User:Christiang1122/final article

These are my recommendations for revising the article: Cruelty-free

Copied content from cruelty free; see that page's history for attribution.

Products

edit

Companies now offer a wide range of cruelty-free products such as cosmetics, personal-care products, household cleaners, clothing, shoes, condoms (which are sometimes processed with casein), and candles (which usually use paraffin or beeswax). Organizations such as PETA, Choose Cruelty Free, Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and its offshoot organization Cruelty Free International have released lists of cruelty-free products and cruel products to boycott. Since the 1990s the Leaping Bunny has been the only international third-party cruelty-free certification program. [1] The number of cruelty-free brands is increasing as the public has a better understanding of cruelty-free products. Famous brands such as the Charlotte Tilbury, Urban Decay, Tarte and Colourpop are cruelty-free brands. Many other organizations such as "The Vegan Society" focuses on advocating cruelty-free products such as vegan products that help humans and they everyday life. The group has had an online shop since at least 2006 that sells a variety of vegan products such as sunblock, lip balm, soap, drums, music by vegan artists, books on plant-based nutrition and health, cook books, its own publications, condoms, World Vegan Day t-shirts made from fair trade cotton, and Veg 1, a health supplement specifically designed for vegans, among other items. [2]

Tests

edit

The history of animal testing started in the 1920 many researchers new about the harmful toxins they were given animals and also knew about the harmful exposure they were given themselves. The introduction of animal testing in the U.S. in the 1920's was a major advance in toxicity testing, and subsequent debates about the place of animals in testing were qualified by the absence of better alternatives. [1] Animals such as rabbits, rats, mice, and guinea pigs are sometimes forced to eat or inhale substances, or have a cosmetic ingredient rubbed onto their shaved skin, eyes or ears every day for 28 or 90 days to see if they have an allergic reaction. [3] Then they are killed and cut open to examine the effects the ingredient has on internal organs. These tests are also done with pregnant animals who, after much suffering, are killed along with the fetus. In more prolonged carcinogen tests, rats are force-fed a cosmetic ingredient over two years, monitored for cancer, and then killed.[4] Carcinogenics is one of the drugs used in America for animal testing, this describes why carcinogenics is the number 1 toxin that is found in humans like "Cancer". Carcinogenics is a long-term, highly complex process that is characterized by a sequence of stages, complex biological interactions and many different modes of action. It is recognized that even for one chemical substance, the mode of action can be different in different target organs, and/or in different species. Such complex adverse effects are to date neither fully understood nor can they be completely mimicked by the use of non-animal tests.[5]

“Typically a young rabbit is tightly constrained in a box so that he is unable to move... Clips sometimes hold his eyelids open. Anesthesia is not generally administered. A researcher applies a concentrated substance to the outer layer of the eye and observes over a span days or weeks for responses such as blindness, bleeding, hemorrhaging and ulceration. At the end, the rabbits are generally killed.”

— Megan Erin Gallagher[6]

Primates, dogs, such as the Beagle, and cats are used for invasive experimentation as well. Many laboratories use these species to test drugs, chemicals, and diseases, whether old or new.

  1. ^ a b Stoddart, Gilly; Brown, Jeffrey (2014-12-01). "A Campaign to End Animal Testing: Introducing the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd:". Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. doi:10.1177/026119291404200608.
  2. ^ Göppert, Hannah; Springirth, Andrea (2016-06-20). "From Marginality to Mattering: Linguistic Practices, Pedagogies and Diversities at a Community-Serving Senior College". Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature. 9 (2): 53. doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.678. ISSN 2013-6196.
  3. ^ "A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: Eye irritation". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 54 (2): 197–209. 2009-07-01. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.04.004. ISSN 0273-2300.
  4. ^ "Animal Tests & Alternatives". Cruelty Free International. Archived from the original on March 31, 2013. Retrieved March 30, 2013.
  5. ^ Adler, Sarah; Basketter, David; Creton, Stuart; Pelkonen, Olavi; van Benthem, Jan; Zuang, Valérie; Andersen, Klaus Ejner; Angers-Loustau, Alexandre; Aptula, Aynur; Bal-Price, Anna; Benfenati, Emilio (2011-05-01). "Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010". Archives of Toxicology. 85 (5): 367–485. doi:10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2. ISSN 1432-0738.
  6. ^ Gallagher, Megan Erin (2003). "Toxicity Testing Requirements, Methods and Proposed Alternatives" (PDF). Environs. 26 (2): 253.