Animal testing isn't just cruel, it's also bad science. Cruelty Free International argues animal testing is both an inhumane and ineffective practice, and it is high time we stop testing on other living creatures.
Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.
The E.U. already bans makeup products that are tested on animals, and people say the U.S. should follow their lead and ban it too. Animal rights advocates say there are plenty of viable alternatives to animal testing that are often more accurate and precise than animal tests.
In the past three decades scientists have developed many advanced alternatives to animal testing—methods that use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin or computer models to test the safety of products. And many multinational companies have embraced these alternative test methods, reducing and in some cases eliminating their dependence on animal testing. As a result, they cut costs and save time; animal testing is expensive, slow and, because animals are not people, not always predictive.
Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. Animals do not need to suffer so people can use makeup.
But scientists argue animal testing has been a crucial component in many medical breakthroughs, and as long as it's done ethically, animal testing should not be outlawed. It would be wrong to test a drug of unknown effect on humans, which is why we test on animals first. Companies test products on animals because consumers demand a safe product. Technology continues to improve, but it has not yet reached the complexity needed to match or beat animal testing.
It is currently not possible to use methods such as computer simulations instead of animal testing, as we cannot create programmes that replicate the complexity and sensitivity of a living organism, partly because we do not know all the details about the organisms themselves and partly because computers still lack the capabilities of running such intensive programmes. This means that we are still reliant on physical experiments, at least for the time being.
A complete ban on animal testing means companies are locked into using chemicals that have already been verified. Industry advocates say animal testing plays an important role in innovation and research—one that's not easily replaced. It's not as though companies are testing products on animals for fun. Consumers want newer and better products and animal tests have a part to play in that. According to Perry Romanowski, a cosmetic chemist:
Contrary to some of the propaganda you see out there, most beauty companies really do want to be able to move away from animal testing... But obviously the limitations in non-animal testing could affect the use of new chemicals. With an animal testing ban, innovation could be stalled. 'All [companies will] do is take current formulas and change the fragrance and coloring and packaging and call them new, but they won’t be new,' Romanowski says.