Product Testing: Toxic And Tragic :: essays research papers

carrefour trial runing Toxic and Tragic by the PETA Organization     This is an article create verbally by one of the most passionate and reliable sources of animal(prenominal) rights, called PETA (People For the estimable Treatment of Animals). I do not wantto dumb experience the information in this article, but I exit try not to drone on. This articlespeaks of how people seek cosmetics on animals, the ethics of it and alternatives to harvest-festivaltesting on animals.     First, there argon test called Eye Irritancy Tests. These tests observe out(p) whetherproducts used for or near the eyes will agony ones eyes. These animals, usually pikas, argonfirst locked into these headlocks where their heads protrude out and their bodies behind.Then, without using any form of anesthesia, the product, whether it be liquid or powder, isliterally dropped in these rabbits eyes. They hold open the eyes of the rabbit with somesort of hook. Then t hey record the results of these tests such as inflammation, bleedingand deterioration. The rabbits often break their necks trying to get free from these locks.     Next their is an peachy Toxicity Test, performed on a group of test animalsranging in size. Usually what they will do is force a tube into the animals stomachs or cuta hole into their throats. Then they will force a substance in through those ways. Otheroptions are that they could inject the fluid through the skin or a vein. These tests are to seehow these fluids would effect humans. The scientists look for results like bleeding,diaherra, convulsions and skin eruptions. There is also another test linked to this onecalled the Lethal Dose Test. These tests are unreliable.     The article then tells of how these methods are legal, but very fatal for animals. Inthis section such controversies like how the Food and Drug memorial tablet (FDA)requires only that each ingredient in a co smetics product be "adequately substantiated forsafety" prior to marketing or that the product control a warning label indicating that itssafety has not been determined. Which means these test results do not guarantee oursafety. Testing on animals could be solely bogus for are we know.     There are alternatives to animal testing. For seven years, the cruelty-free callerpetitioned the American Dental Association gave a seal of approval to Toms of Mainetoothpastes. Toothpaste companies (like varan and Gamble) were performing lethaltests on rats in order to be legal for the ADA seal. The scientists would brush rats teethfor more than a month, then kill the animals and examine their teeth under a microscope.