Non Animal Testing Research Paper

Animal testing for cosmetic products and substances should be banned completely because of the benefits there is to non-cosmetic animal testing. According to People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, “A variety of cell-based tests and tissue models can be used to assess the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). This means a new form of technology allows researchers to replace animal testing with human skin cells and tissues that can be used to determine the safety of a substance. The use of vitro testing technology or Epiderm is more accurate than animal tests because of the cultured human cells. This system accurately detects the substances that hurt the human body, while traditional animal testing has a higher percentage rate of
New England Anti-Vivisection Society observes that non-cosmetic animal testing is more economical and practical. Traditional animal testing for chemicals can take up to 5 years per substance and can cost millions of dollars. Non-animal testing alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals at the same time and also cost less than traditional animal testing (“Benefits of non-animal testing”). Basically, New England Anti-Vivisection Society is saying alternatives to non-animal testing takes half the amount of time and money to complete than traditional animal testing. The determination of the tests results take up to four hours the most, while traditional animal testing often takes three to four weeks to come in. It could take years for researchers to test only once substance on an animal, while non-animal testing alternatives can test multiple substances at once and retrieve faster results. Cruelty Free International states, “Crude skin allergy tests in guinea pigs only predict human reactions 72% of the time. But a combination of chemistry and cell-based alternative methods has been shown to accurately predict human reactions 90% of the time (“Alternatives