no
There are many reasons why people use animals for testing. One reason is that they don't want to risk killing a human.
Painkillers would affect the tested chemical's actions, and would also have unpredictable interactive effects, and therefore cannot be used.
yes thats one reason they use animals
For 2000 years animal have been tested on. Recently, most has stopped thanks to animal rights activists. Many meat eaters are against cosmetic testing. To set standards around this issue the animal welfare act was made. It made standards for the care of laboratory animals and all others. To make sure they were following the rules, they had random inspections of the laboratories. Sometimes they have to use drugs and painkillers for the animals. It says for the researchers to actually see if animal testing is necessary. When animal testing is discussed we need to know if the benefit of humans is worth the pain to the animals. We don't need makeup unlike medicine that saves people's lives. The fda answers this. While it is not necessary many companies use animal testing for their research.
Vivisection is an extremely cruel act on animals in testing labs. It mostly involves the suffering and brutal tests while completely concious, no painkillers will be given and sedation is not used. Vivisection is extremely cruel on animals in testing labs. It is mostly brutal tests on animals without any pain killers or sedation. They are not necesary procedures, just an act of evil.
No, not all laundry detergent undergoes testing on animals before being approved for sale. Many companies use alternative testing methods that do not involve animals.
The transportation, care, and use of animals should be in accordance with the Animal.
Yes, many animal byproducts are used within cosmetics and animals are routinely tested upon - even if a company claims not to support animal testing, they may use research based on animal testing by other companies or be owned by a parent company who use animal testing. Proctor & Gamble are the worst for this, they not only use animal testing but have supported grossly unethical animal testing and outright torment animals - aka Huntington Life Sciences.
Yes, plant-based testing methods are being developed as an alternative to animal testing. These methods use plant cells, tissues, or whole plants to study the effects of chemicals and products. Plant-based testing is considered more sustainable and ethical than using animals for testing.
Animal testing helps to cure diseases and to discover new cures and vaccines for both, animals AND humans. It is totally normal that humans use animals to test on because we use nature for our own health. However, animal testing used for cosmetics is completely cruel and unnecessary.
There isn't any. To do animal testing, you need quite a lot of animals to get reliable results. What happens to ONE animal, once, might just be random. And if something should be discovered later on, someone might need to go back and repeat the tests. Endangered animals are animals that are rare. Either hard to find, or not many left, or both. Ignoring everything else, it'd simply be hugely impractical to use endangered animals for animal testing.
yes