Anti Animal Testing
Heart Breaking Truth: Band This Brutal Testing Regardless of efforts to either reduce or eliminate using animals for purposes of testing consumer products, it relatively continues unchanged. While the federal government does not require animal testing to ensure that such products like hair spray, toothpaste, cosmetics, and laundry detergent are safe for consumers. Nowadays, animal testing is a subject that often occurs. Some people think it is needed in research, meanwhile others think it is not allowed to sacrifice animals for particular sciences. In some cases, companies can improve their products by testing it on animals, leading to a better life quality and more satisfied customers. However, the graphic scene was that our cherished animals were used in such a harmful way. The companies such as P&G (Proctor and Gamble) are continue to attempts at convincing consumer that they have practically eliminated inhumane practices. Moreover, consumer attentions on such products have had led to an impact on the elimination of animal testing because they know the truth behind. If we said we profess to love our pets, then it seems to me that the only
…show more content…
The federal government does not have an obligation that animal testing is required in consumer products. Then, what is the point of us continue doing it when alternatives have existed for years? Since 1981, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has organized efforts to both reduce and eliminate the use of animal testing. Also, CAAT was responsible for the development of a program to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing that was adopted by the NIH through the Revitalization Act of 1993. This act is specifically commanded that all scientific efforts that employ animal testing follow the example of CAAT (CAAT, 2014). However, oversight that to ensure adherence to the Revitalization Act is virtually impossible because it's due to a lack of
The federal government does not have an obligation that animal testing is required in consumer products. Then, what is the point of us continue doing it when alternatives have existed for years? Since 1981, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has organized efforts to both reduce and eliminate the use of animal testing. Also, CAAT was responsible for the development of a program to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing that was adopted by the NIH through the Revitalization Act of 1993. This act is specifically commanded that all scientific efforts that employ animal testing follow the example of CAAT (CAAT, 2014). However, oversight that to ensure adherence to the Revitalization Act is virtually impossible because it's due to a lack of