volunteers and patients during the rst human trials.
Testing on animals also serves to protect consumers, workers and the
environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for
commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people
and animals exposed to them is understood.
THE CONS
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane
Alternative methods for testing is now available therefore this practice should
discontinue
Very different from human beings and cannot reliably predict proper results
More expensive than alternative methods; waste of government dollars
May mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments
CRUEL AND INHUMANE
According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are
commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water
deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the iniction of burns and
other wounds to study the healing process, the iniction of pain to study its effects
and remedies, and killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking,
decapitation, or other means.
The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by
shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with
their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink
away the products being tested.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals
suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief,
including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
In glass testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more
relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.
Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions,
can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed.
Articial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and
ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic
wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.
Microuidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and
recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development
DIFFERENT FROM US
The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people
make animals poor models for human beings.
It's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're
trying to achieve in the human.
EXPENSIVE
An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in glass alternative
costs $11,000.
A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300.
A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in glass test costs
$7,200.
A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US
National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on
animal research.
Wed save so much more money just on going onatural. Honestly, we have the
applicable resources, so why not indulge ourselves without harming what cannot protect
itself effectively?
BETRAY. DECEIVE. DELUDE.
Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by
humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506
(tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was almost
shelved due to animal test results received.
Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on
the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks
and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.



THE COSMETIC SIDE
ANIMAL TESTING FOR
COSMETIC USE
Various companies still make use of animals to test their makeup products.
Cosmetics testing on animals relates to many aspects of the manufacturing
process. Animal testing may occur on the full, nished product or it may occur on
individual ingredients within a formulation.
Tested for overall toxicity and any toxicity related to ultraviolet light. An example
would be a product that contains retinol, which makes a person more
susceptible to sun damage.
Cosmetics testing will also focus on testing for mutagenic effects. Despite even
this array of stringent testing, people do still suffer from reactions to cosmetics,
which does indicate the challenges of drawing conclusions from testing that
apply to the majority of the public.
COSMETIC COMPANIES
Neutrogena
Dove
Mac
Aveda [Only By Law]
Smashbox
LOreal [USA]
Nair
Garnier
AVEDA
Aveda, just like MAC, has long been considered a great options for vegan as they were free of animal testing and
many products did not contain animal ingredients. However, like other Estee Lauder brands, this stance changed
in order to sell Aveda products in countries where it is required by law.

From the Aveda Frequently Asked Questions -
The Aveda Corporation is committed to the elimination of animal testing. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and
bringing to market products that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our products are sold.
We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law. We
evaluate our nished products in clinical tests on volunteer panels.

Unfortunately with this being an unregulated term, the company is still able to make this claim. Even the above
statement is very confusing for those who arent used to the keywords that these companies use to say that they
do, in fact, test on animals. This is why many people still believe that Aveda products are still cruelty free.

While they are cruelty free when the law agrees with them, other laws for varying countries to assure the cosmetic
is safe require animal testing before distribution. It does not mean they enjoy doing it, but it aids in their prots.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Were you surprised by the facts?
Have your opinions altered?
REFERENCES.
Burkholz, Herbert (1997-09-01). "Giving Thalidomide a Second Chance".
FDA Consumer (US Food and Drug Administration).
Gillham, Christina (2006-02-17). "Bought to be sold", Newsweek.
Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH (1997). "Viable
offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells". Nature 385
(6619): 8103.
"2012 Animal Research Statistics from the Home Ofce", Understanding
Animal Research (2013)
Draggan, Sidney. (2013). Animal Testing Alternatives. United States.