ANIMAL TESTING ——THE PRO’S AND CON’S

KAT - CELINE JUNE 24 | 2014

COLLEEN MAYO-PANKHURST

LET’S START WITH A FEW QUESTIONS.

• Why do you think animal testing occurs?

• What do they use them for?

• Do you believe animal testing is ethical? Unethical?

THE PRO’S

• To advance scientific understanding

• As models to study disease

• To develop and test various forms of treatment

• To protect the safety of people, [animals] and the environment

SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING

• Adding to scientific knowledge through basic biological research helps us understand how living things tick, and apply that understanding for the benefit of each individual, be it human or animal alike.

• Many basic cell processes are similar in all animals, and many state how it’s comparable to humans due to sharing the functions of breathing, digestion, movement, sight, hearing and reproduction.

• A great deal of knowledge of the body’s anatomy and functions stems off of animal research; comparing different species (differences and similarities) is a way to gain insight.

• Even simple animals can be used to study complex biological systems such as the nervous or immune systems, which follow the same basic organisation and function in all animals. For example, much has been learnt about the function of neurons from studying the giant squid axon.

MODELS FOR DISEASE

• Humans and animals share hundreds of illnesses, and consequently animals can act as models for the study of human illness. (I.E. Rabbits suffer from atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries); dogs suffer from cancer, diabetes, cataracts, ulcers and bleeding disorders such as haemophilia)

• Studying disease mechanisms in animal models leads directly to the development of new technologies and medicines that benefit both humans and animals.

• Animals altered to create models of disease are known as induced animals.

• Recent advances in genetic technology have allowed the development of transgenic animals, which have new genes inserted into their DNA, allowing them to develop human diseases which do not naturally affect them; allows harder to dissect diseases become easier.

TEST TREATMENT

• Animals are used to develop and test these potential therapies as part of the applied research process.

• Models such as these are an essential part of applying biological research to real medical problems, allowing new targets for disease intervention to be identified.

• Data from animal studies is essential before new therapeutic techniques and surgical procedures can be tested on human patients.

• Diagnostic tools such as scanners, and implants such as heart pacemakers or artificial hips, are safe and effective only because they were developed and tested in animals. Many surgical techniques, such as open heart surgery and heart transplants, rely on methods and equipment that were developed using animals.

PROTECTION

• Medicines and other products are tested before use to reduce risk upon interaction. It helps give an outlook to the negative outcomes, or the positive, before distribution.

• The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials.

• Testing on animals also serves to protect consumers, workers and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood.

THE CON’S

• Animal testing is cruel and inhumane

• Alternative methods for testing is now available therefore this practice should discontinue

• Very different from human beings and cannot reliably predict proper results

• More expensive than alternative methods; waste of government dollars

• May mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments

CRUEL AND INHUMANE

• According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.

• The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.

• The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS

• In glass testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.

• Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed.

• Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.

• Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development

DIFFERENT FROM US

• The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings.

• It's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human.

EXPENSIVE

• An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in glass alternative costs $11,000.

• A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300.

• A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in glass test costs $7,200.

• A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.

• We’d save so much more money just on going o’natural. Honestly, we have the applicable resources, so why not indulge ourselves without harming what cannot protect itself effectively?

BETRAY. DECEIVE. DELUDE.

• Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was almost shelved due to animal test results received.

• Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.

!

!

THE COSMETIC SIDE

ANIMAL TESTING FOR COSMETIC USE

• Various companies still make use of animals to test their makeup products. Cosmetics testing on animals relates to many aspects of the manufacturing process. Animal testing may occur on the full, finished product or it may occur on individual ingredients within a formulation.

• Tested for overall toxicity and any toxicity related to ultraviolet light. An example would be a product that contains retinol, which makes a person more susceptible to sun damage.

• Cosmetics testing will also focus on testing for mutagenic effects. Despite even this array of stringent testing, people do still suffer from reactions to cosmetics, which does indicate the challenges of drawing conclusions from testing that apply to the majority of the public.

COSMETIC COMPANIES

• Neutrogena

• Dove

• Mac

• Aveda [Only By Law]

• Smashbox

• L’Oreal [USA]

• Nair

• Garnier

AVEDA

Aveda, just like MAC, has long been considered a great options for vegan as they were free of animal testing and many products did not contain animal ingredients. However, like other Estee Lauder brands, this stance changed in order to sell Aveda products in countries where it is required by law.

From the Aveda Frequently Asked Questions -

“The Aveda Corporation is committed to the elimination of animal testing. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and bringing to market products that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our products are sold. We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law. We evaluate our finished products in clinical tests on volunteer panels.” Unfortunately with this being an unregulated term, the company is still able to make this claim. Even the above statement is very confusing for those who aren’t used to the keywords that these companies use to say that they do, in fact, test on animals. This is why many people still believe that Aveda products are still cruelty free. While they are cruelty free when the law agrees with them, other law’s for varying countries to assure the cosmetic is safe require animal testing before distribution. It does not mean they enjoy doing it, but it aids in their profits. !!!

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

• Were you surprised by the facts?

• Have your opinions altered?

REFERENCES. • Burkholz, Herbert (1997-09-01). "Giving Thalidomide a Second Chance".

FDA Consumer (US Food and Drug Administration).

• Gillham, Christina (2006-02-17). "Bought to be sold", Newsweek.

• Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH (1997). "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells". Nature 385 (6619): 810–3.

• "2012 Animal Research Statistics from the Home Office", Understanding Animal Research (2013)

• Draggan, Sidney. (2013). “Animal Testing Alternatives”. United States.