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.
No comments:
Post a Comment