Currently in New Zealand there are no known companies testing their cosmetic brands on animals, though according to SAFE Shopper, they believe that in the future "if companies are able to 'prove' that there is a need to test their product on animals, the National Animal Ethica Committee can allow said testings to start. SAFE are now petitioning to prevent any further cruelty to animals in the testing of cosmetic and/or household products in New Zealand and internationally.
There are three main tests used on animals to generate new household and cosmetic concoctions.
CARCINOGENICITY
This test applies a certain substance to animals to discover whether or not cancer can develop in the usage of the product. Unwillingly, the animals are fed ingredients of the product to which scientists then watch over and see if any cancerous type symptoms occur/appear. After this happens, the animals is then 'put-down' and cut open to further inspect their organs for any more consequences from the ingredient.
THE LETHAL DOSE TEST
The Lethal Dose test begins with a particular group of animals (all the same) and given a substance, which can either be given orally, inhalation or through a tube into the stomach, then will slowly cause symptoms such as abdominal pains, vomiting, paralysis and convulsions before dying. This test is often performed on smaller animals such as, mice, guinea pigs and rabbits, I personally think this is senseless and immoral due to the fact that the amount of animals use in this experiment are in the hundreds and the amount of substance given to them is cruel.
(Evidence)
THE DRAIZE TEST
This test is mainly used on rabbits when a certain substance is applied to either their eyes, ears and/or mouths to determine whether or not the consequences result in swelling or ulceration. Rabbits are used because they cannot produce the same tears as humans can, (human tears can dilute certain substances when in the eye), this means that the substance can remain in the rabbit's eye rather than be cleaned out.
(Evidence)
These tests are carried out all over the globe on hundreds of thousands of animals. The tests mentioned above help assure the customers that this product is safe for human use, however the known product came to be sold. There are larger companies in the world who develop such cosmetic and household products with the use of animal testing, who then import their product into New Zealand which gets sold here.
Hi Shelby,
ReplyDeleteYou've got a lot of information here and you've obviously done a lot of research, which is great. I think it's good that you decided to focus on cosmetic testing and distinguish it from medical testing, as I think this will help you to focus your argument.
A couple of things which might be helpful to think about though:
"Currently in New Zealand there are no known companies testing their cosmetic brands on animals"
This might need a little clarification - do you mean no companies who supply products to New Zealand, or no New Zealand companies? My guess is the latter because L'Oreal/Gilette have been pretty notorious in the past for their animal testing.
Also, you have a lot of information about the tests themselves. While this is relevant to your argument and you need some of this information, maybe it'd be good to cut down the amount of description of tests and focus more on the actual debates which go on about these tests. For example, are there people who argue that the animals used aren't capable of perceiving pain the way humans are so we can't consider the tests as cruel as we would if they were performed on humans? And then is there research showing that the animals DO perceive pain in a similar way?
I totally agree with your outlook, but maybe it just needs a bit more of the back and forth of the debates rather than just straight information.
Good post, though!
Hi Shelby, I totally respect your choice in topic and agree with everything you have said so far. You have a lot of information about the tests themselves but I'm wondering if this is relevant to your argument as opposed to the results of the test. I agree with Julia's above comment about your outlook but maybe its needs more solid debate rather than just straight information. Hope this helps you :)
ReplyDeleteDear Shelby, i totally love your blog and i totally agree for what you said. However,i believe you need to debate bit more for your argument. :) Goodluck
ReplyDeleteHello Shelby
ReplyDeleteGreat topic. enjoyed reading it. you know your content really well. and i know you have done a lot of research to come up with all this information. However you need to go deeper in your argument. This is what I thought. Otherwise your argument was very good. Job well done.
Hey Shelby,
ReplyDeletea few weeks ago you asked me if I was for or against animal cruelty (I still stand by my answer and reason). Your blog just further affirmed for me that some people can be cruel and animal testing is a big NO NO. It doesn't matter what purpose these animals are being 'tested' for, the fact remains these animals are hurt in the process. I always think what if the roles were reversed?
Thanks :)