When you go to the store, are you one of those people that shop for specific brands? Do you know if these products are cruelty-free towards animals? It is amazing how many people believe in animal rights, but have no idea that the cleaning products, cosmetic products, etc. that they purchase all the time are actually contributing to the issue of animal cruelty. Animal testing is an experimental practice that has actually been decreasing in popularity within the past decade, however, there are still people who believe testing chemicals on animals before human consumption is critical for safety reasons. Even though testing on animals is declining in popularity, that does not necessarily mean that it is also declining in the amount of times it is practiced. In order to progress our society into a completely cruelty-free environment scientists and researchers will need to perfect the use of alternative methods, citizens will need to develop influential organizations, and new policies need to be established in order to control regulations. 

Considering individuals have already developed their own idea about what it means to be a cruelty-free environment, let’s define what a cruelty-free environment means in this specific context. “The F.D.A. says on its website that companies can make any claim about their animal testing policies because there is no regulated definition of what is cruelty-free,” according to Ms. Katrinak, the administrator for the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (Ellin). Meaning, everybody has their own perspective on what it means to be cruelty-free. For some companies it simply means that none of their products, chemicals, etc. harmed any animals within their production process, however, other companies argue that they are “cruelty-free,” even though some of the ingredients used to make their own separate product were once tested on animals, even though they were not the company to actually administer it. For this specific context, the definition of a cruelty-free environment is the idea that there are never any animals used for experimentation purposes. 

Animal testing has actually grown from a history of lots of support. Sadly, there are at least 115 million animals used worldwide for research every year, with the United States of America being the top contributor to this tragedy. Also, there are many different types of animals used for experimentation, rodents being the most common to cats, dogs, fish, and even monkeys (Humane Society International). Animal experimentation falls under two different categories: basic (i.e. investigating human disease) and applied (i.e. drug research). Intentionally, animal experimentation provides us with information on possible human outcome (Akhtar). In 1993, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the release of a drug called Propulsid, which was intended to control gastric reflux in children. There were no heart rhythm deaths evident in animal trials, but by the year of 2000 this drug caused over 300 human deaths due to heart rhythm problems. In 1997, Rezulin was approved by the FDA to treat type 2 diabetes. Studies show that it did lower the blood sugar in rats without any negative side effects, however, it did cause fatal liver failure in humans and was the reason for almost 400 deaths (Dangerous Medicine). Why is this important? There are many ethical as well as health-related issues when it comes to using animals for testing possibly dangerous chemicals. Not only do these tests cause animals psychological distress and physical pain, but they take an abundant amount of time and resources, and they provide very little understanding of how chemicals actually react in a human body considering there have been so many times that animal testing did not correctly predict the correct human reactions (Humane Society International). Laboratory procedures and conditions heavily influence an animals physiology and behavior to the point that it can be difficult to control, which can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are placed in artificial environments for most of their lives. These constant changes in an animals life can result in developed stress, high blood pressure, and increased heart rates (Akhtar). Changes in an animals body like those are automatic indicators that their reaction to a chemical would not accurately represent a humans reaction. 

One influence that could impact the practice of animal testing is the creation of organizations. It could be an organization that simply advocates for animal rights such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, otherwise known as PETA, all the way to a more specific organization such as the Leaping Bunny that cosmetic brands join in order to be branded as cruelty-free. The Leaping Bunny is run by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics which licenses a rabbit logo to certified cruelty-free companies (Ellin). The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is now the largest animal rights organization in the world. PETA’s website consists of researched articles, the issues they advocate for, actions a person can take in order to advocate for their concerns, as well as videos that provide detailed information about what is happening to animals. For example, on PETA’s website they provide a sixty second video revealing all of the horrors behind animal testing, exposing devastating images and deadly procedures animals have to go through for a humans benefit. This sixty-second video shows dogs foaming at the mouth as a side effect of a drug, monkeys being injected with chemicals through the eye, and cats locked up and crammed into cages. PETA’s organization also exposed Texas A&M for purposely breeding golden retrievers, along with other dogs, to develop severe forms of canine muscular dystrophy, which causes progressive muscle weakness (PETA). It is important for organizations to create these awarenesses and allow people to be able to distinguish which companies tests on animals and which companies do not. Many people have benefited from joining PETA by taking action in their community the way PETA’s website suggests. Society tends to follow trends when they notice one, so if companies continuously joined these organizations to voice their beliefs to the public this will cause a shift in demand as well what needs to be changed in order to meet the demand. This would result in the ending of animal testing and the flourish of alternative methods. 

Technological and scientific advancement closely corresponds with how developed alternatives to animal testing are. In order to successfully diminish the practice of testing on animals the alternative methods such as using human cell lines, computer modeling, human-patient stimulators, as well as a new idea called In Vitro testing needs to be perfected by researches or scientists in order to solidify them. In Vitro testing is a fancy way to describe testing blood cells and tissues in test tubes to conduct research (PETA). “Science has evolved, and we have the technology now that maybe we didn’t have 30 or 40 years ago to do safety assessments without using animals. So having the methods in place, and companies bothering to take the time and making the investment into developing new methods, has a lot to do with it, too,” stated Dr. Nancy Beck. This quote explains the importance of big businesses and how those businesses can heavily influence targeted outcomes; businesses can advocate for a change in how scientists experiment as well as support companies that use ethical experimental techniques financially in order to direct science down a progressive path (Ellin). A standard test on pregnant rats to find out if chemicals or drugs may harm the developing baby can only detect 60% of any toxins compared to a cell-based alternative has 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals (Cruelty-Free International). Converting to only using the alternatives will result in a less costly experiment, a more reliable result, along with a substantial decrease in the amount of animals harmed each year (ProCon.org). Technology and science are consistently changing and growing so it is time to let go of the traditional view of needing to perform tests on animals for humans own safety to learning and progressing new ideas that could further our society even more. 

Establishing laws would obviously be the most beneficial way to solve the issue of animal testing, however, it is the hardest solution to achieve. The United States of America is substantially behind when it comes to research methods and how progressed they have become with the alternatives to animal testing. With that being said, America is also behind in the creation of laws to protect these animals from intended harm. Years ago, the original Food and Drugs Act, passed by Congress in 1906, did not require any premarket testing of products. However, due to many consistent outbreaks that non-tested drugs or products were causing, for example, when many women developed blisters and ulcers due to a permanent mascara called Lash Lure, led to the establishment of stricter laws (Zurlo). On January 1st 1998, the addition of the Sixth Amendment Article 7 of the Animal Welfare Act, stated that it was not “scientifically valid” for companies to continue to test on animals, meaning they could ban the practice if it was to intend torture of any kind (Balls). To intend torture on an animal is when an animal is purposely obtained to cause them phyiscal or emotional harm. In 2009, the European Union banned cosmetics and other companies from testing their products on animals because they developed skin irritancy, sensitivity to light and acute toxicity. The European Union also banned the import of cosmetics containing ingredients that have been animal-tested in this way. Then in 2013, companies were forbidden from conducting any further tests designed to establish longer-term toxicity. Comparatively, the closest thing the United States of America has to laws such as the ones in Europe is the 2011 Safe Cosmetics Act, which was introduced but still yet to be adopted; it encourages the development of alternatives to animal testing (Ellin).  Within the past seven years the European Union has tested on over 12 million animals while the United States has tested on double that amount (Speaking of Research). This statistic shows that the more laws a country has established to regulate animal testing, the less animals are harmed by humans.

Critics do not believe humans will benefit from prohibiting testing on animals, they argue that animals provide crucial results. People with this traditional view argue that it is very critical for human safety that scientists test products or chemicals on animals before humans are exposed to them. What the people that still advocate for animal testing do not realize is that animal testing did help us at one point in time, but just like computers, phones and cars, things change and become more advanced. Animal testing is advancing into new alternatives such as the human cell lines and the computerized representations, so if society is okay with progressing what their phone is able to do, why can’t society also be okay with how we conduct our research in order for it to be more reliable? Apparently, if researches had never decided to remove the pancreas from a dog, then insulin therapy would not have been discovered in the 1920s. This discovery solitified the use of animal testing, as dogs were a critical factor in the unfolding of this drug. However, the important clues came from past observations of human patients (Discovery of Insulin). In the past, animals were the reason for many scientific break-throughs. But in reality, a different species can never 100% represent another species of different DNA. For example, decades ago when testing for research was not very regulated and chemicals were not required to be tested on animals (remember no alternatives were relevant at that time either) a devastating outbreak occurred that affected many pregnant women in the United Kingdom in the 1950-1960’s. Thalidomide was a drug created to cure morning sickness, take away headaches, and to end other cold-like systems as well. This drug resulted in many pregnant women wanting to rely on it in order to make them feel better. Once these pregnant women delivered their babies, they noticed their newborns all had missing limbs (Campbell). As a result of this tragedy laws became more strict and people needed a simple, reliable solution to these constant outbreaks because of non-tested drugs so people instantly got comfortable with the idea of animal testing for humans benefit.

Why should you care? Replacing animal testing completely will result in less risks when it comes to finding out whether or not humans are going to react the same way an animal did. Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives (PETA). Animals are born to live the life they were meant to exactly the way humans are, and just because humans believe to be superior over animal lives does not mean that animals have not earned their own rights. How would you feel if you were less superior in a certain situation and someone took advantage of your weakness? Ethically, we all know that that is not okay, so why is that the way we treat animals? Animals have repeatedly proven that their reactions can not always predict human outcome. If animal testing was diminished, society will be able to progress scientifically without something always holding it back. Human beings will be at less risk of responding negatively to something an animal responded well to, also the creation of a more peaceful and respectful relationship between humans and animals will develop. Cruelty-free advocates care for this change because they want to create the best chance for humans and animals to live a healthy and progressive lifestyle.
