Fur 1

Annamaria Fur
ENG 1020
Molli Spalter
8 November 2016
Drinking Water from a Burial Ground: A Researched Argument Essay in Favor of Alternatives to
Animal Testing
Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: theyre only
animals.
Theodor W. Adorno
We all know that concentration camps were abominations that treated precious humans
with no regard just as if they were animals. But, wait, if concentration camp prisoners were
treated like animals, how are animals treated? Well for one, they are crowded into unimaginable
places like slaughterhouses. The images that come to mind when we think of slaughterhouses are
scenes of blood, guts, pain and cruelty. However, I see no difference between a slaughterhouse
and an equally horrifying place, an animal testing laboratory. The sufferings of defenseless
animals everyday caused by brutal chemicals is comparable to the kind of slaughterhouse
described, or even a concentration camp. However, this one is legal. Day after day, animals are
gassed or injected, only wanting to roam free. But who am I kidding; theyre just animals, right?
Harsh chemicals and drug combinations are tested on animals to see if they are safe to use on
humans. These animal tested chemicals and drugs are used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals,
and sold to unsuspecting customers. These companies have the choice of using animal testing or
alternatives such as in vitro or computer modeling. In vitro is a process that involves the mixing
of chemicals and human tissues together in a Petri dish to observe if there is irritation or not.
Computer modeling is where disease reactions are simulated and human biological conditions
are modeled. These alternatives are the new and improved technology that needs to replace
animal testing. With the drive of consumers wanting more natural, humane and ethical products,
alternatives to animal testing have been implemented into some industry brands. Organizations

Fur 2
like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have ramped up their opposition
towards animal testing, but the adorable campaign stickers are not enough. The legitimacy of
alternatives must be sanctioned and made aware to all. I advocate that alternatives are better than
animal testing because they are more accurate in respect to human biology, they are healthy for
the environment, and they are more ethical in the eyes of consumers.
Humans have always been included in the animal kingdom when it comes to science, so
naturally scientists believe that testing products on animals would be a valid way to simulate
human reactions. However, alternatives are more accurate in reproducing these biological
reactions. To recreate human conditions, scientists use solutions to animal testing such as in vitro
and computer modeling. In vitro consists of cells being tested for their resilience against drugs.
To recreate life-like conditions, cancer cells, blood cells, liver cells, and other types of cells are
tested to make sure all variables are accounted for (Stachura 153). Additionally, up to three types
of cells might be mixed to form one tissue in order to cover all the bases (Feder). Sheree
Stachura, an RN with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, reports that in computer modeling, the
computers are able to test thousands of compounds at one time and use a laser to determine the
effect on cells (Stachura 154). By this, it is apparent that computer modeling is not a robotic
process, but a complex procedure that replicates the compounds of the human body. The effect
of asthma, obesity and Type 1 or 2 diabetes on the body is viewed in computer modeling when
exposed to a developing drug (Feder). Thus, computer modeling is able to simulate the
complicated reactions of the human body. Safe alternatives are being continuously created to
avoid the harmful effects of animal testing, and recently six other new solutions have been
invented (Stachura 153). Animal testing is invalid when it comes to accuracy in biology because
the testing results can create false reactions to drugs. Animal systems are not the same as human
systems; Stachura points out that in fact, animal tests and human results are the same only 5%

Fur 3
to 25% of the time (Stachura 148). That is a startling statistic that should put fear into the hearts
of consumers. A lot of the diseases found in humans are not present in the animal kingdom such
as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (Animal Testing 19). So, if a certain drug could
cause heart disease, but is tested on an animal, the drug could be deemed safe because the animal
is not able to contract heart disease and show that the drug is not safe. A similar scenario played
out with a drug produced by Merck called Vioxx; The Nutrition Health Review observes that
even though Vioxx was deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), the drug
was found to be responsible for 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks in the five years during which it
was available, according to F.D.A. analysts (Animal Testing 19). The animal clinical trials
showed that the drug was safe, yet animal testing failed at the cost of thousands of peoples
health (Animal Testing 19). There is no point in animal experimentation if it is just going to
provide false results. If a product did not irritate an animal when tested, but falsely passed the
test, and was put out on the market, someone could get seriously hurt, and an animal was put at
risk for no reason. Research proves that animal testing is not as accurate as its alternatives,
furthering the claim that alternatives are superior.
Not only does animal testing have a risk to the health of humans, it also affects the health
of the planet. The dead bodies of dumped or incinerated animals that have served their purpose
are ruining the environment. Research states that the chronic use of animal testing leaves the
environment with pollution and deadly chemicals in the earths resources. According to the New
England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), scientists dispose of dead animals and materials
and supplies such as food, caging (including disposable caging), chemicals, excrement, bedding,
waste feed, needles, syringes, unused or expired medication and drugs, and other supplies and
equipment into the environment, without a second thought (Animal Research). The appalling
amounts of animal testing supplies are most often unaccounted for because they are not the

Fur 4
animal itself. The supplies are exponentially adding to the earths death with each experimental
animal. However, its not just the dumping of carcasses and supplies that leads to decay of the
environment; its the pollution from the incineration of the carcasses that creates smog. This is
the most common practice when disposing of research animals (Animal Research). When
animal carcasses are dumped, and not incinerated, this can lead to chemical, radioactive and
biological hazards because of the animals exposure to experimental drugs coming in contact
with the earth. This is not only a threat to the environment but also to human health. A
subsequent consequence of the environments exposure to these hazards is the contamination of
our natural resources; NEAVS states that ground water contamination is caused secondarily by
soil contamination, and also by the runoff of drug and toxin-containing animal waste and other
debris related to drug and chemical testing (Animal Research). The clean water that
humans and animals are drinking around the world could have been contaminated with the
hazardous chemicals of tested animals. And to top it all off, the earth is in danger of losing 50 to
500 species of animals because of these hazards. (Animal Research). Its not like the
population of rabbits, mice, and other laboratory animals are already in danger, right? Scientists
are killing nature by testing on animals, yet they continue to ruin the environment by dumping
their bodies. Alternatives are better for the environment because they dont cause all the
environmental implications listed above. They are more environmentally friendly because they
are more likely to use organic ingredients, known to be safe to humans. NEAVS reports that a
survey of final cosmetic and household products showed that cruelty-free products are much
more likely to be environmentally friendly than non-cruelty-free products (Animal Research).
If cruelty-free products are more likely to be better for the environment, then the alternative
testing measures are in turn better for the environment. What will our children and grandchildren

Fur 5
think when they see we helped kill our planet by not contributing to the end of animal testing?
Animal testing is an unnoticed cause of environmental crisis and the alternatives would decrease
these negative effects.
Both of these negative effects of animal testing create a negative outlook for consumers.
Alternatives to animal testing are better because they are more ethical in the buyers eyes.
Surveys say that consumers would rather buy products tested with alternatives; The Humane
Society declares that a nationwide poll conducted by Lake Research Partners found that 67
percent of American voters oppose testing cosmetics on animals (New Poll). This is a
disquieting amount of consumer dissent, considering animal testing is not as talked about as it
should be. Furthermore, 72% of women polled--who are not the only group but a major group
that buys cosmetics--oppose the use of animal testing (New Poll). Consumers have come up
with their own reasons, other than ethical reasons, as to why they would rather buy products
tested with alternatives. According to Dr. Rodger Curren, a researcher at Micro Biological
Associates, products that are tested with alternatives are seen as more advanced and developed
than animal tested products (Wilson 28). The Humane Society notes that when asked about
animal testing alternatives, customers state, these alternatives offer results that are more
relevant to people, more efficient and cost-effective, replacing outdated animal tests that were
developed decades ago (New Poll). More and more companies are switching over to using
alternatives because of these benefits and the avoidance of blow-back from customers. New York
Times journalist, Barnaby Feder claims that, for companies, animal testing can be a public
relations nightmare, involving confrontations with animal-rights activists, or less intense but still
negative reactions from consumers (Feder). The last thing they need is a bad reputation as
animal haters and for people to stop buying their products. Companies that have switched over
such as Avon, Revlon, Noxell and Mary Kay find that they have an enhanced public image and

Fur 6
receive valuable media coverage (Wilson 28). Consumers may find it confusing to avoid
products that are animal tested because those companies do not make it explicitly clear how they
test their products and perhaps what is even in them (New Poll). This leaves consumers feeling
angry toward big-brand companies. For these reasons, the United States is putting more
emphasis on using alternatives. Europe, Australia and even the small country of Israel
implemented a ban on animal testing, so the U.S. is behind. The increasing number of consumers
passionate about the health of experimental animals and themselves is creating a revolution in
the beauty industry toward more natural and ethical products.
Some people claim that animal testing is better than its alternatives because without
animal testing, certain scientific advancements like vaccines would not exist. Research shows
that it is true that vaccinations were discovered with the use of animal testing. In fact, almost
every modern day cure or vaccine was founded through animal testing (Sun 84). While this
research is factual, there may have been no point in using animal testing in the past, and
especially not in modern times. Stachura claims, in fact, the innovation may have occurred
more quickly if animal testing were not utilized to mislead the researcher (Stachura 151). By
saying mislead the researcher, Stachura is connecting vaccinations to the discrepancy in animal
and human biology. Without the complications of different animal diseases getting in the way,
scientists may have figured out vaccines earlier with other forms of technology. And, yes, the
alternatives to animal testing and new technology can produce effective vaccinations. For
example, the researcher who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the polio vaccine
received recognition for his in vitro work studies, not his animal experiments (Stachura 151).
Moreover, because of the differences in animals and humans, certain vaccines were not released
to the public in a timely fashion. The Nutrition Health Review states, Penicillin was discovered
in 1929, but it was not released to the public for 11 years because it was ineffective in curing

Fur 7
infected rabbits. If the drug had been tried on other animals, it would probably have been
abandoned and labeled as toxic (Animal Testing 19). This proves that animal testing is a
misleading form of research for scientific advancement. Even in its successes, animal testing
was not as efficient as other alternatives could have been and harmed many animals in the
process. Animal testing should be replaced with alternatives, despite the historic discoveries it
may have supported long-ago.
It is clear to see that alternatives are superior to animal testing. The comparable nature of
alternative solutions to the human system could save many mistakes and lives if it replaces
animal testing. Environmental health would increase as an implication of alternative testing
methods; humans would not be at risk of drinking ground water or inhaling smog that contains
the hazardous discarded lives of so many experimental animals. Enhanced public image of
corporations would encourage consumers to buy more organic and healthy products that are not
tested on animals. The promotion of alternatives in companies is not an impossible shift.
Companies are able to immediately stop animal testing and start using alternatives by
incorporating the thousands of ingredients that have already been deemed safe. According to The
Humane Society, the European Union has successfully constructed a ban on the sale of animal
tested products and encourages other countries to do the same (New Poll). The complacency
of companies with animal tested products is something that needs to be changed. If you are
angered by companies refusal to use alternatives and go cruelty-free, boycott their products. Buy
brands that respect animals lives and make the ethical choice of using alternatives. The sales
decline of animal testing companies and the competition with cruelty-free brands will grab their
attention and force a change out of them. If the corporations in possession of these animals will
not listen, we need to make them. More people must become aware of this issue, and consumers
need to be educated on what brands they are buying. The lives of innocent animals depend on it.

Fur 8

Works Cited
"Animal Research Is Hazardous Waste." NEAVS.org. New England Anti-Vivisection Society,
2016. Web. 8 Nov. 2016.
"Animal Testing Not Reliable for Drug Approval Trials." Nutrition Health Review 95. 2006: 19.
ProQuest. Web. 7 Nov. 2016.
Feder, Barnaby J. "Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products." New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 12 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
"New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Strongly Oppose Animal Testing for Cosmetics." The
Humane Society. The Humane Society of the United States, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 Nov.
2016
Stachura, Sheree. "Drug Safety: An Argument to Ban Animal Testing." Journal of Nursing Law
12.4. 2008: 147-56. ProQuest. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Sun, Shany. "The Truth Behind Animal Testing." Young Scientists Journal 5.12. 2012: 83-5.
ProQuest. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Wilson, Roberta. "Alternative Routes to Animal Testing." Drug & Cosmetic Industry 28th ser.
148.4. Apr. 1991: 28. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.