Animal Testing for Cosmetics?

Question

I'm doing a class debate and I have to pretend I like Animal Testing for Cosmetic. And I dont like it. But what are some pro's of it?

Answer 1

I agree with you and it is a hard topic... however compaines that do test state that its an extra step to avoid any humans getting allergice reactions/illnesses to their products, it keeps cost down with out allowing to sacrifice value of the ingrediants. Their main point is that humans are their customers not animals and that the safety of their human customers is the #1 important thing. They also state that testing is done only on the 1st layer of skin of the animal - similar as if we just put some chapstick on our lips - that it doesnt hinder the animal as bad as we think.

Good luck with your project!

Answer 2

well

animal testing are good because it shows any unwanted side effects of any new formulation. just because its 100% natural does not mean its not poisonous
poison oak is 100% natural but you don't want to rub your face with it.

animal testing are important to determined the quantity of ingredients and chemicals in cosmetic are in the right concentration to prevent consumer from getting poisons

animal testing helps cosmetic companies from being sued for selling faulty products if it irritates or cause cancer.


animal testing helps us to find out the long term damaged of cosmetic. what? do you think all that research that shows hair dye or lipstick causes cancer is based only on human research only. they need more proof.

for those who opposed animal testing, what kind of animals do they have in mind when the company runs these test. Cute furry cats, rabbits, dogs, hamsters and white mice are usually the ones that come in mind to most consumers

how about lower forms of life, like the fruit flies or some types of single cell organism. Do the opposition care deeply when the animals are not cuddly or cute when they are tested.

how about bacteria or algae that they used to determined the effect of cosmetic waste to nature. Do you need to find out yourself what will happen to the enviroment the hard way when there is contamination. Scientist need to test the effects of these chemicals on animals to find out what will happened.

so that is my 2 cents, its a hard topic to defend, but try bringing a tub of emollient that you can get from pharmacies that is used to mixed certain topical medication, and mixed it up with the most natural but safe, foulest ingridients you can find. Try putting onions or garlic or some other smelly herbs, and ask the audience or opposition to try it on, since they wont let you test the effect on animals. that would be something fun to do.

sorry for any typo, the spell checker is damn slow

Answer 3

Think of it more like what your opponent will say - what are the other options? Testing on humans? Not testing and releasing on unsuspecting consumers? You'll have to argue that the rights to health and safety of humans are greater than other animals' rights to health or safety. (And you also might want to argue that labs do not use 'your pet dog,' but lab-raised strains of animals which couldn't survive in the wild anyway, because they're pretty much made for lab work.)

Answer 4

Wow, that would be a tough side to try to argue. I don't see any pro's to it at all.

I just wanted to say good luck....

Answer 5

i think you should get tested...then you can write easily on that subject.....