Animal Testing On Cosmetic Products Should Be Banned

Animal testing is used among many companies all over the world. Is it useful, appreciable, successful? Animal testing should be banned because it is cruel, has a poor success rate, and is unnecessary. Many think otherwise, such as that animal testing is helpful with curing diseases, but over all the time and trials there’s too much harm caused to too many animals. First of all, animal testing is cruel.

At the possibility of not being able to tend the rabbits, Lennie becomes upset. Steinbeck writes “He shook her then, and he was angry with her.” (91). This detail is important because that same anger is present that he showed to his puppy for dying. In both cases instead of feeling sorry for scaring or killing them, he is angry at them because of it.

Animal testing is unethical to the animals and isn’t as effective as other materials we have access to. Animal testing brings millions of animals a world of pain. It’s cruel and unethical to sentence millions of living and breathing animals to a life of torture and pain. And according to a Listland article, animals used for animal testing aren’t even protected by the animal welfare act, a act that protects research animals from harm. The animals that have to go through being burned, choked, and drowned half to death aren’t even given any pain medication to reduce the pain.

Some pigs are improperly stunned and conscious when put into boiling water meant to soften their skin for consumption (Peta). These animals suffer unimaginable torment. The idea of someone 's pet going through this kind of torture is unbearable to think about for most people. So, why is it okay for other

Furthermore, scientists usually kill the animals after the experiment. Examples of animal testing include forcing dangerous substances into animals’ bodies, exposing animals to radiation, and putting animals in stressful or frightening situations (Cruelty Free International). Many animals in scientific research are

Animal rights are violated the moment they are used for research. This is because they never have given any option or chances to choose whether to participate in any experiment. Their decisions are made for them since they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choice. Animals are normally subjected to experimentation that are often painful and could cause permanent damage or death. It is true that animals cannot talk nor make decision.

The researchers do not consider the animal’s capacity for suffering, and they already knew the experiment will cause the animals suffer. After the experiment, the animal suffers pain and the researchers will destroy the animals because they are only the sample in the research. The animal has a very little chance to live. The experiment is exploiting the right of an animal to live. The destroy of the animal sample is treat the animal as a tool, the animals become the substitutes to test for the human being interested, and the test is fatal.

If some countries have come up with the idea to take care of animals and have made even groups and organizations against animal abuse why do, they inhumanly abuse animals for testing. Experimental tests on animals its something unessential, and what if results are erroneous and in animals works perfect and on human results badly. As well, we know that the human body its pretty similar to an animal's body. Some doctors say that animal testing can slow down he results for a research or for a product.

According to procon.org, “Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs.” This means in order to find accurate results we would need something that is living, breathing, and has a system which includes organs, blood vessels, lymph, etc. Besides humans, the only other option are animals. It would be unrealistic to not use animals because it would be impossible to advance in medicine without some sort of experimentation. Keeping animals from being tested is one thing but never being able to progress with modern day treatments is an even worse sacrifice.

At the very least, zoo directors were outraged at the news of both of these public dissections. The directors are fighting against the confusing oddity of the situations. They have brought up that these acts show arguable unkindness. They have also brought up that these actions are displaying the fact that these animals are being restricted from doing what they are born to do. Hunting, breeding, and exploring are all taken away when animals are captured for zoos (Parker).