Testing on animals has got to be the biggest con job going. There is literally no excuse for it, and why so many companies still chose to do so is beyond me. I am not a scientist yet even I am able to get my head around why animal testing is useless in furthering our research in cosmetics and medicine. But for you who still can not quite get your head around it, I’ll be a concise as possible:
1) I wouldn’t try out my mascara on my Cat or Dog before I bought the product, that would be a ridiculous thing to do, Bobbie and Jessie could never tell me whether they think it brings out their eyes or not. Why then should any finished cosmetic be tested on animals before it is sold for human use? If you think the idea of putting make up on your pet is as absurd, and don’t believe it will in any way better your chances of finding the right shade of lippy for you, then you should not support animal testing.
2) But it is not just the finished product we need to be considering here, what about the ingredients? It is to my knowledge that most dogs can’t eat chocolate, it is a poison to their body, and therefore it is not advised you give you doggy chocolate. Imagine if, before chocolate had ever been mass-produced and put on the market, it was tested on a dog first to see whether it was safe or not. Chocolate would (possibly) never have been their for us to enjoy! All this yummy sweetness we devour wouldn’t be there for us to consume! All because a dog couldn’t eat it? Ludicrous! Yet apparently this ‘logic’ is used to justify why ingredients for cosmetics are tested on animals before they are sold for human use. Does that sound as illogical to you as it does to me? If so, you shouldn’t believe, or support, in any products being tested on animals for human use.
3) My final point, medicine. I suppose I could easily use the example above, but I shall not. When my dog Jessie got in a car accident (broke her pelvis is several places, poor thing) she was given painkillers to (obviously) ease the pain. I could not use these painkillers, because they were not for me, they were for my dog (duh). So if said painkillers are not suitable for human use, how do we know they are not? I am assuming they have been tested on animals (that makes sense since they are made for said animal), but why then is it so many human medicines have been tested on animals, for humans? How can you label one thing unsuitable, and the other suitable, even though they have been tested on the same creature? I realise that in today’s world we also (after having them tested on animals) trial medicines on humans before it can be distributed. Can’t they just…. cut out the shit? If you are going to have it tested (somewhere down the line) on a human being, then start there. All that pain and suffering inflicted on the animal is a total waste of time. We have progressed so much in science yet we still use an out dated, old-fashioned, system of testing. If you think it would be nonsensical of me to take my pets medicine when I have run out of my own, then you shouldn’t support the consumption of any medicine which has been tested on animals.
^ Good people.