Words of Wisdom:

"Dont ever give up on your hopes" - Bubu

Animal Testing

  • Date Submitted: 08/19/2010 06:55 PM
  • Flesch-Kincaid Score: 49.3 
  • Words: 282
  • Essay Grade: no grades
  • Report this Essay
Many beauty companies such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, L’Oreal, Johnson & Johnson and Sheseido have been conducting crude tests on rabbits, rats and other animals.

One commonly used test, known as the lethal dose 50, involves force-feeding of animals until half of them die. These animals often suffer from severe abdominal pains, bleeding, convulsions, seizures and/or paralysis.

During another of the frequently used tests, the ‘Draize eye and skin irritancy test’, rabbits are restrained and chemicals dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto their shaved skin. This results in blindness and development of ulcers on the rabbits. In addition, other animals have to endure oozing, irritation in the eyes and abraded skin.

There is certainly no reason why companies need to conduct such cruel and archaic experiments. These tests do not even protect people. A product can still be on sale even if it has blinded an animal! That is because the results of animal tests are irrelevant to humans.

To my astonishment, even food businesses conduct animal testing. Mars, the maker of M&Ms funds decidedly unsweet experiments on rats and mice to determine the effects of chocolate on their blood.

However, it is heartening to know that some beauty companies use non-animal testing methods. These companies include, Lush, The Body Shop, The Face Shop, Revlon and Avon. Meanwhile, some food corporations have pledged not to fund animal testing, like Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Ocean Spray.

Governments are also seeing consumer outrage at animal testing and are taking action as well. European Union recently passed a ban on cosmetics and household-product testing on animals. This has certainly effectively reduced the suffering of animals.

Comments

Express your owns thoughts and ideas on this essay by writing a grade and/or critique.

  1. No comments