FREE ESSAY ON ANIMAL CRUELTY

ANIMAL CRUELTY

Jeff Albrecht
Joseph Aimone
Writing and Rhetoric
13 December 2000
Animal Cruelty
One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in
laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct
painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them not to. Some
people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an
abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who
say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that
God gave us such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has
dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to
scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is worth
killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that the unnecessary
testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative methods 
Albrecht 2
are available. 
The anti-vivisectionists say we should not allow experiments on animals and the animal
utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for
the ultimate good of humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from
treating animals that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and
surgical techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it
right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses,
many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds
of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style? 
Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly healthy animals? Do we
have the right to continue doing experiments over and over again in a needless repetition
and a waste of animals if no new information is going to be gained? Animals suffer
unnecessarily and their lives are pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal
experimentation might never have become so controversial. 
Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70 
Albrecht 3 
million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and mice-suffer and die in
the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of cosmetics, household products and
chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and
deodorant dripped into their eyes or applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and
skin irritancy levels. Other are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as
bleach or soap, in a hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity. Since 1938, The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be
adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the consumer.
However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission ( a regulatory agency
that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.) requires firms to conduct animal
testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic companies use animal tests to insure themselves
against possible consumer lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by
arguing that the cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the
cosmetic industry. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if
it is safe 
Albrecht 4
for the consumer, boggles my mind. If someone placed a piece of lipstick in my eye, I do
believe it would irritate my eye also. How in the name of God does this test prove it is
safe for the consumer? I don't believe lipstick is gong to be used in the eye area,
unless you are an illiterate that can't read directions. 
The Draize Eye-Irritancy Test was designed to assess a substance's potential harmfulness
to human eyes based on its effects on rabbits' eyes. This test was developed in the early
1940s by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This test is typically performed on six
rabbits per substance tested. Technicians restrain each rabbit and place a measured
amount of the test substance in the lower lid of one eye. Usually no anesthetics are
given. the rabbits eyes are than examined at different intervals. If severe injury has
resulted, the rabbits may be observed for signs of recovery for as long as twenty-one
days. Technicians record signs of damage, such as redness and swelling of the conjunctiva
(the sac covering the eyeball), inflammation of the iris, and clouding of the cornea.
Using a standardized scoring scheme, the degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and
cornea are compared to graded 
Albrecht 5
levels of irritations. Scores for each of these parameters are than totaled. Based on the
total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test chemical is classified by the
degree of irritation it causes: none, mild, moderate, or severe. At best, the Draize test
yields a crude measure of a substance's irritancy; it is not designed to yield
information about possible treatments or antidotes. the Draize is inhumane. Substances
such as oven cleaners and paint removers cause obvious pain and suffering. Also, because
animal and humans differ in medically important ways, results from the Draize test do not
necessarily apply to humans. Rabbit eyes differ significantly from human eyes: rabbits
possess a nictitating membrane (a third eyelid) and have a slower blink reflex, a less
effective tearing mechanism and a thinner cornea than humans. These differences make
rabbit eyes more sensitive than human eyes 
to some chemicals and less sensitive to others. The test is unreliable. Several
laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different results.
Manufactures argue that they conduct the Draize test to protect the public from unsafe
products. Since 1986 
Albrecht 6
legislation has been introduced in several states to limit or ban the Draize test for
particular products (especially cosmetics), but no bill has yet passed. 
Another test I like to address is the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (L50) test. This test is a
procedure that exposed animals to a particular chemical in order to yield an estimate of
how poisonous that chemical would be to human beings. Substances tested can include
drugs, cosmetics, household products, industrial chemicals, pesticides and the individual
ingredients of any of these products. The test procedure requires between 60 to 100
animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose of a particular substance. The test
spans a time period from two weeks to sever years, depending on the amount of toxic
chemicals in the product being tested. The animals are observed daily. Since chemicals
are bitter-tasting and have an unpleasant smell, animals refuse to swallow them. The
animals are then forced to swallow the substances in the form of capsules or pellets.
they are also force-fed liquid chemicals by stomach tube, or through a hole cut in the
animal's throat. Some animals die from the sheer bulk of the dosage administered or from
the severe burns they 
Albrecht 7
receive in the throat and stomach from the chemicals used in products such as laundry
bleach and detergents and cologne. There are variations to this test which include
forcing the animal to breathe the substance or applying the substance to the shaved skin
of the animal or injecting the substance into the body, usually the abdomen. The animals
are not provided with painkillers because they may affect the test outcome. Millions of
rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which purportedly
assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Many animals are still suffering
in these useless tests right now. These tests are crude, cruel, and unreliable. Animals
injured in acute toxicity and eye irritancy tests are never treated. If the animals do
not die from the effects of the experiments itself, they are either killed or used for an
autopsy, or, if they are not badly injured, recycled and used for additional tests. 
Since the animals are not treated, these tests provide little useful knowledge for the
treatment of humans who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a
scientific neuro-chemist, states that: Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from
laboratory to 
Albrecht 8
laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of animals, and extrapolation to
humans in questionable.1 Animal tests have failed to provide the clear definition between
harmful and harmless products that they were originally intended to provide. Therefore,
regardless of animal testing, the consumer always becomes the so-called guinea pig for
any new product. 
Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Many companies are working
in fierce competition and dozens of alternative are being developed. Newer and more
sophisticated tests are gradually replacing the Draize test. These alternatives most
often use test-tube, or in-vitro,  methods based on the idea that what happens in the
body's individual cells reflects what happens in intact organs such as the eye. Human
cells can be used in such studies. In addition to in-vitro methods, other potential
alternatives to the Draize test include tests that use computer programs, microorganisms
and other organisms that can't experience pain, and chemical methods to analyze untested
substances. Some of the new tools for assessing eye irritancy are: Neutral Red Assay-
Irritants impair healthy cells' ability to take up neutral red dye. 
Albrecht 9
This test measures the degree of impairment, yielding an index of irritancy. Agarose
Diffusion-Tiny paper discs are coated with a test chemical and placed on a layer of
gelatin. The chemical diffuses through the gelatin and reaches an under layer of healthy
cells. A ring of dead cells around the discs indicates irritation. Eytex- In this test
kit, a specially formulated chemical mixture turns cloudy when exposed to irritants,
mimicking the response of the cornea. Microtox- This test kit contains a bacterium that
can emit light. Substances that inhibit this process are irritants. Topkat-A computer
program estimates eye irritancy by comparing untested chemicals to similar chemicals of
know irritancy. Most of these alternatives are being developed or improved at
high-technology companies. Eytex at In Vitro International, Neutral Red Uptake Assay at
Clonetics, Microtox at Microbies, and Topkat at Health Designs. 
Technical advances to eliminate LD50 testing are also available. More Sophisticated
methods, such as in vitro techniques, are the beginning of the move in the right
direction. In contrast to in vitro methods which use the whole animal, in vitro methods
use only the cells or 
Albrecht 10
tissue of animals or humans. 
Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus sparing animals
lives. When human cells are used ( they are commonly obtained from tissue routinely
discarded after surgery), in vitro techniques are completely humane. Tests using human
cells are more scientifically relevant than those procedures using whole animals or
animal cells or tissue. Other approaches are also being developed, there are computer
programs that estimate the LD50 score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical
and structural properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Companies can
also employ the simple method of selective formulation to avoid D50 testing while more
sophisticated alternatives are being developed. Companies employing selective formulation
use ingredients with safety profiles that have already been established and thereby avoid
the need for any new testing. 
Clearly, animal testing is almost a thing of the past. But, until every animal is free
from commercial testing, we have no time to rest on our laurels. Many companies still say
that animal tests are the most likely to hold up in court if a human is injured by a
cosmetic or 
Albrecht 11
household product and, for that reason, they will struggle to hold on to animal-based
research. We need to continue to to find new and improved alternatives so that we may
preserve the lives and dignity of animals, but can also ensure the consumer of product
safety. Many manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal
tests. the fact that companies are supporting alternatives and reduce animal usage is a
good sign but the fight is clearly not over. 
This project has educated me to be a more caring consumer and I will use buying power to
pressure companies into banning animal testing within the commercial market. I have
learned to write to companies that still test products on animals and let them know that
I would not be buying their products and urge them to choose alternative instead. We must
remember unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in loneliness they
die. You can make a difference, you can be their voice.