Before 1938, there was no technique or law to regulate the safety of cosmetic, so that animal experimentation was used as an effective way to test and determine the
of products before the cosmetic was sold. According to Human Society International (2013), two hundred and thousand animals have to endure pain and death just for cosmetic every year around the world. The issue of making
this
method illegal still is a subject of much controversy. From my perspective, it is essential that animal experimentation should be prohibited globally since it is unethical and dispensable.
Firstly
, the advocate of
this
experimentation would argue that cosmetic products have to meet specific functions and requirements on beauty improvement; and due to the similar structure of animal with human body, they are supposed to be the most optimal test subjects that can firmly ensure the safety standard of production.
This
point seems to have certain surface values.
However
, on a thorough examination, it is nothing but a mere discrimination against the accuracy and legitimacy of
this
approach. The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) both indicates that
this
method is poor scientific practice and can be erroneous owing to its misleading animal models and obsolete technique.
Moreover
, with the cutting-edge technology, alternative experiments are currently developing to examine the ingredient in makeup production rather than these unnecessary and poisoning tests. Some advanced and practical solutions for
this
issue were shown by Maxwell, et al.
2008)
such
as “ Chemical Reactivity; Peptide Reactivity; Epidermal Disposition/Tissue Bio availability; Epi -dermal Inflammation; DC activation and T-cell proliferation “.
Besides
this
, Drs. MacLennan and Amos in “Cosmetics and Toiletries
Manufacturers and Suppliers”
also
invalidate the feasibility to correlate data from animal to human by virtue of their fundamental differences. Because of these reasons, cosmetic companies and brands should entirely adopt non-animal methods for their
progress.
Secondly
, the opponents of banning animal testing
also
maintain that some species
may not have strong feelings and emotion like humans because of the
in consciousness. While it is true that animal is made anaesthesia during testing progress, it is hardly acceptable that they still have to suffer from toxic chemicals and serious diseases, which can lead to day-to-day damaged organ system before they ultimately die. A
further
research found that with a view to guarantee each particular function of products, animal
are usually interfectedSuggestion
is usually interested
are usually interested
are usually intersected
are usually interfaced
by heavy metals, skin burned, maimed, brain damage, blinded and other invasive procedures in these lethal experimentations.
Act, Tenneriello, Koppisch, & Fagan, 2014).
Furthermore
, these unreliable tests are evaluated to be barbaric and inhumane
their primary purpose merely for appearance improvement. As the research of
Society International (2013) mentioned above, millions animals are slaughtered each year just to create huge profits for cosmetic companies. Because of all the injury that living creatures have to undergo, these cruel experiments should be limited.
Nowadays, both citizens and government have to take legal actions to restrict
this
kind of experiment in order to protect the survival of the animal.
For instance
, a large number of countries, especially in the EU, laid down some rules that prohibit on the sale and transport of cosmetics animal-tested in 2013.
In addition
, consumers of cosmetic should purchase cruelty-free products like: Lush, Cosrx or The body shop in order to encourage many alternative methods that science has to offer.
By means of conclusion, government should combine with cosmetic companies to put an end to these cruel experiments. It is widely believed that animal tests should be performed just in
have no alternative choices and for medical purposes.
This
method needs to be banned widely to partly guarantee the survival of species.