As public safety is of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer from for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The testing of new products on animals is controversial. Some people claim that in view of public safety, it is essential to test these new products on animals. These people

also

feel that

instead

of putting human

life

at risk, it is better for a few animals suffer by untested products. I completely agree with

this

statement.

Firstly

, few animals has the same genetic configuration as that of humans.

Hence

their manifestations are similar to the humans.

For instance

, injection insulin is a

life

saving drug for diabetics. It was released to the public, only after testing on animals for immediate and delayed manifestations. Perhaps, millions of people would have succumbed to diabetes, if

this

life

saving drug was not tested on animals.

Therefore

, to attain utmost safety for millions of people any new drug or product must ensure adequate testing on animals, which are genetically similar to human genome.

Secondly

, humans are allergic to certain chemicals and they are prone to anaphylactic shock, which can cause death instantly.

For example

, certain untested perfumes or deodorants can result in severe

life

threatening allergic reactions.

Moreover

, if some animals are sacrificed while testing, it has indirectly saved lives of thousands of people. Because,

such

products will not be released into the market. Overall, humans can be at risk, if they are using products, which are not tested adequately. In conclusion, many human lives can be protected, if the new products undergo prior adequate animal testing.

Finally

, harming few animals is better than risking the human

life

.