I'm sorry to say after much research that there are not any and that unless someone makes some there are none, but good news there arn't any for it either
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there are laws requiring manufacturers of products classified as pesticides to conduct animal testing and properly label side effects of chemicals on products before selling it. The Enviornmental Protection Agency (the organization that mandates this law) considers many household items pesticides such as bug spray and anti bacterial and anti microbial products.
It has never been approved as a law.
The primary federal law governing the use of animals in research, exhibition and education is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Health Research Extension Act of 1985, which amended the U.S. Public Health Service Act, is the other significant federal law governing the use of animal in research by federally-funded institutions. In addition to federal requirements, some state governments regulate animal research facilities in a variety of ways.
Excellent science depends on excellent care of research animals. Therefore, protecting and improving animal well-being has been a longstanding endeavor of the research community. Even if government oversight did not exist, scientists know that the animals necessary for their work must be cared for humanely for both ethical and scientific reasons. In fact, professional standards for research animal care were established by the scientific community before being required by law. Evidence of scientists' commitment to animal welfare include the establishment of a voluntary private accreditation program, creation of a laboratory animal medicine specialty for veterinarians and the early development of a host of professional standards for animal care and use that continue to be updated today based upon research advances.
http://www.nabranimallaw.org/research-animal-protection.aspx
I'm kind of yes and no. There are obviously things that animals should not be tested for, but is it better to test on an animal or a human? It's highly debatable. I guess it's an opinion question more than anything else.
There aren't laws governing animal rights, there are laws governing animal welfare. This is because animals are not generally seen as being on the same level as humans.
No. There is no legal requirement for animal testing.
The reason we should get rid of animal testing is because it is torture to the animals and animals dont have the same reactions to things like humans do. they react a whole lot differently. So please stop animal testing & animal cruelty!
By law, only their butts are used for animal testing. No joke.klick
no, animal testing shouldn't be done. it is cruel. why would you test a cleaner on an animal... i mean its insane what they do to these animals. :)
No, because an animal is also a living thing.
No but it should be because testing on any animal is physical abuse. The animal has no choice in it and that should be illegal. I have seen awful pictures of Chimps with lipstick, Elephants with eyeliner. It should be illegal, because it is truly abuse.
I guess not. It might kill the animal.
yes
According to PETA.com Vichy does use animal testing for some of its products. And it is good to keep in mind that Vichy is owned by L'Oréal Paris, one of the biggest animal testing companies on the planet.
The pros are that animals have feelings and should be respected.
They invented animal testing to test products but this is mean it should not exist its cruel and it kills many animals like dog, cat and others
its testing no one likes tests but hey, you know that ANIMAL testing is wrong? so yes, i they should (unless they're blood tests)