Animal Cruelty Writing and Rhetoric One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences.

Animal Cruelty Writing and Rhetoric One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them not to. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us such a right, since it is written in the Bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative methods are available. The anti-vivisectionists say we should not allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information is going to be gained? Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and mice-suffer and die in the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin irritancy levels. Other are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as bleach or soap, in a hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity. Since 1938, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the consumer. However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission ( a regulatory agency that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.) requires firms to conduct animal testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic companies use animal tests to insure themselves against possible consumer lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by arguing that the cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the cosmetic industry. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if it is safe for the consumer, boggles my mind. If someone placed a piece of lipstick in my eye, I do believe it would irritate my eye also. How in the name of God does this test prove it is safe for the consumer? I don't believe lipstick is gong to be used in the eye area, unless you are an illiterate that can’t read directions. The Draize Eye-Irritancy Test was designed to assess a substance's potential harmfulness to human eyes based on its effects on rabbits' eyes. This test was developed in the early 1940s by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This test is typically performed on six rabbits per substance tested. Technicians restrain each rabbit and place a measured amount of the test substance in the lower lid of one eye. Usually no anesthetics are given. the rabbits eyes are than examined at different intervals. If severe injury has resulted, the rabbits may be observed for signs of recovery for as long as twenty-one days. Technicians record signs of damage, such as redness and swelling of the conjunctiva (the sac covering the eyeball), inflammation of the iris, and clouding of the cornea. Using a standardized scoring scheme, the degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and cornea are compared to graded levels of irritations. Scores for each of these parameters are than totaled. Based on the total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test chemical is classified by the degree of irritation it causes: none, mild, moderate, or severe. At best, the Draize test yields a crude measure of a substance's irritancy; it is not designed to yield information about possible treatments or antidotes. the Draize is inhumane. Substances such as oven cleaners and paint removers cause obvious pain and suffering. Also, because animal and humans differ in medically important ways, results from the Draize test do not necessarily apply to humans. Rabbit eyes differ significantly from human eyes: rabbits possess a nictitating membrane (a third eyelid) and have a slower blink reflex, a less effective tearing mechanism and a thinner cornea than humans. These differences make rabbit eyes more sensitive than human eyes to some chemicals and less sensitive to others. The test is unreliable. Several laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different results. Manufactures argue that they conduct the Draize test to protect the public from unsafe products. Since 1986 legislation has been introduced in several states to limit or ban the Draize test for particular products (especially cosmetics), but no bill has yet passed. Another test I like to address is the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (L50) test. This test is a procedure that exposed animals to a particular chemical in order to yield an estimate of how poisonous that chemical would be to human beings. Substances tested can include drugs, cosmetics, household products, industrial chemicals, pesticides and the individual ingredients of any of these products. The test procedure requires between 60 to 100 animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose of a particular substance. The test spans a time period from two weeks to sever years, depending on the amount of toxic chemicals in the product being tested. The animals are observed daily. Since chemicals are bitter-tasting and have an unpleasant smell, animals refuse to swallow them. The animals are then forced to swallow the substances in the form of capsules or pellets. They are also force-fed liquid chemicals by stomach tube, or through a hole cut in the animal's throat. Some animals die from the sheer bulk of the dosage administered or from the severe burns they receive in the throat and stomach from the chemicals used in products such as laundry bleach and detergents and cologne. There are variations to this test which include forcing the animal to breathe the substance or applying the substance to the shaved skin of the animal or injecting the substance into the body, usually the abdomen. The animals are not provided with painkillers because they may affect the test outcome. Millions of rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which purportedly assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Many animals are still suffering in these useless tests right now. These tests are crude, cruel, and unreliable. Animals injured in acute toxicity and eye irritancy tests are never treated. If the animals do not die from the effects of the experiments itself, they are either killed or used for an autopsy, or, if they are not badly injured, recycled and used for additional tests. Since the animals are not treated, these tests provide little useful knowledge for the treatment of humans who are exposed to the harmful substances. Dr. Gil Langley, a scientific neuro-chemist, states that: Results (of animal tests) vary dramatically from laboratory to laboratory, between strains, sex, age, and species of animals, and extrapolation to humans in questionable.1 Animal tests have failed to provide the clear definition between harmful and harmless products that they were originally intended to provide. Therefore, regardless of animal testing, the consumer always becomes the so-called guinea pig for any new product. Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Many companies are working in fierce competition and dozens of alternative are being developed. Newer and more sophisticated tests are gradually replacing the Draize test. These alternatives most often use test-tube, or in-vitro, methods based on the idea that what happens in the body's individual cells reflects what happens in intact organs such as the eye. Human cells can be used in such studies. In addition to in-vitro methods, other potential alternatives to the Draize test include tests that use computer programs, microorganisms and other organisms that can't experience pain, and chemical methods to analyze untested substances. Some of the new tools for assessing eye irritancy are: Neutral Red Assay- Irritants impair healthy cells' ability to take up neutral red dye. This test measures the degree of impairment, yielding an index of irritancy. Agarose Diffusion-Tiny paper discs are coated with a test chemical and placed on a layer of gelatin. The chemical diffuses through the gelatin and reaches an under layer of healthy cells. A ring of dead cells around the discs indicates irritation. Eytex- In this test kit, a specially formulated chemical mixture turns cloudy when exposed to irritants, mimicking the response of the cornea. Microtox- This test kit contains a bacterium that can emit light. Substances that inhibit this process are irritants. Topkat-A computer program estimates eye irritancy by comparing untested chemicals to similar chemicals of know irritancy. Most of these alternatives are being developed or improved at high-technology companies. Eytex at In Vitro International, Neutral Red Uptake Assay at Clonetics, Microtox at Microbies, and Topkat at Health Designs. Technical advances to eliminate LD50 testing are also available. More Sophisticated methods, such as in vitro techniques, are the beginning of the move in the right direction. In contrast to in vitro methods which use the whole animal, in vitro methods use only the cells or tissue of animals or humans. Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus sparing animals lives. When human cells are used ( they are commonly obtained from tissue routinely discarded after surgery), in vitro techniques are completely humane. Tests using human cells are more scientifically relevant than those procedures using whole animals or animal cells or tissue. Other approaches are also being developed, there are computer programs that estimate the LD50 score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical and structural properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Companies can also employ the simple method of selective formulation to avoid D50 testing while more sophisticated alternatives are being developed. Companies employing selective formulation use ingredients with safety profiles that have already been established and thereby avoid the need for any new testing. Clearly, animal testing is almost a thing of the past. But, until every animal is free from commercial testing, we have no time to rest on our laurels. Many companies still say that animal tests are the most likely to hold up in court if a human is injured by a cosmetic or household product and, for that reason, they will struggle to hold on to animal-based research. We need to continue to to find new and improved alternatives so that we may preserve the lives and dignity of animals, but can also ensure the consumer of product safety. Many manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal tests. the fact that companies are supporting alternatives and reduce animal usage is a good sign but the fight is clearly not over. This project has educated me to be a more caring consumer and I will use buying power to pressure companies into banning animal testing within the commercial market. I have learned to write to companies that still test products on animals and let them know that I would not be buying their products and urge them to choose alternative instead. We must remember unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in loneliness they die. You can make a difference, you can be their voice. ÇEVİRİSİ Hayvan zulümü Yazı ve Retorik Hayvanlarla olan ilişkimizin en dokunaklı yönlerinden biri, hayvanların laboratuvar bilimlerinde kullanılmasıdır. Kozmetik ürünlerinin ve ev eşyalarının bazıları halen canlı hayvanlar üzerinde ağrılı ve yararsız testler yapmaktadır; ancak hiçbir yasa bunları gerektirmemektedir. Anti-vivisectionists olarak adlandırılan bazı insanlar, endişeleri bir uçta. Canlı hayvanlar üzerindeki tüm deneylerin kaldırılmasını istiyorlar. Öbür uçta, hayvanlara ne istersek yapmamızın her şeyin yolunda olduğunu söyleyenler var. İncil'de yazdığına göre (Yaratılış 1:26) Tanrı'nın bize her şeyi verdiğini söylüyorlardı. O adam bütün canlıları hakim etti. Bu testler eğitimsel bir değer verirse, bilimsel bilgiye katkıda bulunur veya insan sağlığını iyileştirirse hayvanları öldürmeye ya da acı deneylere maruz bırakmaya değer. Alternatif yöntemler bulunduğunda hayvanların gereksiz testlerinin insanlık dışı ve ahlak dışı olduğuna inanıyorum. Canlılığa karşı savunma uzmanları, hayvanlar üzerinde deneylere izin vermememiz gerektiğini söylüyor ve hayvancılar ya da yaşayan vatandaşlar, insanlığın nihai iyiliği için hayvanlara herhangi bir şey yapabileceğimizi iddia ediyorlar. Belki de ikisi de yanlıştır. Zaten hasta olan veya yaralı olan hayvanlardan yeni hayat kurtarıcı ilaçlar ve cerrahi teknikler test edilmekten çok şey öğrenilebilir. Hayvanlar, insanlara olduğu kadar yeni bulgular da fayda sağlar. Ancak mükemmel sağlıklı hayvanları almak ve onlara çevresel zehirlenerek, yanlış gıdaları yiyerek ve sağlıklı bir yaşam stili uygulamayarak kendimize getirdiğimiz insan hastalıklarına karşı iyileştirme yöntemleri bulmak için onlara zarar vermek doğru mudur? İnsanlar, istedikleri gibi mükemmel sağlıklı hayvanlara devam etme hakkına sahiptirler mi? Hiçbir yeni bilgi elde edilemiyorsa, gereksiz bir tekrarlama ve hayvan kaybı ile tekrar tekrar deney yapma hakkımız var mı? Hayvanlar gereksiz yere acı çekiyor ve hayatları anlamsızca boşa tükeniyor. Sorun basit olsaydı, hayvan deneyleri bu kadar tartışmalı olmamıştı. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde kediler, köpekler ve primatlar, tavşanlar, sıçanlar ve fareler olmak üzere her yıl yaklaşık 20-70 milyon hayvan acı çeker ve araştırma adına ölürler. Kozmetik, ev eşyaları ve kimyasalların güvenliği için hayvan testleri en az haklı olabilir. Hayvanlar, göz ve cilt tahriş seviyelerini ölçmek için gözle şampuan, saç spreyi ve deodorant damlaları buluyor veya çıplak deriye uygulanıyor. Diğerleri, toksisite düzeylerini ölçmek için yapılan vur-kaç denemesinde ağartıcı veya sabun gibi toksik materyallerin kuvvetle beslenen büyük miktarlarıdır. 1938 yılından bu yana, Gıda ve İlaç İdaresi (FDA), bir kozmetikteki her maddenin, tüketiciye sunulmadan önce güvenlik açısından yeterince desteklendiğini şart koştu. Bununla birlikte, ne FDA ne de Tüketici Ürünü Güvenliği Komisyonu (ürün güvenliğini, tüketici şikayetlerini vb. Denetleyen bir düzenleyici kurum) firmalara herhangi bir kozmetik ürünün hayvansal testini yaptırmalarını gerektirir. Kozmetik şirketleri olası tüketici davalarına karşı kendilerini güvence altına almak için hayvan testleri kullanmaktadır. Yükümlülük için dava açılırsa, kozmetik ürünlerin kozmetik endüstrisinde standart testlerle güvenlik için yeterince test edildiğini savunarak kendilerini koruyabilirler. Tüketici için güvenli olup olmadığını belirlemek için tavşanın gözüne bir ruj parçası koymak, aklımı önler. Biri gözüme bir parça ruj koyduysa, gözümü tahriş edeceğine inanıyorum. Bu test, Tanrı adına nasıl tüketiciye güvenli olduğunu ispatlıyor? Tarif okumadığınız okur yazar olmadığınız sürece, ruj göz bölgede kullanılacak bir gong olduğuna inanmıyorum. Draize Eye-Irritancy Test, bir maddenin tavşan gözleri üzerindeki etkilerine dayanarak insan gözleri için olası zararlılığını değerlendirmek üzere tasarlanmıştır. Bu test 1940'ların başında ABD Gıda ve İlaç İdaresi tarafından geliştirildi. Bu test, genellikle, test edilen her bir madde için altı tavşan üzerinde yapılır. Teknisyenler her tavşanı tutarlar ve ölçülen miktarda test maddesini bir gözün alt kapağına yerleştirirler. Genellikle hiçbir anestetik verilmez. Tavşan gözleri farklı aralıklarla inceleniyor. Ağır yaralanma meydana gelmişse, tavşanlara yirmi bir gün boyunca iyileşme belirtileri gözlemlenebilir. Teknisyenler, konjunktivanın kızarıklığı ve şişmesi (göz küresini saran kese), irin iltihabı ve korneanın bulutlanması gibi hasar belirtileri kaydederler. Standartlaştırılmış skorlama şemasını kullanarak, konjunktivya, iris ve kornea hasar dereceleri kademeli iritasyon seviyeleri ile karşılaştırılır. Bu parametrelerin her biri için puanlar toplam alınmıştır. Toplam Draize skoru ve semptomların süresine dayalı olarak, test kimyasalü, neden olduğu tahriş derecesine göre sınıflandırılır: hiç, hafif, orta veya şiddetli. En iyi ihtimalle Draize testi, bir maddenin irritansının kaba bir ölçüsüdür; Olası tedaviler veya panzehir hakkında bilgi vermek üzere tasarlanmamıştır. Draize RUSÇASI Животная жестокость Написание и Риторика Одним из наиболее наболевшие аспектов наших отношений с животными является использование животных в лабораторных наук. Некоторые производители косметики и бытовой химии до сих пор проводят болезненные и бесполезные тесты на живых животных, хотя ни один закон не требует от них не. Некоторые люди, называемые анти-вивисекции, находятся на одной крайности в их озабоченность. Они хотят отмену всех экспериментов на живых животных. На другом полюсе есть те, кто говорят, что это вполне нормально для нас, чтобы делать то, что мы любим животных. Они говорят, что Бог дал нам такое право, так как написано в Библии (Бытие 1:26), что человек имеет власть над всеми существами. Если эти тесты дают некоторую образовательную ценность, добавляет к научному знанию, или может помочь улучшить здоровье людей, они утверждают, что стоит убивать животных или подвергать их болезненных экспериментов. Я считаю, что нет необходимости испытывать животных негуманно и неэтично, когда альтернативные методы доступны. Анти-вивисекции говорят, что мы не должны позволять эксперименты на животных и утилитаристам животного происхождения, или вивисекции, утверждают, что мы можем сделать что-либо по отношению к животным, если это для конечного блага человечества. Возможно, они оба не правы. Многое можно почерпнуть из лечения животных, которые уже больны или ранены в тестировании новых жизненно важных лекарств и хирургических методов. Животные, а также люди получают выгоду от новых открытий. Но это право принимать совершенно здоровых животных и вредить им, чтобы найти лекарства для человека заболеваний, многие из которых мы привозим на себя, отравляя окружающую среду, есть неправильные виды продуктов питания, а не принятия здорового активного образа жизни? У людей есть право делать то, что они когда-либо хотели бы совершенно здоровых животных? Имеем ли мы право продолжать делать эксперименты снова и снова в ненужное повторение и отходы животных, если никакой новой информации не собирается быть достигнуто? Животные страдают без необходимости и их жизнь бесцельно потрачены впустую. Если проблема не были простыми, эксперименты на животных никогда бы не стал настолько спорным. Каждый год в Соединенных Штатах, по оценкам, 20-70 миллионов животных-от кошек, собак и приматов, кроликов, крыс и мышей-страдают и умирают во имя исследования. Испытания на животных для обеспечения безопасности косметических средств, бытовых изделий и химических веществ являются наименее оправданным. Животные имеют дозы шампуня, лака для волос и дезодоранты капали в глаза или наносят на голую кожу в попытках измерить глаз и раздражающим воздействием на кожу уровней. Другие являются принудительному кормлению массовые количества токсичных материалов, таких как отбеливатель или мыло, в хит-и-мисс попытке измерить уровни токсичности. С 1938 года Управление контроля пищевых продуктов и медикаментов (FDA) потребовала, чтобы каждый ингредиент в косметике надлежащим образом обоснованы для безопасности до того, доступны потребителю. Тем не менее, Комиссия по безопасности потребительских товаров (регулирующий орган, который осуществляет контроль за безопасностью продукции, жалоб потребителей и т.д.) ни FDA, ни требует фирмы для проведения испытаний на животных любого косметического продукта. Косметические компании используют испытания на животных, чтобы застраховать себя от возможных судебных исков потребителей. Если иск за ответственности, они могут защитить себя, утверждая, что косметическая адекватно проверены на безопасность с испытаниями стандартных в косметической промышленности. Как поместить кусочек помады в глаза кролика, чтобы определить, является ли она безопасна для потребителя, испуг мой разум. Если кто-то положил кусочек помады в моих глазах, я считаю, что это будет раздражать мои глаза тоже. Как во имя Бога, не делает этот тест доказать, что она безопасна для потребителя? Я не верю, что помада гонг для использования в области вокруг глаз, если вы не безграмотный, которые не умеют читать указания. Дрейза Eye-раздражающее Тест был разработан для оценки потенциального вредность вещество, чтобы глаза человека на основе его воздействия на глаза кроликов. Этот тест был разработан в начале 1940-х годов по контролю за продуктами и лекарствами США. Этот тест обычно выполняется на шести кроликов в испытанного вещества. Техники сдерживать каждого кролика и поместить отмеренное количество испытуемого вещества в нижней крышке одного глаза. Обычно нет анестетики не дано. кроликов глаза, чем исследовали через различные промежутки времени. Если тяжелая травма привела, кролики могут наблюдаться признаки восстановления до тех пор, как двадцать один дней. Техники записи признаки повреждения, такие как покраснение и отек конъюнктивы (мешочка, покрывающей глазное яблоко), воспаление радужной оболочки и помутнение роговицы. Используя стандартизированную схему подсчета очков, степени повреждения conjunctivia, радужной оболочки и роговицы по сравнению с градуированными уровнями раздражений. Результаты для каждого из этих параметров, чем составил. На основании общего балла Драйзе и продолжительность симптомов ", тест химической классифицируется по степени раздражения он вызывает: нет, легкой, умеренной или тяжелой. В лучшем случае, тест Дрейза дает грубую меру раздражительности вещество, в; он не предназначен для получения информации о возможном лечении или антидотов. Дрейза ALMANCA Tierquälerei Schreiben und Rhetorik Einer der empfindlichsten Aspekte unserer Beziehung zu den Tieren ist die Verwendung von Tieren in Laborwissenschaften. Einige Hersteller von Kosmetika und Haushaltsprodukten führen immer noch schmerzhafte und nutzlose Tests an lebenden Tieren durch, obwohl kein Gesetz sie nicht erfordert. Manche Menschen, genannt Anti-Vivisektionisten, sind in einem Extrem in ihrer Sorge. Sie wollen eine Abschaffung aller Experimente an lebenden Tieren. Im anderen Extrem gibt es diejenigen, die sagen, dass es ganz gut für uns ist zu tun, was auch immer wir gerne Tiere. Sie sagen, dass Gott uns ein solches Recht gegeben hat, da es in der Bibel geschrieben ist (1. Mose 1:26), dass der Mensch über alle Kreaturen herrscht. Wenn diese Tests einen pädagogischen Wert verleihen, fügt man wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse hinzu oder kann zur Verbesserung der menschlichen Gesundheit beitragen, sie argumentieren, dass es sich lohnt, Tiere zu töten oder sie schmerzhaften Experimenten auszusetzen. Ich glaube, dass die unnötige Prüfung von Tieren unmenschlich und unethisch ist, wenn alternative Methoden verfügbar sind. Die Anti-Vivisektionisten sagen, wir sollten nicht zulassen, dass Experimente an Tieren und den tierischen Nutzern oder Vivisektionisten behaupten, dass wir irgendetwas für Tiere tun können, wenn es für das ultimative Gut der Menschheit ist. Vielleicht sind sie beide falsch Es kann viel gelernt werden, Tiere zu behandeln, die bereits krank oder verletzt sind, wenn sie neue lebensrettende Medikamente und chirurgische Techniken testen. Tiere, sowie Menschen profitieren von neuen Entdeckungen. Aber ist es richtig, perfekt gesunde Tiere zu nehmen und ihnen zu helfen, Heilmittel für menschliche Krankheiten zu finden, von denen viele uns selbst durch die Vergiftung der Umwelt, das Essen der falschen Arten von Lebensmitteln und durch die Verabschiedung eines gesunden aktiven Lebensstils vermitteln? Haben die Menschen das Recht zu tun, was auch immer sie gerne perfekt gesunde Tiere? Haben wir das Recht, immer wieder Experimente in einer unnötigen Wiederholung und einer Verschwendung von Tieren fortzusetzen, wenn keine neuen Informationen gewonnen werden sollen? Tiere leiden unnötig und ihr Leben ist sinnlos verschwendet. Wenn das Problem einfach wäre, wäre das Tierversuch niemals so umstritten. Jedes Jahr in den Vereinigten Staaten schätzungsweise 20-70 Millionen Tiere - von Katzen, Hunden und Primaten bis hin zu Kaninchen, Ratten und Mäusen - leiden und sterben im Namen der Forschung. Tierversuche für die Sicherheit von Kosmetika, Haushaltsprodukten und Chemikalien sind am wenigsten gerechtfertigt. Tiere haben Dosen von Shampoo, Haarspray und Deodorant in ihre Augen getropft oder angewendet auf nackte Haut in Versuchen, Augen-und Hautreizungen zu messen. Andere sind massive Mengen von toxischen Materialien wie Bleichmittel oder Seife, in einem Hit-und-Miss-Versuch, Toxizität zu messen. Seit 1938 hat die Food and Drug Administration (FDA) verlangt, dass jeder Zutat in einem Kosmetik ausreichend sichergestellt ist, bevor er dem Verbraucher zur Verfügung gestellt wird. Jedoch verlangen weder die FDA noch die Verbraucherschutzsicherheitskommission (eine Regulierungsbehörde, die Produktsicherheit beherrscht, Verbraucherbeschwerden usw.), dass Unternehmen Tierversuche für jedes kosmetische Produkt durchführen müssen. Kosmetische Unternehmen verwenden Tierversuche, um sich gegen mögliche Verbraucherklagen zu versichern. Wenn sie für die Haftung verklagt sind, können sie sich schützen, indem sie behaupten, dass die Kosmetik für die Sicherheit mit Prüfnormen in der Kosmetikindustrie ausreichend geprüft wurde. Wie ein Stück Lippenstift in das Auge eines Kaninchens legen, um festzustellen, ob es für den Verbraucher sicher ist, boggles mein Verstand. Wenn jemand ein Stück Lippenstift in mein Auge gelegt hat, glaube ich, dass es auch mein Auge irritieren würde. Wie im Namen Gottes sagt dieser Test, dass es für den Verbraucher sicher ist? Ich glaube nicht, dass Lippenstift Gong ist, um in der Augenpartie verwendet zu werden, es sei denn, Sie sind ein Analphabet, der keine Richtungen lesen kann. Der Draize-Augenreiztest wurde entwickelt, um die potentielle Schädlichkeit eines Stoffes gegenüber menschlichen Augen auf der Grundlage seiner Auswirkungen auf die Augen der Kaninchen zu beurteilen. Dieser Test wurde in den frühen 1940er Jahren von der U.S. Food and Drug Administration entwickelt. Dieser Test wird typischerweise an sechs Kaninchen durchgeführt. Techniker halten jedes Kaninchen zurück und legen eine gemessene Menge der Testsubstanz in den unteren Deckel eines Auges. Normalerweise gibt es keine Anästhetika. Die Kaninchenaugen werden in verschiedenen Intervallen untersucht. Wenn eine schwere Verletzung entstanden ist, können die Kaninchen für Anzeichen einer Erholung so lange wie einundzwanzig Tage beobachtet werden. Die Techniker zeichnen Anzeichen von Schäden, wie Rötung und Schwellung der Bindehaut (der Sac, der den Augapfel abdeckt), die Entzündung der Iris und die Trübung der Hornhaut. Unter Verwendung eines standardisierten Scoring-Schemas werden die Grade der Schädigung der Bindehaut, Iris und Hornhaut mit abgestuften Reizwerte verglichen. Die Werte für jeden dieser Parameter sind als Summe. Basierend auf der gesamten Draize-Score und der Symptom-Dauer, wird die Test-Chemikalie durch den Grad der Reizung verursacht es verursacht: keine, mild, mäßig oder schwerwiegend. Im besten Fall liefert der Draize-Test ein grobes Maß für die Reizung eines Stoffes; Es ist nicht entworfen, um Informationen über mögliche Behandlungen oder Gegenmittel zu geben. Der Draize