then who do we believe? Essays -- essays research papers fc

The Ultimate Dilema   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are several safety precautions that we as humans take to ensure our safety. Humans most commonly test things before selling or using them. This can avoid liability and make sure products are safe. Cosmetics are among the many types of products that are being tested such as fragrances, toiletries, and cosmetics that are tested on millions of animals each year. This has created several controversies between animal rights activists and cosmetic manufacturers. Especially in the European Union Council of Ministers where they want to ban animal testing as soon as they can develop enough alternatives (Milmo, 6). This is because several animals are used in experimentations to test if products are safe for us to use. Tests like the Draize Irritancy and Skin Tests, where products are put in the eyes of rabbits to test irritations, and the LD50, where several animals are exposed to a chemical are considered ways of torture. But luckily several corporations are discover ing new and reliable ways to replace animals with science and technology to help reduce the amount of animals used. So because testing on animals are absolutely necessary for our safety, as consumers, we do not have the right to use animals in this type of manner, but we should reduce the amount of tests by replacing many with alternatives.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although this seems wrong, it is the ultimate necessity for human safety in cosmetic use. Animals have been used in cosmetic safety testing primarily because they share similarities to humans. They are quick and easy to use because they live short lives and are easily accessible. Most animals are raised only for testing, and experimentation is really all that they know. So they really are not taken out of their natural habitat for testing. Testing has been so important to corporations because they are trying to avoid being branded as unsafe. Testing also has been so important that they help avoid liability lawsuits and bad publicity from unsafe products (Hunter, 30).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It all started in 1933 when a woman wanted to thicken her eyelashes. But after applying the dye to her lashes and accidentally to her eyes, she suffered for about three months. This woman, that the Federal Drug Administration calls â€Å"Mrs. Brown†, eventually went blind. Congress then passe... ...re are so many alternatives available now there really should not be a reason why a corporation would not reduce the amount of animals used. The newer techniques offer chances to obtain data faster, less expensively, and more humanely (Hunter, 26).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Works Cited Anthes, Gary H. â€Å"P&G Uses Data Mining to Cut Animal Testing.† Computer World 33 (1999): 44-45. Finsen, Lawrence, Susan Finsen. The Animal Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne, 1994. Fox, Michael Allen. The Case For Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. London: University of California Press Ltd., 1986. Hunter, Beatrice Trum. â€Å"New Alternatives in Safety Testing.† Consumer Research Magazine 83  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  (2002): 26- 30. McCoy, J.J. Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1993. Milmo, Sean. â€Å"Ultimate Showdown Looms For Animal Tested Cosmetics.† Chemical Market Reporter 261 (2001): 6, 28. Planet for the Taking Series: Ultimate Slavery: Dir. Nancy Archibald. Film Incorporated. .   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚