My Final Self Reflection for ANSC 305

Final Self-Reflection

This project was very enlightening for me because it caused me to take a very deep look into two specific species. I am fairly aware of the more common and broad issues related to animals, but I have never taken so much time doing research on one animal specifically. Additionally, I thought it was interesting looking at the animal from a social perspective. In classes a lot of the time we focus on the scientific side of non-human animals. With this project it was nice to look into how the animal is viewed in society. As a whole, this course has been a great one in my opinion. It really strengthened the views that I had prior to this semester. In some aspects it also broadened my view and introduced me to things that I was fully unaware of, such as the developing field of animal ethology and behavior. That was very helpful for me because it is something that I now realize I want to go into when I graduate. It is far too difficult to choose specific topics that stood out to me because I honestly found nearly all of them incredibly interesting. I really expanded my knowledge of nonhuman animals in captivity for the purpose of entertainment. I was obviously aware that that existed, but I did not realize the often deplorable conditions that the animals were kept in. That is something that I am really glad I learned more about. I believe that this course is a great one for animal science majors to expand their knowledge, but also for non animal science majors to be introduced to issues that they may be fully unaware of that actually impact their daily lives that they never considered.

Butters, my baby chinchilla 

My Moral Vision Statement

Moral Vision Statement

In an ideal world, all animals, human and non-human alike would be treated equally. Unfortunately with the society that we live in the way it is, that cannot be the case. I do have some ideas, however, about what I think a realistic solution could be. It is unrealistic to expect people to stop eating meat altogether, or to stop using animal products, or honestly even to stop using products that were tested on animals. Be that as it may, the standards of the facilities that involve animals need to be greatly increased. For each specific species I believe there should be guidelines that spell out the size of enclosure that is permitted, allowing every animal its own personal space and room to roam. I also believe that there should be very specific guidelines on how each species used for meat is allowed to be slaughtered, making the level of suffering zero or as close to it as possible. In my opinion it should be an enforced rule that animals are only permitted to be killed as a food source or to prevent overpopulation and any animal killed must be killed humanely. In my opinion, although many others would disagree, unnecessary deaths of animals for purposes such as fur and leather should be outlawed, although parts of animals slaughtered for food could be used (such as leather made from beef cattle). Animals used in research and testing should have regular visits by inspectors that ensure the animals are not being subjected to pain and suffering, and that they are kept in satisfactory living conditions. Animals raised to be kept as companions must be bred and raised in comfortable and healthy conditions with frequent socialization and exercise. As far as animals being used for entertainment such as in circuses, films, or zoos, the animals must be treated with respect and kept in habitats that allow them room to roam and have very specific shelter, feeding and watering requirements. Those are some specific examples of changes that are very manageable, and would not greatly affect the way that we live our lives. The most important thing in every industry however, is enforcing the standards that are set. There could be any number of regulations in place that mean absolutely nothing if there are not enough people around to enforce them. There need to be much more inspectors and ideally inspections every three months for any industry involving animals, with very harsh punishments for violators.

Compromise Relating to Testing on Rabbits

Possible compromises that will benefit both parties:

•     Numerous animals are kept on site at research facilities in inadequate cages with no socialization: This issue would be resolved if companies that use rabbits for research were to look into other options for chemical testing such as in vitro tissue formation, or the use of cadavers to see how quickly chemicals absorb into the skin. This solution would benefit the animal rights activists such as PETA because it would eliminate the use of the animals for research. It would also benefit the companies in question such as Revlon, because the “non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible” (PETA). Not only would Revlon benefit in those ways, but their public image would also be greatly improved. The animals would no longer be kept in unsuitable cages, and the lack of socialization would be eliminated.

•   Eye and skin irritancy tests: For the same reasons mentioned above, this issue could be improved if companies such as Revlon chose to invest in newer technology for tests such as these. Using in vitro generated tissue, the testing would harm no animals, and the testing would be more effective and accurate because the tissue samples could be generated in such a way that they are very similar to that of humans. Many of the tests on animals are not really even accurate because the tissue of rabbits and mice is not the same composition of human tissue. Dr. Hartung from Johns Hopkins mentioned that, “aspirin, one of the oldest and most reliable drugs on the market, might not pass today's testing”. This presents a real issue because commonplace products such as aspirin that are developed today may not pass the standards necessary to be released to the public due to the inaccurate testing methods.  

• Required animal testing in other countries: This is an issue that is not so easily resolved. It is a difficult issue to deal with because US citizens do not have much impact on foreign governments. Companies such as Revlon may be reluctant to take a stand against these rulings because it can lose them a good amount of business. The only real solution to this is to focus on the above-mentioned suggestions, and to work on the public image of the company in the US. Over time, if multiple companies refuse to trade with China because of their ruling, it will most likely change. Especially if more companies implement the alternative forms of testing. This will benefit PETA for obvious reasons because it will make a change in the industry as a whole.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/eating-health/alternatives-testing-without-torture/#ixzz2nOvcH700

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers

Letter to PETA Regarding Testing on Rabbits

Date: 12/13/2013

 ‪Peta

501 Front Street ‪Norfolk, VA 23510 (202) 483-7382

Dear Representatives of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA):

I am writing this letter to address the very relevant and controversial topic of animal testing by numerous companies worldwide, and more specifically in the USA. I am familiar with the tactics by which your organization gathers information about issues such as this one, and so I am aware that the knowledge you have is accurate and thanks to hands-on experience. One of the most commonly recognized issues that you describe on your website is the Draize Eye Irritancy Test. It is certainly disturbing to know that there are companies that will drip irritating and sometimes corrosive chemicals into the eyes of rabbits, simply to see the effect. The fact that many of the rabbits will suffer for most of their lives, and then will be killed once they have served their purpose makes it even more difficult to cope with. I fully agree that these actions are concerning and unnecessary, especially considering the existence of other options for product testing. The testing of chemicals on rabbits is inhumane and I agree that it should be stopped.

For a company such as Revlon, while there is very little information readily available regarding the treatment of the animals that they continue to use in countries such as China, their efforts to minimize the use of animals should be recognized. They have ceased the use of rabbits in the testing of their products in the US and other countries that do not require animal testing on cosmetics. Although they could take the steps to eliminate business dealings in countries such as China until their policies change, Revlon has taken major steps forward considering where they were when they began making cosmetics.

I appreciate your efforts to improve the living conditions and treatment of animals around the world, and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Erynn Murphy

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-shameful-truth-about-revlon-and-animal-testing

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/rabbits-laboratories/

Letter to Revlon Regarding Testing on Animals

Date: 12/13/2013

Revlon, Inc. 237 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 212-527-4000

Dear Representatives of Revlon Inc.:

I am writing this letter to address the very relevant and controversial topic of animal testing by your company, specifically on rabbits. The public has been made aware, both in the past and very recently, of the use of rabbits for the Draize Test by Revlon Inc. I applaud the efforts on the part of your company to minimize the use of rabbits in cosmetics testing, specifically in the United States. The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been acknowledging your efforts for decades, and commending you for the advancements you have made. Recently however, it has been made public that Revlon is continuing to do business in countries such as China, which require animal testing for all cosmetic products that are sold in their country. I do understand the reasoning that backs Revlon’s decisions to use animals in testing. The efforts to make products safer for use by humans is understandable and appreciated because without those efforts, many of us would not have access to some of the products which make our lives easier and more convenient.

Recently however, scientific advancements have developed that would not only eliminate the use of animals for testing by your company, but would also be less costly and would provide a more accurate model to humans. For example, the generation of tissue, very similar to that of humans, has become possible to produce in vitro. This alternative would benefit all parties involved. The animals would no longer suffer, Revlon would have the support of many respected organizations that oppose animal testing, and Revlon could save billions that would be spent in raising and feeding the animals used for testing. For markets such as China’s, where animal testing is required, perhaps a temporary refusal to sell in their markets would change their attitude, and make a change for the better overseas.

Please consider the information introduced in this letter, and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Erynn Murphy

-http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/eating-health/alternatives-testing-without-torture/

-http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers

-http://www.examiner.com/article/the-shameful-truth-about-revlon-and-animal-testing