Arguments for Eliminating The Use of Animal Testing

Bath&Body Works, Aveda, Elf Cosmetics, Lush. These are just a small fraction of the brands that are all officially Cruelty-Free. This means that animals are harmed or killed during the production process of their products. “They vegetate in their cages, which are covered in blood by the poisoning symptoms of the tests, until the moment they die lonely and agonizing”. That is why I, the affirmative side of this debate, affirm the resolution that the FDA should eliminate the use of animal testing. For the purpose of this debate, the terms are as follows: ScienceDirect.com describes the Read-Across method scientists predict the medicine’s effect based off of similar chemicals’ reactions and past experiments In-vitro: safe tests performed in test tubes using human tissues and cells Animal Welfare Act (AWA); “Requires minimum standards of care and treatment provided for certain animals”. My first argument is that animal testing is more expensive than alternative options. (Repeat). Animal testing is incredibly expensive, and this money is coming out of our bank account, as part of our taxes. It is estimated that the US spends somewhere around $13-16 billion PER YEAR, just for animal testing. Crazy, I know. Well, some common alternatives are methods such as Read-Across, advanced computer-modeling techniques and in-vitro experiments.

One piece of evidence for my contention that animal testing is more expensive than alternative options is a quote from SCIENCEDIRECT.com. This article basically stated that between $50 and 70 million were saved because of 261 Read-Across methods being performed, instead of experimenting on animals. A chart found on HumaneSocietyInternational.org shows that the cost for an animal test of sister chromatid exchange costs around $22,000. On the other hand, the in-vitro method tests only cost $8,000. The majority of these in-vitro tests are not only cheaper, but also more reliable and effective than. The new technology and equipment has allowed scientists to create an artificial skin, like a human’s, and test the certain chemical or product. And, at a much cheaper price.

Not only are these new options more cost friendly, but they results are also more efficient and quicker. “Faster testing times helps bring products to market quicker, so manufacturers can see a return on their investment sooner. Animal-free testing also reduces costs by reducing the need for animal purchasing, housing, feed and care”. So, as you can see, all of these alternative methods are significantly cheaper than animal testing. My second argument is that animal testing is an act of harm and cruelty to the animals being tested on. As you probably already know, when animals are used for testing, they are constantly being prodded and poked at. These animals spend most of their time in horrible pain, feeling miserable. “U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited - and pain-killers are not required”.

These experiments and tests are a form of abuse and torment to the innocent animals. Many of the animals being tested on end up developing some kind of abnormal behavioral disease and some of the animals start to pace in constant. Animal testing comes with many harms and inherencies. One of the most obvious harms, is a physical harm. In this picture, the skin on the back of the mouse has been cut open and it is being held open with a clear window. This allowed observers to watch the blood circulation of the mouse. A report stated that all of the animals who had this procedure done to them had experienced an incredibly painful and slow death. They lived for a very short period of time and died in excruciating pain. Secondly, the monetary harms. As I stated earlier, animal testing comes with great monetary expenses. Out of all animal tests done, only around 5% of them are overall successful. So the other 95% of experiments that fail most likely result in the loss of life and also a lot of money. One gap inherency in the status quo has to do with the Animal Welfare Act, or the ACA. “This law excludes roughly 95 percent of the animals tested upon...and provides only minimal protection for the rest”.

It is estimated that more than 100 million animals die per year from animal testing. With the ban of animal testing, money, time and the lives of innocent animals would be saved. It is for these reasons and more I urge an affirmative vote.

Works Cited

1. Iding, Carolin. “Stop Animal Testing - Close the Laboratory of Pharmacologyand Toxicology Hamburg.” Change.org. Change.org, PBC, Web. 26 October 2019.
2. “Animal Welfare Act.” Nal.usda.gov, Web. 26 October 2019.
3. Stanton, Kathleen. “Quantifying the benefits.” ScienceDirect.com, 7 September 2016. Web. 26 October 2019.
4. Humane Society International. “Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing.” HSI.org. Humane Society International, 23 October 2012. Web. 26 October 2019.
5. “The Many Benefits of Using Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Invitrointl.com. InVitro International, Web. 26 October 2019.
6. “Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories.” PETA.org. PETA, Web. 26 October 2019.
7. “17 Pictures That Sum Up Animal Testing.” PETA.org. PETA, Web. 26 October 2019.
8. “Federal Laws and Agencies Involved With Animal Testing.” ALDF.org. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Web. 26 October 2019.