# data[].attributes.body
This article is about both pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 11 Mar 2023 | *Discuss

There are many pros and cons to the practice of animal testing. Unfortunately, neither seem to fully tip the scale to a side that pleases everyone - including the general public, government and scientists.

Pros or Postives of Animal Testing

1. Helps researchers to find drugs and treatments:
The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more.

2. Improves human health:
It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.

3. Helps ensure safety of drugs:
Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing trials on humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved - not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.

4. Alternative methods of testing do not simulate humans in the same way
Scientists typically use animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to humans. As such, researchers do recognise the limitations and differences but the testing is done on animals because they are thought to be the closest match and best one with regards to applying this data to humans.

Cons or Negatives of Animal Testing

1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity:
In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity.

2. Some substances tested, may never be used for anything useful:
The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice, as it seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred.

3. It is very expensive:
Another con on the issue of animal testing is the price. Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. There are companies who breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them.

4. Animals and humans are never exactly the same:
There is also the argument that the reaction of a drug in an animal's body is quite different from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is unreliable. Following on that criticism is the premise that because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation.

Personal Choice

While there are numerous pros and cons of animal testing, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them, which means that emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in whether a person believes the benefits of animal testing outweigh the problems associated with the practice.

For more information about the ethics of animal testing on this site, read the following features:

1. The controversy of animal testing
2. Medical treatments that have been found as a result of animal testing
3. Medical trials on humans.

External Resources

Read around the subject at external sites - here are two very good resources:
The BBC education page on animal ethics The Government legislation relating to animal testing
You might also like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 11 Mar 2023 | *Discuss There are many pros and cons to the practice of animal testing. Unfortunately, neither seem to fully tip the scale to a side that pleases everyone - including the general public, government and scientists.

# data[].attributes.body
About Europes ban on animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Specifically, it establishes

a testing ban - prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals

a marketing ban - prohibition to market finished cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU which were tested on animals

The same provisions are contained in the cosmetics regulation, which replaced the cosmetics directive as of 11 July 2013.

The testing ban on finished cosmetic products applies since 11 September 2004. The testing ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients applies since 11 March 2009.

The marketing ban applies since 11 March 2009 for all human health effects with the exception of repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and toxicokinetics. For these specific health effects, the marketing ban applies since 11 March 2013, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests.

History of the ban

Review of the 2013 implementation deadline of the marketing ban

According to article 4a (2.3) of the cosmetics directive, the European Commission was required to analyse whether one or more of the complex tests covered by the 2013 marketing ban would not be developed and validated before 11 March 2013 for technical reasons. In the case that alternative methods would not be made available, the Commission had to assess whether to make a legislative proposal in relation to the 2013 marketing ban.

First, the Commission assessed the availability of alternative methods to animal testing by 2013. A technical report was prepared, based on wide scientific expertise, subject to a public consultation, and coordinated by the Commission's Joint Research Centre. On the basis of this technical report, the Commission reported to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in September 2011 that alternative methods would not yet be available by 2013.

Second, the Commission carried out an impact assessment to assess whether to make a legislative proposal given that the full replacement of animal tests by alternatives was not yet possible. A targeted stakeholder consultation was carried out between 7 December 2010 and 15 April 2011.

Commission communication of 11 March 2013

On 11 March 2013, the Commission finalised the review process by adopting a Communication on the animal testing and marketing ban and the state of play of alternative methods in cosmetics. This communication confirmed the Commission's commitment to maintaining the 2013 deadline and outlines how it intended to further support research and innovation in the area while promoting animal welfare worldwide. In addition, the EURL-CVAM technical report 2013 provides a more detailed overview of progress made in the development, validation, and regulatory acceptance of alternatives.

The adoption of the Commission Communication was announced in a press release and additional background information was provided in a questions and answers document.

The communication was accompanied by an impact assessment consisting of

Commission reports

Report (2018) on the development, validation and legal acceptance of methods alternative to animal testing in the field of cosmetics

Report (2015-2017) on the development, validation and legal acceptance of methods alternative to animal testing in the field of cosmetics

Report (2013-2015) on the development, validation and legal acceptance of methods alternative to animal testing in the field of cosmetics

European cooperation

European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods

The European centre for the validation of alternative methods ( ECVAM) plays a key role in the development, validation, and international recognition of alternative methods which reduce, refine, or replace the use of animals in testing. It is hosted by the Joint Research Centre's institute for health and consumer protection (IHCP) located in Ispra, Italy. Since 2011, ECVAM has become the European Union reference laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM), established under Directive 2010/63/EC on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

EURL ECVAM progress report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods prepared in the framework of the cosmetics regulation

ECVAM activities: EURL ECVAM survey on in vitro methods for estimating human hepatic metabolic clearance/stability

ECVAM hosts 2 important databases in relation to alternative methods

TSAR: tracking system for alternative test methods review, validation and approval in the context of EU regulations on chemicals

DB-ALM: database on alternative methods

Research on alternative methods to animal testing

See an overview of research activities supported by the Commission in the AXLR8 progress reports

The SEURAT project is a joined research project between the Commission and the cosmetics industry.

European partnership to alternative approaches to animal testing

The European partnership for alternative approaches to animal testing (EPAA) is a joint initiative between the Commission, European trade associations from 7 industry sectors, and individual companies. It was launched in November 2005 to promote the development and implementation of new 3Rs methods (replace, reduce, refine) and modern alternative approaches in safety testing.

International cooperation

Alternative methods to animal testing are one of the focuses of the 'international cooperation on cosmetics regulation' (ICCR).

An important outcome is the cooperation of international validation bodies in the framework for international cooperation on alternative test methods (ICATM) (27 kB).
Overview on the different activities to elaborate alternative testing methods by OECD
Related documents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban on animal testing - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Specifically, it establishes a testing ban - prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals a marketing ban - prohibition to market finished cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU which were tested on animals The same provisions are contained in the cosmetics regulation, which replaced the cosmetics directive as of 11 July 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
This cite shows questions and anwsers about animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humane Society International

Did you know that in many parts of the world, animals in laboratories are still suffering and dying to test cosmetics such as lipstick and shampoo? They have chemicals forced down their throats and dripped into their eyes and onto their shaved skin. It's the ugly secret of the beauty industry that Humane Society International's #BeCrueltyFree campaign is determined to end.
Q: What animal are used to test cosmetics?
A: We estimate that approximately 100,000-200,000 animals suffer and die just for cosmetics every year around the world. These are rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats and mice. While dogs and monkeys are never used to test cosmetics anywhere in the world, they are used to test other types of chemicals.
Q: What animal tests are carried out for cosmetics?
A Typically, animal tests for cosmetics include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of rabbits; repeated oral force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards, such as cancer or birth defects; and even widely condemned "lethal dose" tests, in which animals are forced to swallow massive amounts of a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death. These tests can cause considerable pain and distress including blindness, swollen eyes, sore bleeding skin, internal bleeding and organ damage, birth defects, convulsions and death. Pain relief is not provided and at the end of a test the animals are killed, normally by asphyxiation, neck-breaking or decapitation. Learn more.
Q: Why do companies still animal test if it's not required?
A: Almost without exception, companies have a choice about whether or not to test on animals. In the majority of cases, animal tests continue because some companies insist on developing and using "new" ingredients. These are ingredients that don't have existing safety data-because they're new! So new safety data has to be generated to satisfy the regulators before a product can go on sale, and that means new animal testing.

Why can't they just use non-animal test methods? Well, they can for many of the test requirements because there are many superior non-animal tests available. But there aren't non-animal test methods available yet for every single test area that needs to be performed for new ingredients. That's because for so many years the development of non-animal tests simply hasn't been seen as a priority, and developing new non-animal methods takes time. We'll get there for sure, but we're not there yet. So where there are test gaps, animal tests are performed.

If companies simply stuck to using the many thousands of existing cosmetic ingredients available, they would never have to animal test. That's how cruelty-free companies work!

Animal testing also continues in the cosmetics industry because of convention-that's the way it's always been done, animal tests are familiar even if they're flawed. Regulators, whose job it is to approve cosmetics for use, tend to be very conservative in their approach and can delay approving a product if the manufacturer provides safety data based on unfamiliar non-animal test methods. HSI works with companies and regulators to increase their understanding and acceptance of modern non-animal test methods.

Some companies claim that they have to test on animals because they sell their products in countries like China where animal testing is still required by law for companies importing into the country. But this isn't really true. They have chosen to sell in China knowing that to do so will mean new animal testing. Truly cruelty-free companies such as LUSH and Paul Mitchell have pledge not to sell in China until the animal test law is changed.

Take action and donate to help us stop the suffering.
Q: Do these animal tests have scientific limitations?
A: Yes, animal tests have well-known scientific limitationsbecause different species can respond differently from each other (and importantly, differently from people) when exposed to the same chemicals. This means that results from animal tests may not be relevant to humans, under- or over-estimating hazards to people. Animal test results can also be quite variable and difficult to interpret. Unreliable and non-predictive animal tests mean consumer safety cannot be guaranteed.

This lack of scientific credibility is hardly surprising since most of these animal tests were first devised back in the 1930s, when we had a very basic and crude understanding of how toxicity works in the body, and we didn't understand the importance or extent of species differences on test results.
Q: What are the alternatives to animal testing?
A: Cosmetics companies can stop animal testing immediately and still produce new, safe and exciting beauty products, simply by manufacturing the cruelty-free way. Companies do this by:

Using the thousands of ingredients with a long history of safe use, because these will have existing safety data and require no further testing (animal or otherwise)

Making use of a growing number of advanced non-animal safety tests that can better predict how humans will react to chemicals. More than 40 non-animal tests have been validated for use, and these modern alternatives can offer results that are more relevant to people, often more cheaply and quickly, too. That's because advanced non-animal tests represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer, replacing outdated animal tests that have been around for many decades and haven't stood the test of time. For example, there are a number of skin tests available that use human reconstructed skin, such as EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, as wells as the 3T3 neutral red uptake test for sunlight-induced "phototoxicity", and the Bovine Cornea Opacity and Permeability test for eye corrosion. Find out more.

This is the approach used by the 600+ companies certified as cruelty-free under the internationally-recognized Leaping Bunny program. Find out more about cruelty-free companies.
Q: Have any countries banned animal testing for cosmetics?
A: Yes. Animal testing for cosmetics has been banned throughout the 28 countries of the European Union since 2009. Thanks in large part to HSI's #BeCrueltyFree campaign, the EU also banned the sale of cosmetic products or ingredients subject to new animal testing after March 2013. Israel imposed a testing and a sales ban in 2007 and 2013, respectively. And following a vibrant campaign by our #BeCrueltyFree India team, India also introduced a national test ban in 2013. Most recently our #BeCrueltyFree Brazil team congratulated the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo for introducing a complete cosmetics animal testing ban in January 2014, and #BeCrueltyFree New Zealand achieved a national cosmetics animal testing ban in 2015!

However, cosmetics animal testing remains legal in most other countries. Although many countries don't expressly require such testing, as it is not prohibited it continues to take place at the discretion of cosmetics companies and ingredient suppliers. Thanks to our #BeCrueltyFree campaign teams around the world, we now have legislative bills for a ban under consideration in Australia, Brazil, Taiwan and the United States.
Q: What is HSI's #BeCrueltyFree campaign doing to end cosmetics animal testing?
A: HSI's #BeCrueltyFree campaign is the largest and most effective initiative in the world to end cosmetics animal cruelty. We're advocating for animals by:

Changing laws to ban animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients, and to end the sale of newly animal tested beauty products from anywhere the world

Promoting modern science, championing the development of new non-animal tests and training regulators and companies in their use

Educating consumers, raising awareness about animal testing and how to shop cruelty-free

Working with companies to help them move away from animal testing, and partnering with cruelty-free companies to lobby for change

Building an unstoppable international campaign backed by the public, top companies, politicians and our celebrity friends Paul McCartney, Ricky Gervais, Ke$ha and more.

Q: How can I help?
A: Get involved with these easy actions and help HSI put an end to cosmetics animal cruelty:

Sign the global Be Cruelty-Free pledge to show your support for banning animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients.

Support us by becoming a Lab Animal Defender with our monthly donor program, or make a one-time donation to help us expand our Be Cruelty-Free campaign and save more animals.

Shop-buy only from companies that say no to animal testing and to newly developed and animal-tested ingredients. Download your own Leaping Bunny Global Shopping Guide.

Contact your favorite brands and urge them to make the leap to cruelty-free. Ask whether the company 1) animal-tests its products or ingredients, 2) purchases newly developed ingredients that have been animal-tested by the supplier, or 3) sells its products to countries like China that may require new animal testing. If the answer to any of these questions is yes, put the product back on the shelf.

Make some noise-follow us on Twitter @HSIGlobal and tweet about the campaign using hashtag #BeCrueltyFree. Like us on Facebook, too, and share our news and actions with your friends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humane Society International Did you know that in many parts of the world, animals in laboratories are still suffering and dying to test cosmetics such as lipstick and shampoo? They have chemicals forced down their throats and dripped into their eyes and onto their shaved skin.

# data[].attributes.body
Chow China’s moving away from animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's How China Is Moving Away From Animal Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China is expected to have the world's largest cosmetics market in a few years, but some companies have avoided selling beauty products there. That's because China is also the last major country to require animal testing on many beauty goods, a mandate that puts off some consumers and can harm even non-Chinese sales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A model essay for students to use as a resource to help organize essays.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans.

While some of the experimentation conducted on animals today is required by law, most of it isn't. In fact, a number of countries have implemented bans on the testing of certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics-testing bans in the European Union, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

Millions of Animals Suffer and Die in Testing, Training, and Other Experiments

More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well as in medical training exercisesand curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities. Animals also suffer and die in classroom biology experiments and dissection, even though modern non-animal tests have repeatedly been shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals-who make up more than 99 percent of animals used in experiments-are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted.

Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits' sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.

Taxpayer and Health Charities' Dollars Fund Experiments on Animals

Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to crude, painful tests.

The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and well-meaning donors on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories, instead of supporting promising clinical, in vitro, epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that could actually benefit humans.

A Century of Suffering

Experimenters have tortured animals in laboratories throughout history. " Without Consent," PETA's interactive timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned. Visit " Without Consent " to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

What You Can Do

Each of us can help prevent animal suffering and deaths by buying cruelty-free products, donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, requesting alternatives to animal dissection, demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations, and calling on our alma maters to stop experimenting on animals.

With the help of our members and supporters, PETA campaigns globally to expose and end the use of animals in experiments. Some of our efforts include the following:

This multifaceted approach yields scores of victories for animals imprisoned in laboratories every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right now, millions of animals are locked inside cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The bill, sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and supported by Cruelty Free International and Lush Cosmetics, proposes making it "unlawful for any cosmetic manufacturer to knowingly import or sell any cosmetic, including personal hygiene products such as deodorant, shampoo, or conditioner, in California if the final product or any component of the product was tested on animals" by 2020, or risk being fined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will California Be The First State To Ban Sales Of Animal-Tested Products?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bill, sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and supported by Cruelty Free International and Lush Cosmetics, proposes making it "unlawful for any cosmetic manufacturer to knowingly import or sell any cosmetic, including personal hygiene products such as deodorant, shampoo, or conditioner, in California if the final product or any component of the product was tested on animals" by 2020, or risk being fined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is animal testing?

The term "animal testing" refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals. All procedures, even those classified as "mild," have the potential to cause the animals physical as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in subsequent experiments. Here is a selection of common animal procedures:

Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc.

Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death

Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or "knocking out" of one or more genes

Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification

Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination

Prolonged periods of physical restraint

Food and water deprivation

Surgical procedures followed by recovery

Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing

Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment

Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming

Other manipulations to create "animal models" of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression

Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means

What types of animals are used?

Many different species are used around the world, but the most common include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, and non-human primates (monkeys, and in some countries, chimpanzees). Video: Watch what scientists have to say about alternatives to animal testing.

It is estimated that more than 115 million animals worldwide are used in laboratory experiments every year. But because only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for testing and research, the precise number is unknown. For example, in the United States, up to 90 percent of the animals used in laboratories (purpose-bred rats, mice and birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates) are excluded from the official statistics, meaning that figures published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are no doubt a substantial underestimate.

Within the European Union, more than 12 million animals are used each year, with France, Germany and the United Kingdom being the top three animal using countries. British statistics reflect the use of more than 3 million animals each year, but this number does not include animals bred for research but killed as "surplus" without being used for specific experimental procedures. Although these animals still endure the stresses and deprivation of life in the sterile laboratory environment, their lives are not recorded in official statistics. HSI believes that complete transparency about animal use is vital and that all animals bred, used or killed for the research industry should be included in official figures. See some animal use statistics.

What's wrong with animal testing?

For nearly a century, drug and chemical safety assessments have been based on laboratory testing involving rodents, rabbits, dogs, and other animals. Aside from the ethical issues they pose-inflicting both physical pain as well as psychological distress and suffering on large numbers of sentient creatures-animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions. Similarly, health scientists are increasingly questioning the relevance of research aimed at "modelling" human diseases in the laboratory by artificially creating symptoms in other animal species.

Trying to mirror human diseases or toxicity by artificially creating symptoms in mice, dogs or monkeys has major scientific limitations that cannot be overcome. Very often the symptoms and responses to potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those of human patients. As a consequence, nine out of every 10 candidate medicines that appear safe and effective in animal studies fail when given to humans. Drug failures and research that never delivers because of irrelevant animal models not only delay medical progress, but also waste resources and risk the health and safety of volunteers in clinical trials.

What's the alternative?

If lack of human relevance is the fatal flaw of "animal models," then a switch to human-relevant research tools is the logical solution. The National Research Council in the United States has expressed its vision of "a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines", and science leaders around the world have echoed this view.

The sequencing of the human genome and birth of functional genomics, the explosive growth of computer power and computational biology, and high-speed robot automation of cell-based (in vitro) screening systems, to name a few, has sparked a quiet revolution in biology. Together, these innovations have produced new tools and ways of thinking that can help uncover exactly how chemicals and drugs disrupt normal processes in the human body at the level of cells and molecules. From there, scientists can use computers to interpret and integrate this information with data from human and population-level studies. The resulting predictions regarding human safety and risk are potentially more relevant to people in the real world than animal tests.

But that's just the beginning. The wider field of human health research could benefit from a similar shift in paradigm. Many disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research. Some 300 million people currently suffer from asthma, yet only two types of treatment have become available in the last 50 years. More than a thousand potential drugs for stroke have been tested in animals, but only one of these has proved effective in patients. And it's the same story with many other major human illnesses. A large-scale re-investment in human-based (not mouse or dog or monkey) research aimed at understanding how disruptions of normal human biological functions at the levels of genes, proteins and cell and tissue interactions lead to illness in our species could advance the effective treatment or prevention of many key health-related societal challenges of our time.

Modern non-animal techniques are already reducing and superseding experiments on animals, and in European Union, the "3Rs" principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments is a legal requirement. In most other parts of the world there is currently no such legal imperative, leaving scientists free to use animals even where non-animal approaches are available.

If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?

Despite this growing evidence that it is time for a change, effecting that change within a scientific community that has relied for decades on animal models as the "default method" for testing and research takes time and perseverance. Old habits die hard, and globally there is still a lack of knowledge of and expertise in cutting-edge non-animal techniques.

But with HSI's help, change is happening. We are leading efforts globally to encourage scientists, companies and policy-makers to transition away from animal use in favour of 21st century methods. Our work brings together experts from around the globe to share knowledge and best practice, improving the quality of research by replacing animals in the laboratory.

Are animal experiments needed for medical progress?

It is often argued that because animal experiments have been used for centuries, and medical progress has been made in that time, animal experiments must be necessary. But this is missing the point. History is full of examples of flawed or basic practices and ideas that were once considered state-of-the-art, only to be superseded years later by something far more sophisticated and successful. In the early 1900's, the Wright brothers' invention of the airplane was truly innovative for its time, but more than a century later, technology has advanced so much that when compared to the modern jumbo jet those early flying machines seem quaint and even absurd. Those early ideas are part of aviation history, but no-one would seriously argue that they represent the cutting-edge of design or human achievement. So it is with laboratory research. Animal experiments are part of medical history, but history is where they belong. Compared to today's potential to understand the basis of human disease at cellular and molecular levels, experimenting on live animals seems positively primitive. So if we want better quality medical research, safer more effective pharmaceuticals and cures to human diseases, we need to turn the page in the history books and embrace the new chapter-21st century science.

Independent scientific reviews demonstrate that research using animals correlates very poorly to real human patients. In fact, the data show that animal studies fail to predict real human outcomes in 50 to 99.7 percent of cases. This is mainly because other species seldom naturally suffer from the same diseases as found in humans. Animal experiments rely on often uniquely human conditions being artificially induced in non-human species. While on a superficial level they may share similar symptoms, fundamental differences in genetics, physiology and biochemistry can result in wildly different reactions to both the illness and potential treatments. For some areas of disease research, overreliance on animal models may well have delayed medical progress rather than advanced it. By contrast, many non-animal replacement methods such as cell-based studies, silicon chip biosensors, and computational systems biology models, can provide faster and more human-relevant answers to medical and chemical safety questions that animal experiments cannot match.

"The claim that animal experimentation is essential to medical development is not supported by proper, scientific evidence but by opinion and anecdote. Systematic reviews of its effectiveness don't support the claims made on its behalf" (Pandora Pound et al. British Medical Journal 328, 514-7, 2004).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term "animal testing" refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Tracie McMillan

Executives at pasta giant Barilla recently made a surprising announcement: The company will ban animal testing throughout its operations immediately, and plans to require members of its supply chain to do the same.

"We believe, big time, that this is the right commitment," says Luca Virginio, chief communication officer of Barilla. "Animal testing is absolutely against the way we interpret our role in the society."

But that begs a bigger question: Since when do food companies worry about animal testing?

The answer: Probably more than you think. While animal testing is widely understood to be present in industries like cosmetics and chemicals, its presence in food is less obvious. And that even goes for the leaders of the companies that use it. Take Barilla, whose top executives first learned of the company's tests in a June 9 letter from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights advocacy group.

The letter notes two studies the company had commissioned, both of which involved force-feeding rats to gauge whether durum wheat boosts omega-3s. The intent, says Virginio, was to establish whether consuming wheat might "contribute to the prevention of chronic-degenerative diseases." Noting that "customers around the world-including many PETA supporters-would be surprised and dismayed to learn about this situation," PETA suggests Barilla adopt a policy against "funding, conducting, and commissioning experiments on animals." The tests had been suggested, says Virginio, by an "outside expert," and for top management, the whole thing "was a surprise."

And that's fairly typical, says Justin Goodman, director of PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department. "Most people, even if they are peripherally responsible, know about cosmetics and drug testing," he says. But "even people who work in this area, typically, have never heard of such a thing as a food company doing animal tests."

Meanwhile, food manufacturers and marketers have a strong incentive to develop claims about a food's health benefits: It sells. Consumer interest in healthy eating is increasing around the world, with 65 percent of consumers "moderately or very willing" to pay higher prices for healthier food, according to the Nielsen Global Health and Wellness Survey. (In North America, the willingness to pay more was a bit lower, at 54 percent of shoppers.)

Meanwhile, regulatory agencies have gained an interest in clamping down on unverifiable claims. In 2013, the Fair Trade Commission ruled that POM Wonderful could not market its pomegranate juice as preventing heart disease, erectile dysfunction and prostate cancer, a decision upheld in January by the U.S. Court of Appeals. And that means companies that want to make a hefty health claim need scientific proof.

The bigger question, then, is whether animal testing is the only way to prove health benefits-and here, says PETA, the the Food and Drug Administration is clear.

In an August 2006 letter to the group, agency officials said "a company can substantiate their proposed claim(s) based on data generated from laboratory and/or clinical studies that were conducted solely on humans." FDA representatives confirmed that this remains the agency's policy.

And that, says PETA's Goodman, is why the group is pushing for more companies to join their cause. While a handful of major companies moved ahead of Barilla on animal testing, including Coke and Pepsi, PETA says it's currently waiting for responses from three more: behemoth Kraft Foods, which PETA says has backed experiments that involved force-feeding human fecal matter to mice; Kikkoman, the Japanese soy sauce manufacturer, which the group says removed the knees of mice to mimic arthritis; and yogurt leader Danone, which PETA says force-fed monkeys and pigs.

For Kraft, testing on animals is sometimes unavoidable, and when it is, the company follows all required laws, says spokesperson Michael Mullen in an email. Still, he added, the company is "committed to reducing the need for animal testing."

Kikkoman says it is unaware of a letter from PETA, and Danone were unable to respond to inquiries by press time.

So while your spaghetti may now be animal-testing free, shoppers who are passionate about animal rights issues may want to look into that yogurt, cheese and soy sauce a little more carefully.
Independent journalist Tracie McMillan is the author of The American Way of Eating, a senior fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University, and a contributing political editor at Rodale's Organic Life. Follow her @tmmcmillan.
UPDATE: After this piece was published, Danone indicated that the company has contacted PETA "to work with them and to eliminate animal testing," according to Marie-Laurence Pouviel, a spokesperson for Danone Nutricia Research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One by One, Food Companies Pledge to Quit Animal Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Tracie McMillan Executives at pasta giant Barilla recently made a surprising announcement: The company will ban animal testing throughout its operations immediately, and plans to require members of its supply chain to do the same. "We believe, big time, that this is the right commitment," says Luca Virginio, chief communication officer of Barilla.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro con.org one

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments.

The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and more, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics.
Read More

Pro 2

Animal testing is crucial to ensure that vaccines are safe.
Read More

Pro 3

There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.
Read More

Pro 4

Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways.
Read More

Pro 6

Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
Read More

Pro 7

Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment.

In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.
Read More

Pro 8

Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
Read More

Pro 11

The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing.

A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.
Read More

Pro 12

Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety.
Read More

Con 2

Scientists are able to test vaccines on humans volunteers.
Read More

Con 3

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals.

Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.
Read More

Con 4

Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.
Read More

Con 5

Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.

The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.
Read More

Con 6

Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
Read More

Con 7

Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act.
Read More

Con 8

Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.

94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests.
Read More

Con 9

There is increasing demand for cruelty-free products.

Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, "We can now create a model from human skin cells - keratinocytes - and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells - melanocytes - to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can't do that on a mouse or a rabbit."
Read More

Con 11

The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.

Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun.
Read More

Con 12

Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish.

2. 89% of scientists surveyed by the Pew Research Center were in favor of animal testing for scientific research.

3. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. The US National Institutes of Health announced it would retire its remaining 50 research chimpanzees to the Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System in 2015, leaving Gabon as the only country to still experiment on chimps.

4. A Jan. 2020 report from the USDA showed that in one year of research, California used more cats (1,682) for testing than any other state. Ohio used the most guinea pigs (35,206), and Massachusetts used the most dogs (6,771) and primates (11,795).

5. Researchers Joseph and Charles Vacanti grew a human "ear" seeded from implanted cow cartilage cells on the back of a living mouse to explore the possibility of fabricating body parts for plastic and reconstructive surgery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing | Pros & Cons | ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses.