# data[].attributes.body
Provides different perspectives on zoos, allowing students to research, analyze arguments, and write from both sides of the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
What the research tells us about four-day school weeks

# data[].attributes.subject
What the research tells us about four-day school weeks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the research tells us about four-day school weeks

# data[].attributes.headline
Four-day school week: Research shows the impact of a condensed schedule varies by school location and student grade level

# data[].attributes.subject
Four-day school week: Research shows the impact of a condensed schedule varies by school location and student grade level

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The four-day school week: Research shows benefits and consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To save money and help recruit teachers, many U.S. school districts have adopted a four-day school week. We look at research on its impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Stereotypic” Behavior in Zoos Reveals Stress and Suffering

# data[].attributes.subject
“Stereotypic” Behavior in Zoos Reveals Stress and Suffering

# data[].attributes.body
An article that lays out arguments for and against children participating in contact sports, suitable for students to analyze and debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“Stereotypic” Behavior in Zoos Reveals Stress and Suffering

# data[].attributes.headline
Experts Agree: Zoos Do More Harm Than Good

# data[].attributes.subject
Experts Agree: Zoos Do More Harm Than Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts Agree: Zoos Do More Harm Than Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the end of the day, zoos are businesses (regardless of how they've financially structured themselves) and zoos care more about profits , than they do about animals. Accordingly, they provide animals with the smallest possible cages, limit access to veterinary care, and do not provide animals with the social companionship that animals need to be happy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most widely used AZA statistics, updated annually.

Annual Survey Results

AZA members (Individual Professional category members and Primary Contacts of Conservation Partner, Commercial, Related Facility and Institution Members) may log in and download the results of the most recent AZA Annual Survey of Members.

Accreditation

237 accredited zoos and aquariums in 13 countries (Updated September 2023)

USA: 213 in 46 states and the District of Columbia

Canada: 7

Mexico: 4

Bahamas: 1

Bermuda: 1

Dominican Republic: 1

Argentina: 1

Colombia: 1

Spain: 1

Hong Kong: 1

Singapore: 2

South Korea: 2

United Arab Emirates: 2

15 accredited related facilities
Accreditation occurs every 5 years
Approximately 25 facilities undergo the accreditation process every 6 months

Types of Accredited Facilities

134 zoos

59 aquariums

9 both zoo and aquariums

16 safari and theme parks

15 science and nature centers

2 aviaries

2 butterfly houses

54% non-profit

35% public

11% for-profit

Animals in AZA-Accredited Facilities

Over 780,000 animals in the care of AZA-accredited zoo and aquarium professionals

Over 8,600 species

Over 800 Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Extinct In The Wild species as categorized by the IUCN Red List

Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Programs

42 Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs)

Nearly 500 Species Survival Plan Programs

AZA Reproductive Management Center

Supports SSP ® programs by monitoring the safety and efficacy of contraceptives used for all mammalian species and helping bring new contraceptive methods to the zoo, aquarium, and wildlife community

AZA Population Management Center

Population planning for 500 species for the next 100 years

Conservation

$252.2 million was spent on field conservation in 119 countries in 2022

232 species and subspecies that benefited are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

$29 million was spent on AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction species programs in 2022

AZA's Conservation Grants Fund

Over $8.7 million supporting over 470 conservation projects since 1991

Economy

In the most recent survey in 2018, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums:

Contributed more than $22.5 billion to U.S. economy

Supported more than 198,000 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Served more than 200 million annual visitors worldwide (183 million in the U.S.)

Informal Science Education

Based on the Education Programs survey data from 2019,

AZA members provided teacher professional development, curriculum resources and free planning visits that reached more than 96,000 teachers

5.5 million individuals were reached through field trips, outreach programs and education resources targeted to K-12 students

124 facilities reported more than 1,200 education programs that include content about connecting to nature, reaching more than 33 million.

(Updated April 2023)

Over 785 zoo and aquarium professionals have completed in-person AZA courses from 2020-present

Almost 250 zoo and aquarium professionals participated in virtual AZA courses from 2021-2022

AZA offers 18 in-person courses that are team-taught by professionals in the field, designed to develop a variety of animal management, education, and leadership skills

AZA's Executive Leadership Development Program prepares the next generation of executive leaders to successfully advance the zoo and aquarium movement in the future. More than 80 leaders have completed the program since 2014, with 27 having been promoted to the role of Executive Director or CEO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Association for Zoos and Aquariums' members, educational programs, and conservation efforts, as well as the kinds of facilities we support.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Schools Have a 4 Day Week? Evidence on Academic Impact and Well-being (2025)

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Schools Have a 4 Day Week? Evidence on Academic Impact and Well-being (2025)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Have a 4 Day Week? Evidence on Academic Impact and Well-being (2025)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if schools switched to a 4-day week? Students could have a three-day weekend every week, while teachers could potentially gain a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think this is okay, then you are not realizing that these animals that they hold in zoos are becoming depressed because they don't have enough space to live a life they deserve. Many people think zoos are a learning opportunity, I agree in a way but there are many different opportunities that you can take instead of viewing animals through a small cage because these animals aren't even acting like themselves. They are being forced to live in such a small environment, some backgrounds are different from others, most are taken from their mothers as babies and others were injured and have to be looked after for the rest of their life because they can't live fully on their own. I agree to the extent that zoos are good assistance to injured animals but they shouldn't be forced into such a small cage, they should be put in sanctuaries that has millions and millions of acres of land where they can roam free as they are being looked after at the same time. Many people do not see this different for what is right or wrong, they look past all of the depressed animals behind bars, because they are too excited to think from the animal's point of view because they have never seen such a mysterious creature and they are blindsided. Zoos are prisons for animals. Do we go to a prison just to view the inmates or would that be weird? Exactly. That is the same concept I am making at this point. You wouldn't view your own species behind bars, then why should you force other species into cages just so that you can see them behind bars for your own use. Its not benefitting all of the animals, some in a way but there are better options than putting animals in zoos.

There are many reasons why animals shouldn't be placed in zoos, according to the article 5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo by Abigail Geer, makes great points on why people should help boycott zoos. The first reason is that zoos cannot provide enough space for each animal. In the wild, these animals have a tremendous amount of space that is never ending. In zoos they are placed on an acre or two per animal. That isn't enough for a wild animal to live on. Second, animals suffer from abnormal behaviors. People come to zoos hoping to experience the whole package of what it feels like being in a different country as if watching these animals in their natural habitat. In reality, most of the animals you see behind the fences are depressed because they are kept in captivity. Zoos do provide the animals with anti-depressants, but is this what people think is right? If this hasn't convinced you then this next reason that Geer states will. Surplus animals are killed. Most zoos state that they are helping animals that are becoming extinct in the wild so they are trying to help reproduce species. Truth is that all the extra animals that are unwanted because zoos were overbreeding, they are killed because they don't have enough space to take care of these animals. Another reason why zoos should be banned is because most animals that are presented at the zoo were once taken from their mother at a small age. They never lived in the wild, so they are not even a good representation of how that animal should act because they didn't grow up in a free environment because they were forced to be in a zoo. So technically the animals that take up the cages at zoos they don't serve an educational purpose because that is not how the animal acts when they are in their actual environment. The fifth reason that will convince you to boycott zoos is that zoos don't serve conservation. Zoos try o hard to make the public believe that when a baby is born that when it grows old it will be released into the wild, but should we really believe them? The answer is no. The baby never knows how to live on its own so they could never just let the baby go on its own even when it does get older. It would know how to take care of itself because zoos do all of it for them, they bring them food and water. In the wild they would have to go hunt for their own food which they would end up starving and dying because they don't know how to do so.

Most people who are pro zoos are blindsided by the excitement of zoos. They never seen a wild creature like this before so they looked passed the sadness in the animal's eyes. An article on the PETA website The reality of Zoos written by Michelle Carr, is an article that supports the reason why zoos are bad for all animals. Carr states that, "I thought being able to see them in person would be neat. But once I saw them "up close and personal," I realized that the animals were miserable. It instantly became very clear to me that the animals imprisoned in zoos are sad and don't want to be kept in artificial environments, have people gawk at them, listen to children who bang on the windows of their enclosures, or have cameras flashing in their faces. To put it simply, zoos are imprisoning animals who want to be free." In this statement, it instantly made me feel guilty from going to zoos when I was little. People need to face up to reality because I know for a fact that everyone has had an experience like Michelle Carr and they need to live up to it and help close zoos down because they are just torturing these animals for their own beneficial use. If everyone became aware of these conditions, then they would proudly help shut them down. Haven't you realized that when you go to zoos you stand there for ten to fifteen minute but they don't move a bit? It's because they don't want to be there. They will never be with their blood family which the animals depend on for their whole life in the wild. They will never know the true meaning of life as if they were in the wild, they will be forced to live in the zoo for the rest of their life with sadness and boredom.

The world needs to come to realize that zoos are bad for animals, PETA explains to us that the animals are on anti-depressants, once an animal outlives their usefulness they are killed, animals are instantly killed if they escape their cages, they transport animals from other countries to satisfy the human eye, surplus animals are mistreated and killed, they will sell animals to circuses or to livestock auctions, they don't have the appropriate veterinarian service they need, and some animals are starved to death. If any one thinks that this is okay in anyway they definitely need to see the difference of zoos and animals in their natural habitat. We need to take action and educate the public before its too late and before they bring in any other animals into their exhibits where they will never be able to step free into the wild ever again. Last Chance for Animals explains to us, "Animals in zoos are forced to live in artificial, stressful, and downright boring conditions. Removed from their natural habitats and social structures, they are confined to small, restrictive environments that deprive them of mental and physical stimulation. While zoos claim to provide conservation, education, and entertainment, their primary goal is to sustain public support in order to increase profits." This is inhumane, there is nothing right about this situation.

There are many problems with zoos because once an animal gets brought in, it can never go out into the wild on their own ever again. Zoos claim they are saving the lives of these animals but they're not, they are torturing them because they don't have a big enough cage to run around and live in a natural way. Zoos take in animals to make money. If we shut down zoos there will be nowhere for these animals to go, unless sanctuaries take them in. Sanctuaries are a good resource when and if zoos go out of business because they are non profit and they promise to take care of the animals till the end of their life. They rescue these animals from abuse and rehabilitate these animals so that they can live a long happy life. Sanctuaries are inspected and they have to meet the guidelines of a true sanctuary according to Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. So this proves that if zoos are forced to shut down they will have somewhere to go, they will have an enormous area to roam free and be taken care because zoos took them from their natural habitat before and can no longer be let back into the wild on their own so they need a back up environment where they wont be in small cages and will not be displayed to the public for others entertainment. A National Geographic article Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals? Written by Rachel Shea states that sanctuaries don't have a sign saying to come in to view our tigers, they don't want to make money, they are just trying to protect these animals so they can have an enjoyable life. Zoo do not try at all to protect these animals, all they want to do is make money off of these animals. We need to find a way to convince the public that there are other ways to view these animals whether it is in person or on television. We do not need to keep these animals hostage so we can satisfy our own entertainment.

Yes, some animals are truly saved by joining zoos because they are in bad shape but they don't deserve to be in a small cage getting viewed by the public as they are making their way to recovery. They deserve to be in sanctuary so that they are protected by the ones who actually want to help and not make money off of them, instead they are protect their rights as animals and doing anything in their power to make sure they are living a life they deserve.

Here are some ways that you could learn about exotic animals without going to zoos, you watch documentaries or travel around the world volunteering at animal sanctuaries. You are not invading their space, you are helping them but not to the point to where they are depressed. They have a lot of open space, they are able to run freely, but they still receive the help they need. If you watch a documentary you are watching them from a screen in their natural habitat without taking them from their home, you see how they truly act and you'll get a more valuable experience from watching them from a TV because they are happy and energize instead of in a corner suffering because they are not with their family living the life they truly deserve.

Animals deserve to live free. They do not deserve to live in a small cage their whole life. No one on earth could stand being in a cage everyday of their life, being viewed by others to satisfy others. They don't get to roam free anymore. Their freedom is taken away from them at such a young age, so young they never experienced the true life as a regular wild animal. So lets put a stop to this and boycott Zoos.

Work Cited

Geer, Abigail. "5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo." 5 Reasons You Should Boycott The Zoo | Care2 Causes. Care 2, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Carr, Michelle. "The Reality of Zoos." PETA. PETA, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Editors of the Site. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Shea, Rachel. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

User, Super. "Last Chance for Animals - Zoos." Last Chance for Animals - Zoos. LCA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

@peta. "13 Times Zoos Were Bad for Animals." PETA. PETA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Healy, Patrick. "Giraffes, Towering and Otherworldly, Are 'Vulnerable' to Extinction." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Dec. 2016. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

"Zoos." Animal Cruelty - Zoos. Vegan Peace, 2015. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Grade Reading List on Researching Debatable Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why zoos sometimes kill animals? | DW Documentary

# data[].attributes.headline
Chimps use branch as ladder to escape Belfast zoo enclosure

# data[].attributes.subject
Chimps use branch as ladder to escape Belfast zoo enclosure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chimps use branch as ladder to escape Belfast zoo enclosure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Breakout is second in recent weeks after runaway red panda found in a nearby garden

# data[].attributes.headline
4-Day School Weeks May Have Diminishing Returns for Teacher Recruitment

# data[].attributes.subject
4-Day School Weeks May Have Diminishing Returns for Teacher Recruitment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4-Day School Weeks May Have Diminishing Returns for Teacher Recruitment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders need to consider wider teacher pools when deciding whether to adopt four-day weeks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shorter school weeks? Study finds 4-day weeks may not help all students

# data[].attributes.subject
Shorter school weeks? Study finds 4-day weeks may not help all students

# data[].attributes.headline
Would You Switch Your Kid to a 4-Day School Week? - Today’s Parent

# data[].attributes.subject
Would You Switch Your Kid to a 4-Day School Week? - Today’s Parent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would You Switch Your Kid to a 4-Day School Week? - Today’s Parent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fewer lunches to make and less time spent dragging kids out of bed. A four-day school week is an interesting idea, but would it actually work for your family?

# data[].attributes.headline
The 4-day school week is on the rise, but is it the best move?

# data[].attributes.subject
The 4-day school week is on the rise, but is it the best move?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 4-day school week is on the rise, but is it the best move? Experts weigh in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many U.S. districts are shortening their schedules. Here are the 4-day school week pros and cons from educators and parents in the know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What’s your opinion? Cast your vote in this debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Summary of the Effects of Captivity on Orcas

# data[].attributes.subject
A Summary of the Effects of Captivity on Orcas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Summary of the Effects of Captivity on Orcas

# data[].attributes.headline
California bill would ban orca shows at SeaWorld - CNN

# data[].attributes.subject
California bill would ban orca shows at SeaWorld - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california bill would ban orca shows at seaworld - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California bill would ban orca shows at SeaWorld - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A California state legislator wants to ban the orca killer whale shows at SeaWorld, in the wake of CNN's controversial documentary "Blackfish."

# data[].attributes.headline
Zoologist: Orcas will decline in wild | CNN

# data[].attributes.subject
Zoologist: Orcas will decline in wild | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoologist: Orcas will decline in wild | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brooke Baldwin talks with animal trainer and zoologist Grey Stafford about the benefits of holding orcas in captivity.

# data[].attributes.headline
How plastic bags were supposed to help the planet - BBC News

# data[].attributes.subject
How plastic bags were supposed to help the planet - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How plastic bags were supposed to help the planet - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
lastic bags are considered an environmental evil because plastic waste wreaks havoc. We see it on our streets, in our rivers and lakes, on our beaches; and in our deepest oceans. It is estimated that there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050. Let us not be as foolish as to think that it will stay there. After it is eaten by fish and marine life, causing significant damage, it will enter the bodies of anyone who eats them. Many environmental scientists and activists are calling for a complete plastic bag ban.

Responding to the call, policymakers in many countries have passed local laws, banning plastic bags. City governments in several Asian countries, including Pakistan, are on the warpath against plastic shopping bags. But this misses the point.

People do not object to using biodegradable bags and consider them a welcome return to the traditional practice of using shopping baskets and bags made from locally available materials that are less harmful to the environment. What needs to be remembered is that plastic bags were made for a purpose and were designed to satisfy a need. Thin plastic can do many things that paper and other substitutes for plastic cannot. Indeed, there are ways in which thin plastic may be more beneficial than the substitutes.

Plastic bags are widely appreciated for wrapping food, water and other liquids. They are also helpful as a protective lining for rubbish bins, a protective wrap for delicate clothing material, or temporarily sealing roof and tap leaks. Further, thin plastic is lightweight, can withstand heat and cold, can hold up over time, and is cheap and easy to mass-produce. Therefore, it is unsurprising that this revolutionary product is present in almost every aspect of modern life.

These and many other functions make the plastic bag a versatile and practical invention of the 20th Century. Another advantage of the plastic bag is that it is reusable. Although some plastic bags are too thin for reuse, the solution is to manufacture more robust and durable plastic film bags, not discard them altogether.

One reason that plastic film bags are widely seen as an environmental nuisance is that most are non-biodegradable. But if they were manufactured from biodegradable material - such as the bioplastics that are now being produced in some European countries - the main reason for banning them would disappear.

Lilia Casanova, a former deputy director at the UN Environment Programme says that "even with a change of material, there is no guarantee that environmental damage from plastics would stop. This is because the evil is not in the material used but in the behaviour of those who do not know or do not care" about how to dispose of the product.

Another reason is the very property that makes plastic so dangerous: its durability and long lifespan make it a great asset. A material that will not die or be destroyed for five hundred years is valuable. We can reuse it almost endlessly. A material that can be constantly recycled is an excellent help to ecology and the economy, especially when the human population is proliferating and our lifestyle demands are increasing exponentially. The problem is not plastic per se. The problem is using it irresponsibly. The solution is not to ban plastic but to ensure that it is used responsibly and appropriately recycled.

While demonising plastic, regulators cannot ignore the contribution to the economy of the thin plastics industry. The plastics industry generates hundreds of thousands of jobs in Pakistan alone. Policymakers in many countries are now realising this fact. Australia, for example, has decided to reduce high-density polyethylene (HDPE) thin plastic bags but not ban those because of the negative impact it would have on employment. A plastic-free planet should not only be for the privileged but also provide solutions and alternatives for many who depend on this cheap, lightweight and accessible material.

It is important that in a rush to become plastic-free, we do not turn to unsustainable or damaging alternatives. For instance, the plastic bag ban in Islamabad and some other parts of the country invited non-woven bags to infiltrate Pakistani markets quickly. Although non-woven bags look and feel like cloths, they are made of polypropylene, a kind of plastic. They are non-eco-friendly and non-biodegradable, as hazardous to health and the environment as plastic bags. They have now been declared plastic in Uttar Pradesh, India.

The plastic industry fools the public into believing that these bags are made of cloth. These bags put even more pressure on the waste stream as they are heavy and not easily recyclable.

Similar studies have suggested that paper shopping bags often carry a larger carbon footprint than plastic shopping bags as they are less likely to be reused. A reused plastic bag's carbon footprint is significantly lower than a paper bag's. Indeed, if not adequately managed, paper can be a worse polluter than plastic bags; it occupies nine times as much space in landfills and does not break down substantially faster than plastic.

The answer to the problems associated with thin plastic bag use is not a ban but better management. Managing plastic bags means knowing how to use and store them properly so that they can be reused many times and knowing how they can be recycled when their useful life has ended.

There is a need to develop and propagate guidelines on how to use, maintain, reuse, recover and recycle plastic bags. Recycling technologies for thin plastic bags are now widely available. A comprehensive economic policy framework must be created to streamline and commercialise plastic recycling. The government is responsible for raising social awareness about responsible use and recycling.

A circular economy can recast our plastic problem into a sustainable solution. A systemic change is needed where resources are valued, redesigned, recycled and reused. Once we can create a market (value) for plastic and show people that plastic is precious (rather than waste), there will be no plastic waste anywhere. Plastic bottles are already being collected and recycled. A blueprint for transforming "waste into money" is the need of the hour.

Banning plastic bags implies that those are useless and disregards their practical functionality, convenience, durability and affordability. There is no real, cost-effective, and versatile substitute for plastic bags in packaging. It is the misuse and improper disposal of plastic bags that is causing harm to the environment, not the product itself. A total ban on plastic bags will raise bigger problems than the world is currently facing. It will not save the environment from the negative effects of a "throwaway" culture.
The writer is an associate professor at the Department of Economics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic should be managed, not banned | Political Economy | thenews.com.pk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A material that can be constantly recycled is an excellent help to ecology and the economy

# data[].attributes.headline
How dangerous is plastic bags for our environment?

# data[].attributes.subject
How dangerous is plastic bags for our environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
7 Serious Effects of Plastic Bags Causing Environmental Pollution
When you purchase something, like food or clothes, the shopkeeper will normally pack them for you in a plastic bag. Once you get home, you'll throw the plastic bag in the litter outside. This is the most common way that plastic bags end up creating a threat to the environment.

While plastic bags are very useful in our daily lives, and we apparently can't do without them, they have a significant contribution to wildlife deaths, environmental pollution, human health hazards, and other harmful impacts.

1. Plastic bags are non-biodegradable
Plastic can take up to 1000 years to completely decompose in landﬁll. In fact, all the plastic bags that have ever been manufactured still linger in the environment. That means we will never live to see the decomposition of the plastic.

2. Death of animals

Death of animals

As per recent servey plastic kills 1 million sea birds annually, and that plastic entanglement alone kills an estimated 100,000 marine animals(including birds, fish, sharks, sea turtles, and more) every year.

For example, sea turtles mistake floating plastic shopping bags for jellyfish. These sea turtles risk destruction partly because of consuming extreme amounts of plastics. Plastic can't be digested properly and hence will build up in the stomach leading to the animal's death.
3. Plastic bags are made from petroleum products
Production of plastic takes 50-100 million barrels of oil from the world's petroleum reserves. Therefore, plastic contributes significantly to the reduction of this valuable resource, making the prices of petroleum products to rise every passing day.
4. Toxic chemicals are released during plastic manufacturing
Ingredients of plastic bags include a plethora of carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and hormone-disruptive chemicals. Some of these chemicals are also released as by-products of plastic making. When released, they eventually end up in our ecosystem through the water, land, and air pollution.
5. Massive accumulations of plastic bags block drainage systems

Plastic bag accumulations are one of the most frequent causes of drainage system clogging. Developing countries are the most precious with this problem.

Best example of this impact is the floods that hit Bangladesh about two decades ago. There was a wide blockage of drainage systems, which was partly attributed to plastic shopping bags.
6. Plastic bag chemicals can affect reproduction in women
Certain chemicals are used in the manufacturing of plastic bags, especially BPA, act in the same way as oestrogen. In the long run, these chemicals may obstruct with hormonal balance in women and affect reproduction.

Furthermore, studies have linked BPA to breast cancer in animals. This chemical has also been allied with thyroid issues and neurologic disorders in humans.

7. Plastic bags result in the pollution of groundwater
The plastic bags in the dumpsite will normally release chemicals that leak into the ground, ending into the groundwater reservoirs. Then, the harmful effects of plastics would be passed through the ground to our bodies through the plants we consume and the water we drink.

While many of people believe that groundwater is safe for drinking, the truth is far from that. Therefore, evade drinking groundwater unless it has been treated for human consumption. Otherwise, you will be ingesting a lot of poisonous substances.
Conclusion:
Although plastic is becoming a danger for all of us, still this problem has often been unnoticed and underestimated. This is because people do not look at the enduring effect of these small, easy to carry bags they use in their everyday life. But now everyone has to fully stop using the plastic bag and start using Jute or Cotton Bags to save our environment and earth. We are one of the top jute bag manufacturers and exporters in India. In our online store, you can find an end number of new designs as providing custom Jute bags according to your needs is our passion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How dangerous is plastic bags for our environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disadvantages of using plastic bags, drawbacks of using plastic bags, Harmful effects with plastic bags, How dangerous is plastic bags for our environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic retail bags - the kind you get from your grocer or at the corner store - are being targeted for bans and taxes in communities around the country, regardless of the unintended consequences. Bans and taxes have a negative impact on working families and seniors on fixed incomes, but they don't help the environment in any meaningful way-in fact they can cause bigger problems.

Banning and taxing recyclable, reusable products doesn't make sense, even in the most well-intentioned scenarios. Keep reading to find out why.

Environment
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. Find out the surprising green truth for yourself.

Recycling
Plastic bag recycling is simple and effective, thanks to thousands of recycling drop-off locations across the country.

Jobs and Economy
Bag bans and taxes make trips to the grocery store more expensive, especially for low- and fixed-income families - with no meaningful impact on the environment to back them up. They also threaten thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Health
Be mindful with your reusable canvas and non-woven bags. Without frequent washing and appropriate storage, reusable bags can harbor dangerous bacteria.

Reuse
Nearly 90% of Americans reuse plastic bags. What do you do with yours?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bans and taxes have a negative impact on working families and seniors on fixed incomes, but they don't help the environment in any meaningful way-in fact they can cause bigger problems.

# data[].attributes.headline
Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs

# data[].attributes.subject
Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bag Recycling and Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal testing | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Animals, Testing, Science, & Cosmetics | Britannica

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal testing | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Animals, Testing, Science, & Cosmetics | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal testing | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Animals, Testing, Science, & Cosmetics | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

# data[].attributes.headline
Cosmetic Animal Testing Is Cruel – But There Are Alternatives

# data[].attributes.subject
Cosmetic Animal Testing Is Cruel – But There Are Alternatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year millions of animals fall victim to human vanity, thanks to the many cosmetic products that are still safety tested using living animals. These victims of testing suffer as chemicals are applied to their skin, injected into their bodies, and placed on their eyes, all so that we can have our favorite shade of lipstick or scent of deodorant. Thankfully, this doesn't have to be the case. In response to increasing public awareness surrounding the issue, numerous countries have already taken steps toward banning both animal testing and the sale of products that have been tested on animals.

What Is Animal Testing in Cosmetics?

Shampoos, makeup, hair dye, and deodorant are just a few examples of cosmetics that might be tested on animals. Animal testing in the cosmetics industry is typically done to ensure the safety of the products and their ingredients. In most countries around the world, whether products are tested on animals is up to the manufacturer.

The History of Animal Testing in Cosmetics

Animal testing rose to prominence in the United States in 1938, following the signing of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act into law. The new law required that cosmetic products be safety-tested before being sold. This change drove the widespread use of animal testing by cosmetics companies. The Draize irritancy tests, which expose the eyes and/or skin of subject animals to harsh chemicals, were developed in 1944 and quickly became the gold standard for the safety testing of cosmetics.

In 1980, campaigners successfully ended Revlon's use of Draize testing. The Leaping Bunny cruelty-free certification program was launched in 1996 in Canada and the U.S., following a cooperative effort by a number of animal protection organizations. Shortly thereafter, in 1998, the United Kingdom banned animal testing for all cosmetics and ingredients.

The 2000s saw a lot of progress in reducing animal testing of cosmetics around the world. The ICCVAM Authorization Act (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods) was signed into law, committing U.S. government agencies to a concerted effort to consider alternative methods of safety testing that do not involve animals. Meanwhile, the European Union passed a law that phased out the production and sale of cosmetics tested on animals. In Japan, the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods was established. Israel took the step to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 2007 and strengthened the rule in 2013 by banning the sale of any cosmetics that have been tested on animals. Also in 2013, Norway banned both animal testing of cosmetics and the sale of products that have been tested on animals.

Successes continued over the next several years and in 2014/15 India, São Paulo, Brazil, New Zealand, Turkey, and South Korea implemented bans of various types on animal testing and animal-tested products. This movement continued to gain momentum, and corporations began to take greater notice. In 2018 and 2019 several large cosmetics companies such as Unilever announced their support for the #BeCrueltyFree campaign. Several countries and U.S. states have recently begun passing bans or partial bans on animal testing and animal-tested cosmetics.

Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics Still Happening?

Unfortunately, animal testing is still taking place. In the U.S., the decision of whether or not to test cosmetics on animals is largely left up to the manufacturing company. In the European Union, there is a conflict of laws and regulations between requirements on safety testing to protect workers and a directive to avoid animal testing unless absolutely necessary, causing confusion for companies seeking to market their products in the region. China required animal testing for cosmetics being sold within its borders up until 2019. Since then progress has been made and testing is no longer required for most cosmetic products, whether produced domestically or internationally.

What Cosmetics Tests Are Performed on Animals?

Dermal Penetration

The purpose of dermal penetration testing, also called skin absorption testing, is to determine the impact of a chemical when applied to the skin. Animals, typically rats, have their backs shaved and various chemicals spread across their bare skin. The rats are then killed at various times in order to analyze their blood and tissue for changes related to the chemicals. These tests can be done effectively using in vitro methods, which do not involve entire animals but rather parts of living organisms such as cells.

Skin Sensitization

Like skin absorption testing, skin sensitization testing consists of the application of chemicals to the skin of animals. Instead of being interested in the absorption of the chemicals being tested, skin sensitization focuses on the response of the skin, specifically any allergic reactions that take place. There are several methods of performing skin sensitization testing without the use of live animals.

Acute Toxicity

Acute toxicity testing generally consists of animal subjects being exposed to a chemical once. The chemical can be given orally, on the skin, or inhaled. The goals of such testing are to determine the amount of danger that exposure to the test substance has, and any organs that are particularly impacted by the substance, as well as which species are at greatest risk.

Draize Test

The goal of Draize testing is to determine the level of irritation that a chemical can cause when exposed to one's eyes. Chemicals are directly placed into the eyes of the test animals to evaluate their response. Rabbits are most commonly used for this test due to their large eyes and the ease with which they can be handled.

Skin Corrosivity or Irritation

Skin corrosivity and irritation testing is an umbrella term used to refer to a variety of cosmetics animal tests including the Draize test. These tests have largely fallen out of public favor due to their ineffectiveness in translating to humans as well as their use of live animals.

What Products Are Tested on Animals?

All cosmetic products can be tested on animals. This is why it is important to intentionally search for and purchase those that don't use animal testing for their final products, or for the ingredients that are used in production.

Why Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics Bad?

Using animals for testing cosmetics causes a large amount of pain and suffering. Aside from this, however, animal testing also lacks efficacy. In fact, animal testing predicts human applications only 40 to 60 percent of the time, whereas there are alternative testing methods available that successfully translate from testing to people 80 percent of the time.

Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics Even Necessary?

Animal testing for cosmetics is unnecessary due to scientific advancements in safety testing, which have created new and more effective alternatives. Animal testing also isn't practical: it's a long and costly process for safety testing that could be performed more quickly and cost-effectively using other in vitro methods.

Cosmetics Animal Testing Facts and Statistics

In the U.S., 68 percent of respondents to a nationwide survey were aware of animal testing of cosmetics and 67 percent opposed the practice.

Most U.S. citizens would feel safe using cosmetic products that have not been safety tested on animals.

In Canada in 2020, over 5 million animals were used for research, teaching, and testing. The most frequently used were birds, mice, and fish.

What Are the Alternatives to Animal Testing?

In vivo testing is that which utilizes entire animals or living organisms. Alternatives include in vitro, which uses parts of animals or cells to achieve the same goals. Testing on humans is another alternative to animal testing but is widely acknowledged to be unethical.

Cosmetics Brands That Test on Animals

While it is important to research your favorite brands to determine whether or not they are tested on animals or use ingredients that are tested on animals, lists of some popular brands that still employ animal testing are available. Included on this list are Always feminine hygiene, CeraVe skincare, Johnson & Johnson skincare, and Redken haircare.

Where Can I Buy Cruelty-Free Products?

With the increasing knowledge and popularity surrounding cruelty-free products and testing practices, finding items that have not been tested on animals has become a lot easier. In fact, many cruelty-free brands and products can be acquired from drugstores such as CVS Pharmacy or larger retailers such as Target or Walmart. A good first step in ensuring the products we use are cruelty-free is to research those we like the most. Though labeling can sometimes be deceptive, another good step is to seek out specific cruelty-free logos and certifications that are associated with specific guidelines.

The Road Ahead

Animal testing is an outdated method of testing the safety of cosmetics. In addition to causing vast amounts of suffering for millions of animals around the world, it also fails on efficacy and economic viability. Thankfully, the popularity of cruelty-free products that use other methods of safety testing has been rising with more and more governments banning the sale of animal-tested products and the use of animal testing.

Sentient Media Podcast: Dr. Aysha Akhtar on the End of Animal Testing These Big Brands Still Test Makeup on Animals Why Do Humans Still Experiment on Animals?

Grace Hussain

Grace is an animal advocate with a passion for social justice within the animal protection movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Animal Testing in Cosmetics and Why Is It Bad?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year millions of animals fall victim to human vanity, thanks to the many cosmetic products that are still safety tested using living animals. These victims of testing suffer as chemicals are applied to their skin, injected into their bodies, and placed on their eyes, all so that we can have our favorite shade of lipstick or scent of deodorant.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal testing in the cosmetic industry. What should you know? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal testing in the cosmetic industry. What should you know? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Guinea pig", a commonly used term, evokes negative associations. It refers to experiments carried out on vulnerable animals that are unaware of the dangers. "Animal testing" invites equally pejorative opinions. The term means that some animal species (mammals, birds or amphibians) are used for specified scientific or research purposes. Animal testing is conducted both in the cosmetic industry and in other branches such as the pharmaceutical, medical, biochemical and chemical industries.

If products are tested on animals as a prolonged and repeated activity, it usually involves the following:

the need to keep individual animals from each species in isolation,

the discomfort and suffering of the animals,

a high probability that the tested animals will lose their health or life.

In the 20th and 19th centuries, cosmetic companies that entered the market would extensively use animals. At present, we witness major changes in the philosophy of animal protection regarding their presence in test laboratories.

How do Polish and EU laws regulate the testing of products on animals?

Testing of cosmetics on animals in the light of the law

There is an ongoing quest for alternative and safe methods to test cosmetic products and their ingredients. Poland and the European Union have entirely banned testing cosmetics on animals. For laws regulating the issues of animal protection, see e.g.:

the amended Act of 15 January 2015 on the protection of animals used for scientific or education purposes,

Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the animal testing ban of 2013.

In Europe, it is forbidden to sell or distribute cosmetics that have been tested on animals. High penalties also apply to dishonest manufacturers or importers who attempt to market prohibited ingredients.

Based on the figures shared by the Polish Union of the Cosmetics Industry, over 40 countries all over the world have established legal regulations to ban the trade of cosmetics tested on animals.

What is the Cruelty-Free certificate?

In order to provide labelling for safe and legal cosmetics, the US organisation PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has introduced the Cruelty-Free certification.

A certificate with a characteristic bunny symbol is given to those companies that have undergone a stringent quality control and proven their products are not tested on animals. The certificate is valid all over the world - it can be given to any company which complies with law and ethical rules concerning the treatment of animals.

On which animals are cosmetics tested?

Cosmetic labs in the world use specific animal species. On which species are cosmetics most frequently tested? The most commonly chosen animals include:

In some countries, such as China or the United States of America, it is still very popular to test cosmetics on rabbits. Despite numerous information campaigns and efforts to change the law, primates are also used in experiments by international cosmetic companies.

What cosmetics are most frequently tested on animals?

Few people are aware how cosmetic testing is carried out. Laboratories all over the world treat vulnerable creatures in an inhumane manner. Animals are usually used to test and evaluate:

the effect of different preparations (creams, gels, perfumes, soaps, shampoos etc.) on the skin and mucosa of animals and

the probability of allergic reactions, diseases and other conditions following the contact with a cosmetic.

During lab experiments, animals are immobilised or kept in cages, causing their discomfort, stress and even chronic diseases and death.

Why is testing cosmetics on animals controversial?

There is no doubt that animals that cosmetics have been tested on are no longer fully healthy. The contact with new and unknown substances causes hair loss, pain, skin lesions, loss of appetite and apathy. Prolonged contact with chemical mixtures, creams, gels and antiperspirants causes chronic illnesses in some animals. Artificial ingredients applied to their skin on and off make animals kept in labs lose their health irrecoverably.

As the consumers' awareness grows, people become much more interest in the fate of animals and how they are treated in laboratories. People ask increasingly what role living creatures play in the production of cosmetics and to what extent it is legitimate to use them. The animal testing procedure arouses controversy all over the world. Even the greatest cosmetic brands of an international coverage abandon animal testing and opt for new and innovative technologies.

Testing of cosmetics on animals: pros and cons

Despite the ban on cosmetic animal testing applicable in the European Union, medical and pharmaceutical companies use experiments on a great scale. Many scientists believe that animal testing is the only effective method to evaluate the quality and safety of different products and their ingredients. This position is mostly due to the fact that we, the humankind, have not yet developed any alternative tests for cosmetics, drugs etc. that would be equally effective.

Opponents of animals testing resort to ethical issues. In their opinion, people have no right to endanger the health and life of other species of living creatures for their own interests. The major issue that gives rise to objections is the use of animals in cosmetic labs. Can the production and sale of cosmetics be conducted at the cost of animals suffering? We should ask this question to ourselves when reaching for another trendy cosmetic or dietary supplement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal testing in the cosmetic industry. What should you know? - PCC Group Product Portal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal testing arouses controversy and is already partially banned. How is it conducted and why does it give rise to so much doubt? Read more in the article "Animal testing in the cosmetic industry. What should you know?" On the PCC Group's blog!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

Animal testing is a hot topic in the food, medicine, and cosmetics industries. The conversation seeps into other sectors, like fashion and cleaning products. It is commonly agreed that harming creatures isn't aligned with environmentalist ideals, but are there pros and cons to animal testing?

To uncover the truth behind the argument, you must understand the logistics behind executing an animal test - whether for medicine or fashion - and the technology these experts have available to them. Explore the subject's nuances and if there are any ways to justify the practice.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing encompasses any test, whether chemical, medical, or anything in between, that is performed on animals instead of humans. It is for research purposes, usually during product development, such as formulating a new medication or testing the irritants of a perfume.

The food industry may give test products to animals sprayed with new pesticides to see how they impact animals biologically similar to humans. The possibilities are comprehensive and versatile, but does that make them ethical?

Most animal testing occurs in containment in laboratory settings. Animal testers must abide by specific regulations. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture governs them. They work alongside the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for enforcement. However, the primary law they look to is the Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966. It encompasses everything from testing methods and transport. These are some of the basic tenants animal testers must follow:

Refer to an animal care board

Have veterinary programs

Ensure qualifications of those practicing on animals

Have adequate safety and reporting tools for animal welfare

Do these guidelines make animal testing a viable option? Not necessarily. The act does not cover rats, mice, and birds - most animals used in animal testing. Let's dive into the pros and cons of animal testing, starting with some arguable pros.

The Pros

These are the most prominent arguments those in favor of animal testing make, despite potential evidence for the contrary.

It Saves Human Lives With Medical Advancement

Numerous vaccines and medications throughout human history became what they are today from animal testing. Everything from cholera to polio had animals leading the charge to save millions of human lives. It is not just vaccines and medications - they also advanced surgical procedures, like organ transplants and other body part replacements. Biomedical research would not be the same without it.

Animals Also Benefit from Research

Medical advancements happen to more than just humans. Animal testing can improve the health and livelihoods of animals, extending their life span. For numerous diseases and ailments that impact both humans and animals, researchers can manipulate discoveries to help all parties involved.

The Cons

The saturation of animal rights and environmentalist education is revealing the catastrophic cons of animal testing. Do any of them outweigh the potential pros?

There Are Plenty of Alternatives to Animal Testing

The technology humans have nowadays has rendered live animal testing obsolete. First, medical researchers can run paid testing scenarios with humans or ask for willing volunteers. Humans can provide consent that animals cannot, allowing them to continue living in their habitats unharmed for the benefit of humans.

Additionally, doctors can test product reactions using in vitro methods, analyzing how small pieces of tissue and even human cells react without needing a wholly live participant. The results would appear with relative accuracy - especially when animal testing has debatable accuracy and replication abilities.

There is also software now that leverages AI, machine learning, modeling, and related resources to execute scenarios and determinations well with near-infinite data. The knowledge of ingredients with details on human and animal biology requires no live participants - saving labs countless money and hours in wasted experimentation.

Humans and Animals Are Not the Same, Causing Waste

Despite how the media portrays animal subjects as biologically similar, that is not the only similarity required for in-lab tests to translate to human subjects. The National Institute of Health revealed that 95% of novel drugs that went through animal testing fail application to humans. For example, medication tests for ailments such as Alzheimer's and sepsis have a near 100% failure rate.

The percentage reveals how much time and research funds are wasted on experiments that do not yield results. The amount of waste in products, resources, energy, labor, and animals is toxic for the environment and an objectively poor business model.

Encourages Animal Cruelty in Captivity

It is the most significant and powerful argument in the conversation. Despite rules and regulations, it is impossible to make animal testing objectively humane. Even if the lab and housing conditions when away from testing are comfortable, it does not excuse the potential pain and suffering countless animals have endured to benefit humans. It includes but is not limited to, being exposed to toxic substances or being force-fed.

Over 110 million animals die in the United States alone yearly from animal testing, and this does not include other nations in the world that have mandatory animal testing for most products, including makeup.

This is especially true for non-essential products, like cosmetics. For example, testing makeup on animal fur could cause topical irritation or burning, irreparably damaging the coats that keep them safe and warm. It is why the Leaping Bunny symbol came into existence, only branding cosmetics with its signature if the company proves it is cruelty-free and does not engage in animal testing.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons for a Healthier Environment

The animal testing conversation is heated, but when looking at the big picture, it is possible to eliminate it for biodiversity and animal welfare - primarily for non-essential, non-medical purposes. Research and development in related industries will need adjustments, but harming animals like this is questionably effective when compared to how it will affect humans.

To help the planet thrive, humans should seek alternative ways to formulate products, including medicine. Exploring technology is the best way to keep animals safe and healthy while empowering humans toward medical advancement and safe and refined consumer products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing - Environment Co

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pros and cons of animal testing is one of the longest-standing arguments for eco-friendly allies. Which side is the winner?

# data[].attributes.headline
12 Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing On Cosmetics

# data[].attributes.subject
12 Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing On Cosmetics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing On Cosmetics | PDF | Animal Testing | Cosmetics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal testing on cosmetics has both advantages and disadvantages. The key advantages are that it helps ensure consumer safety by identifying harmful chemicals and allows researchers to study product safety through trial and error. However, it also faces significant criticism because animals can experience inhumane treatment and pain during tests, it is costly, and in some cases passes drugs that end up harming humans despite not proving essential to medical advances. Overall, there are reasonable perspectives on both sides of this complex issue.

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 14 May 2024 | *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
The pros and cons of animal testing are both important to understand but unfortunately, neither offers a definitive answer to please everyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is animal testing good? Benefits of animal testing

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is animal testing good? Benefits of animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is animal testing good? Benefits of animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unstoppable advance of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry has increased the volume of animal experimentation. Animal testing is crucial in Drug Discovery and Development, bridging in vitro research and human clinical trials.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Testing : Should Animals Die in the Name of Beauty?

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Testing : Should Animals Die in the Name of Beauty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing : Should Animals Die in the Name of Beauty? | dr. Kamilah Jaidi | TEDxTSM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month SeaWorld announced it would stop breeding orcas, but how does the company respond to claims that the animals can never thrive in a tank?

# data[].attributes.headline
Marineland Antibes: Fate of orcas left uncertain after zoo shuts

# data[].attributes.subject
Marineland Antibes: Fate of orcas left uncertain after zoo shuts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marineland Antibes: Fate of orcas left uncertain after zoo shuts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Campaigners, politicians and zoo managers disagree on where Wikie and her son Keijo should be sent.

# data[].attributes.headline
SeaWorld Kills: Imprisonment in Amusement Parks 

# data[].attributes.subject
SeaWorld Kills: Imprisonment in Amusement Parks 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SeaWorld Kills: Imprisonment in Amusement Parks | TeachKind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Captivity hurts orcas! Use this lesson to introduce your students to the hidden lives of orcas who are used for entertainment.

# data[].attributes.body
oi pessoas

# data[].attributes.headline
Animals in Zoos: Condemned to a Life Behind Bars

# data[].attributes.subject
Animals in Zoos: Condemned to a Life Behind Bars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animals in Zoos: Condemned to a Life Behind Bars - PETA Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The most important way to save animals from imprisonment is to simply stay away from zoos – and urge everyone you know to do the same.

# data[].attributes.body
tchau pessoas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

# data[].attributes.body
bom dia

# data[].attributes.body
Eu odeio essay

# data[].attributes.body
queria ser desse grupo

# data[].attributes.body
should plastic bags be banned: acho que sim

# data[].attributes.body
should zoos be banned: acho que sim

# data[].attributes.body
<- quem escreveu isso

# data[].attributes.body
quem escreveu isso? concordo

# data[].attributes.body
então vc tambem sabe escrever?

# data[].attributes.body
should orca shows be banned: acho que sim

# data[].attributes.body
<- quem escreveu isso

# data[].attributes.body
oi

# data[].attributes.body
oxi

# data[].attributes.body
opa

# data[].attributes.body
brazililli

# data[].attributes.body
OxENTE povo doido da poxa

# data[].attributes.body
SANDOVAX