|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... The safety testing of chemicals and consumer products probably accounts for only about 10% to 20% of the use of animals in laboratories, or approximately two to four million animals in the United States. Yet the use of animals in safety testing figures prominently in the animal research controversy. It raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, the propriety of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product, the applicability of animal data to humans, and the possibility of sparing millions of animals by developing alternatives to a handful of widely used procedures.
Alternatives are scientific methods that accomplish one or more of the "Three Rs": They replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure, they reduce the number of animals used in a procedure, and/or they refine a procedure so the animals experience less pain, suffering, or discomfort. ...
25 to 50 million animals are experimented on annually in the United States. ...
These were revised and extended in 1986 as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. ...
At the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is a cost-benefit analysis which must be applied before any research project involving animals can go ahead. ... Long before they appear on the shelves of your local supermarket, these products have gone through a long and complex testing process that leaves millions of animals mutilated, burned, poisoned and gassed in outmoded and unnecessary tests.
The manufacturers of cosmetics and household products claim that they perform tests on animals to ensure the safety of their products under customary use or possible abuse when in reality it is to limit the companys liability to its customers in case of a lawsuit.
Approximate Word count = 1396
Approximate Pages = 5.6
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|