Essay, Research Paper: Vivisection

Vivisection
I am writing concerning the issue of vivisection. As you
know, vivisection is experimentation on animals, including
non-invasive psychology research and dissection. According
to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, millions of
animals suffer and die each year in the testing of
cosmetic, personal care, and household products. Companies
poison them to death. They shave the animal's skin and
expose it to destructive substances. They place powerful
chemicals in animal's eyes. All of this is done just for a
"new and improved" cologne, dishwashing detergent, or
toothpaste. As a college student who is taking all action
that I can to help preserve the environment and help save
animals, I feel this is unacceptable in this society. Not
only are there many alternative ways to testing products,
these alternatives do not harm the environment, and have
effective and accurate results, unlike the use of
vivisection.
Just because a cosmetic, personal care, or household
product is tested on animals, that does not necessarily
mean it is safe for a human being to use. The animals that
are used to test products include, but are not limited to,
rabbits, mice, cats, dogs, horses, and monkeys. While we
live on the same planet as these animals, humans differ
greatly from them. Even when animal tests do show that
products are dangerous, this does not keep the product off
the market. The American Anti-Vivisection Society has done
immense research, and observes companies, in order find
these facts. As you know, the harmful products simply bear
warning labels telling people to call a doctor if they
swallow the product, or if contact is made with skin or
eyes. It has been found, however, that poison-control
centers rarely, if ever, turn to data from animal tests to
treat patients harmed by household products. In knowing
this, we can conclude that using animals to test products
does nothing to really help human beings or make the
product safer for them to use. When we take a new drug, we
are part of an experiment, because we differ from other
species. Drugs which have minor, or no side effects on
animals, have caused extreme reactions in humans.
Vivisection not only harms the animals that are used
mercilessly, but also does
harm to the environment. For example, 5,000 companies
provide lawn care in
the U.S. To test these pesticides, rats and mice are forced
to ingest and/or inhale compounds in long-term experiments,
to determine whether they cause cancer, birth defects,
general illness or death. The animals may bleed from their
eyes, nose, rectum or mouth, be unable to breathe,
experience convulsions, paralysis or coma, and/or suffer
from having their internal organs ulcerated, burned or
ruptured. Combined, these companies use over 8 million
pounds of pesticides. The most common of these pesticides
are classified as "probable" human carcinogens, and hurt,
rather than help, the environment. Granted, a connection
between animal research and the environment sounds like a
big stretch. However, it is known that there is actually a
very strong connection between pollution of the environment
and the use of animals to test possible pollutants. Because
of the rapidly mounting evidence that animal-based testing
of products are flawed, many scientists are now speaking
against vivisection. . Many toxicologists admit that the
assumptions behind animal testing are not valid. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questions the
relevance of animal studies. Yet, the EPA is responsible
for determining the "safety" of compounds released into our
environment, and most of the "safety" tests are performed
on animals. These animal studies endanger humans by
providing misleading and often completely useless results.
For example, a product can cause no harm on any type of
animal, but can cause great danger to humans, and vice
versa.
The Food and Drug Administration does require that certain
products, such as pharmaceuticals and eye care products, be
tested on animals. This is understandable because if these
things were not tested, they could do great harm to
humans. However, cosmetics and personal care products are
not required, nor do they need to be, tested on animals.
The main reason that companies test their products on
animals is due to money. It is very cheap to breed animals
and use them strictly to abuse their bodies and kill them.
Because it is not necessary though, this should be put to
an abrupt stop.
There are many alternatives to vivisection. Companies can
expose a product to a complex mixture of chemicals, and
then, based on chemical reactions caused by the product,
scientists are able to predict whether it would be
irritating or dangerous to human beings. Another
alternative is to grow human cells in a culture and test
products on them. This type of testing has shown great
accuracy and many scientists feels that these tests will
eventually phase out the practice of vivisection. Many
other alternatives to animal testing are currently being
developed. This is a major area of research, with the
primary incentive coming from consumer demand for cruelty-
free products.
Currently the National Institute of Environmental Health
Science is working on the validation of non-animal
alternatives to testing products. However, this institute
is lacking the funds they need to continue on, due to lack
of support, with their search for alternatives, and they
are the only government agency that is actually working
towards the validation of alternatives to vivisection. I
ask that you please support this institute and work towards
asking the government to provide more funds for such a good
cause.