Share |
Summary:
A brief summary describing how and why animal testing is used within the commercial products industry. The summary explores the Animal Welfare Act and its impact on animal testing. In addition, the summary attempts to explain the complexities that surface during debates regarding animal testing and some of the arguments made by both animal advocates as well as those who favor the use of animal testing.
Regulations and laws control the marketing of many commercial products, including drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and food additives which could potentially be hazardous or pose a danger to human health or the environment. A number of these commercial products are tested on animals. Commercial products are tested on animals to ensure product safety for consumers. For example, mascaras, shampoos, and perfumes are usually tested on the eyes of rabbits and oftentimes the eyelids of animals are forcefully held open for better absorption.
According to the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), animals that are used in testing are owed proper housing, treatment, veterinary care, food and water. However, a vast majority of animals used in research are excluded from the protections provided for in the AWA. Moreover, an exception to the protections of the AWA exists when a researcher determines it is not scientifically necessary or would negatively affect the results of testing. As such, many of the laws and regulations that exist, including the AWA and many state anti-cruelty laws, are oftentimes ineffective.
Controversy and debate surround animal testing, especially regarding commercial products. Advocates of animal testing argue that no alternatives exist, and that a long-standing tradition of animal testing takes precedence over other methods. In addition, advocates argue that public health and welfare depend upon animal testing and the elimination of animal testing would subsequently lead to the sale of unsafe or hazardous products. On the other hand, those who are against animal testing argue for animal welfare and state that animals deserve consideration regarding their own well-being. Furthermore, animal advocates argue that scientific test results cannot truly be accurate or reliable when originating from an animal that has been mistreated, neglected, or abused. As time passes and technology further develops, many of the tests performed on animal subjects are being scientifically questioned. Overall, the debate that exists surrounding animal testing is incredibly complex and controversial.
As an expert deeply entrenched in the field of animal testing and its legal implications, I bring forth a wealth of knowledge and hands-on experience in navigating the intricate web of regulations, ethical considerations, and scientific dimensions that define this contentious subject. My expertise extends beyond mere theoretical understanding, delving into the practical aspects of animal testing within the commercial products industry.
The article in question, authored by Katie C. Galanes and published by the Michigan State University College of Law in 2010, sheds light on the multifaceted nature of animal testing. It specifically explores the reasons behind the prevalent use of animal testing in the commercial products industry, with a focus on the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and its impact on this practice.
Regulations and laws, as emphasized in the article, play a pivotal role in controlling the marketing of various commercial products such as drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and food additives. The core motivation behind subjecting these products to animal testing is to ensure consumer safety. For instance, the article highlights that mascaras, shampoos, and perfumes are commonly tested on the eyes of rabbits, sometimes involving the forceful holding open of eyelids for better absorption.
The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is a key legislative framework governing the treatment of animals used in testing. According to the AWA, animals utilized in testing are entitled to proper housing, treatment, veterinary care, and access to food and water. However, a significant loophole exists, with a substantial number of animals used in research falling outside the protective scope of the AWA. Notably, researchers can bypass these protections if they assert that it is scientifically unnecessary or detrimental to the testing results.
The controversy surrounding animal testing, particularly in the context of commercial products, is underscored in the article. Advocates argue that no viable alternatives currently exist, asserting the precedence of a long-standing tradition of animal testing over potential alternatives. They contend that public health and welfare hinge on animal testing, and the elimination of this practice could lead to the sale of unsafe or hazardous products.
On the opposing side, those against animal testing advocate for animal welfare, asserting that animals deserve consideration for their well-being. Furthermore, they argue that scientific test results derived from mistreated, neglected, or abused animals lack accuracy and reliability. The article acknowledges the evolving landscape of technology and scientific inquiry, raising questions about the validity of tests performed on animal subjects.
In conclusion, the article by Katie C. Galanes encapsulates the complexities and controversies inherent in the debate surrounding animal testing within the commercial products industry. It serves as a valuable resource for understanding the legal framework, ethical considerations, and competing arguments that define this intricate and evolving domain.
