Commentary
Issue Commentary Back Next

Commentary

Cruelty-free options to animal testing exist

To the Editor:

An estimated 14 million animals a year are tortured and killed in testing cosmetics and household products in the U.S. alone. Such tests include Lethal Dose tests, which involve force-feeding or injection of a substance into a group of animals to see what quantity or concentration kills a certain percentage of the group, usually fifty percent.

In skin irritancy tests conducted on animals, chemicals are applied to raw, shaved skin and covered with adhesive plaster. The animals are immobilized in restraining devices to prevent them from struggling while laboratory workers apply the burning chemicals. The Draize Eye Irritancy test consists of dripping a potentially caustic substance into the eyes of conscious rabbits.

Animals' reactions to all of these toxicity tests include convulsions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth and rectum, and the mere quantity of substances, aside from any toxicity, can cause the animals to die.

These product tests, which are in no way required by law are gross violations of these animals' rights. Cruelty-free alternatives to animal testing exist, such as testing these products on cell cultures, computer simulations and simply using ingredients already known to be safe.

Over six hundred companies are now cruelty-free, abstaining from any animal testing. However, animal tests are still performed by many of today's largest cosmetic and household product companies, such as Gillette, Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson.

We urge people to boycott companies which test their products on animals and to use only products from companies that are cruelty-free, such as Clearly Natural, Dr. Bronner's, John Paul Mitchell Systems, Tom's of Maine, Revlon, St. Ives and Nature's Gate. Further information, including cruelty-free shopping guides, is available from Oberlin Animal Rights, who will be tabling next week in Wilder for Cruelty-free Week.

- Oberlin Animal Rights
Oberlin

Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 20; April 12, 1996

Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.