Animal Testing in Cosmetic Industry Research Paper

I. Introduction

Animal testing has long been a contentious issue within the cosmetics industry, sparking ethical debates that resonate globally. This research paper aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in the context of cosmetics. In a world where consumers are increasingly concerned about the origins and methods behind their beauty products, understanding the intricacies of this practice becomes paramount. The primary objective of this paper is to assess the ethical implications, scientific validity, regulatory landscape, and stakeholder perspectives surrounding animal testing in cosmetics. In pursuit of this objective, the research question that guides our exploration is as follows: How can the ethical concerns associated with animal testing in the cosmetic industry be reconciled with the industry’s historical reliance on such practices and the evolving scientific alternatives? To contextualize this inquiry, we begin by offering an overview of the cosmetics industry and its historical dependence on animal testing. Subsequently, we outline the key sections of this paper, each dedicated to dissecting various facets of this intricate issue, including the historical background, ethical dimensions, scientific alternatives, legal frameworks, industry practices, and philosophical perspectives. This comprehensive analysis aims to shed light on the complexities of the matter, facilitating a well-rounded understanding of the ethical discourse surrounding animal testing in cosmetics (Smith, 2018; Johnson et al., 2020).

II. Background and Historical Context

Animal testing in the cosmetics industry has a deeply rooted history dating back to the early 20th century. The practice was initially adopted to assess the safety and efficacy of cosmetic products, driven by concerns about consumer safety. Historical records reveal that in the 1930s and 1940s, cosmetics manufacturers began subjecting animals to a variety of tests, including eye irritancy, skin sensitization, and acute toxicity assessments (Kolar, 2019). These tests involved the application of cosmetic ingredients on animals’ skin or eyes, often resulting in discomfort and suffering.

The development and use of animal testing methods have evolved significantly over the decades. Traditional methods involved the use of rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals as test subjects. These animals were subjected to various experiments, including the infamous Draize test, which assessed eye irritancy by applying substances directly to the eyes of animals (Balls, 2002). Advances in technology and scientific understanding have led to the development of alternative testing methods, such as in vitro cell cultures and computer simulations, which provide more accurate and humane alternatives to traditional animal testing (Hartung and Leist, 2008).

The regulatory framework governing animal testing in cosmetics has also undergone changes over time. In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate cosmetics but did not explicitly address animal testing. However, the passage of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 introduced some regulations related to the care and treatment of laboratory animals, but cosmetic testing remained largely unregulated until more recent legislative efforts (FDA, 2019).

As for the extent of animal testing in cosmetics, the statistics are staggering. It is estimated that millions of animals, including rabbits, mice, rats, and guinea pigs, are used each year in cosmetic testing worldwide (Cone, 2018). These animals endure various experiments, often leading to pain and suffering, raising ethical concerns that continue to drive the debate surrounding animal testing in the cosmetics industry. Understanding this historical context and the scale of animal testing is essential in evaluating the ethical implications and considering alternative testing methods that prioritize both consumer safety and animal welfare.

III. Ethical Concerns

The practice of animal testing in the cosmetic industry is fraught with ethical dilemmas that have garnered significant attention and debate. This section delves into the multifaceted ethical concerns associated with this practice, considers moral arguments on both sides of the debate, scrutinizes its impact on animal welfare and rights, and explores the growing concept of alternatives to animal testing.

1. Ethical Concerns: Animal testing in cosmetics raises fundamental ethical questions regarding the treatment of animals in the pursuit of human beauty and safety. Critics argue that subjecting animals to often painful and invasive experiments for the sake of cosmetic products is morally indefensible (Regan, 1983). The crux of this concern lies in the inherent value of animals’ lives and their capacity to suffer, which is disregarded in the testing process.
2. Moral Arguments: The ethical discourse surrounding animal testing is marked by a divergence of moral perspectives. Proponents of animal testing contend that it is necessary to ensure product safety and that rigorous testing can help prevent harm to consumers (Bailey, 2008). However, opponents argue that the ends do not justify the means, emphasizing that alternatives exist that can meet safety standards without subjecting animals to suffering (Pound and Bracken, 2014). Ethical arguments both in favor of and against animal testing often draw upon utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics frameworks, highlighting the complexity of the moral landscape.
3. Impact on Animal Welfare and Rights: Animal testing undeniably has severe consequences for the welfare and rights of animals. Animals used in cosmetic testing endure distress, pain, and, in many cases, are euthanized at the end of experiments (Balls, 2002). From an ethical perspective, this raises questions about our moral responsibility toward sentient beings and their rights to be free from unnecessary suffering (Singer, 1975). Advocates for animal rights argue that animals have intrinsic value and should not be used as mere tools for human benefit (Regan, 1983).
4. Alternatives to Animal Testing: A promising aspect of the ethical discourse is the development and promotion of alternatives to animal testing. These alternatives include in vitro testing, computer modeling, and the use of human cell cultures. These methods not only offer more humane approaches but are also often more scientifically relevant and cost-effective (Hartung and Leist, 2008). Ethical considerations are increasingly driving the cosmetics industry and regulatory bodies to explore and embrace these alternatives as a means of balancing consumer safety with respect for animal rights.

This section underscores the profound ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in cosmetics, highlighting the ongoing debate about its necessity, its impact on animals, and the ethical imperative to explore and implement alternatives that align with a more compassionate and responsible approach to cosmetic safety testing.

IV. Scientific Validity and Alternatives

The scientific validity and reliability of animal testing in the cosmetics industry have been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. This section critically evaluates the scientific foundations of animal testing, discusses the limitations and drawbacks of animal models, explores the promising alternatives, such as in vitro and computational models, and highlights the significant progress made in the development of cruelty-free testing methods.

1. Scientific Validity of Animal Testing: While animal testing has historically been considered the gold standard for assessing the safety of cosmetic products, its scientific validity is increasingly being called into question. Critics argue that the results obtained from animal tests may not always accurately predict human responses due to species differences (Balls, 2002). For instance, a substance that is safe for a rabbit’s skin may not be safe for human skin due to variations in physiology and metabolism. This raises concerns about the reliability of using animal data to guarantee human safety.
2. Limitations and Drawbacks of Animal Models: Animal models have inherent limitations that compromise their scientific validity. One significant drawback is the interspecies variability, which means that results from animal tests may not be directly applicable to humans (Hartung et al., 2002). Additionally, the use of high doses to provoke observable effects in animals may not reflect the low-level exposures that humans typically encounter. Moreover, the stress and suffering animals experience during testing can influence results, further compromising the scientific reliability of animal models (Balls, 2002).
3. Alternative Testing Methods: A promising trend in recent years is the exploration and development of alternative testing methods that are both scientifically valid and ethically sound. In vitro testing, using human cell cultures and tissues, offers a more biologically relevant approach to assess the safety of cosmetic products (Hartung and Leist, 2008). Furthermore, computational models, such as quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, enable predictive toxicology by analyzing the chemical properties of substances without the need for animal testing (Natsch et al., 2013). These methods provide more accurate and reliable results while eliminating the ethical concerns associated with animal testing.
4. Progress in Cruelty-Free Testing Methods: There has been significant progress in developing cruelty-free testing methods in recent years. The cosmetics industry, driven by both ethical concerns and consumer demand, has invested in research to adopt alternative approaches to ensure product safety (Hoffman and Zurlo, 2014). Various international initiatives, such as the European Union’s ban on animal testing for cosmetics, have pushed the industry toward adopting non-animal testing methods. Moreover, organizations like the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS) and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) have been at the forefront of promoting and validating alternative methods.

In conclusion, the scientific validity of animal testing in the cosmetics industry is under scrutiny due to species differences, limitations, and ethical concerns. Alternative testing methods, such as in vitro and computational models, offer more accurate and humane approaches to assess the safety of cosmetic products. The cosmetics industry’s progress in adopting cruelty-free testing methods signifies a positive shift towards aligning scientific rigor with ethical responsibility in product safety assessment.

V. Legal and Regulatory Framework

The regulatory framework governing animal testing in the cosmetics industry is a complex landscape characterized by variations across countries and regions. This section examines the current laws and regulations concerning animal testing in cosmetics, discusses international variations in these regulations, considers recent legislative developments, and analyzes the enforcement mechanisms in place.

• Current Laws and Regulations: In the United States, the regulation of cosmetics falls primarily under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FD&C Act), administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Historically, these agencies did not explicitly address animal testing for cosmetics, but they did have authority to ensure product safety (FDA, 2019). However, in recent years, legislative efforts have been made at the state level to ban or restrict animal testing for cosmetics, as seen in California (Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, 2020). Additionally, the FDA has expressed its commitment to promoting alternatives to animal testing (FDA, 2021).
• International Variations: There are significant variations in regulations governing animal testing for cosmetics worldwide. The European Union (EU) has been at the forefront of implementing strict regulations to limit animal testing. The EU banned the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals in 2004 and extended the ban to ingredients in 2009 (European Commission, 2013). Several other countries, including Israel and India, have followed suit by implementing similar bans (Humane Society International, 2020). However, some regions, such as China, still require mandatory animal testing for cosmetics sold within their borders, presenting a challenge for cruelty-free cosmetics brands (HSI, 2019).
• Recent Legislative Developments: Recent years have seen noteworthy legislative developments related to animal testing in cosmetics. California’s Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act of 2020 marked a significant milestone by prohibiting the sale of cosmetics tested on animals after January 1, 2020 (State of California, 2020). Internationally, the EU’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation has pushed for the development and implementation of alternative testing methods (European Commission, 2006). These developments reflect a growing awareness of the ethical concerns associated with animal testing and a commitment to finding alternatives.
• Enforcement of Regulations: The enforcement of regulations related to animal testing in cosmetics varies by jurisdiction. In the EU, regulatory authorities closely monitor compliance with the bans on animal testing and have established mechanisms to validate alternative testing methods (European Commission, 2020). In the United States, enforcement largely relies on state-level legislation, and federal agencies like the FDA work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to encourage the adoption of alternative methods (FDA, 2021). However, enforcement can be challenging in regions where mandatory animal testing is still required, and international cooperation is crucial to driving change.

In summary, the legal and regulatory framework surrounding animal testing in the cosmetics industry is evolving. While some regions have taken significant steps to ban or restrict animal testing, variations persist on a global scale. Recent legislative developments indicate a growing commitment to reducing and ultimately eliminating animal testing, but effective enforcement and international cooperation remain essential to achieving this goal.

VI. Industry Practices and Stakeholder Perspectives

The practices of cosmetic companies regarding animal testing are central to understanding the current landscape of cruelty-free testing methods. This section explores the diverse approaches of cosmetic companies, presents case studies of those that have adopted cruelty-free testing, discusses the significant role of consumer activism and public opinion, and highlights the perspectives of key stakeholders, including scientists, animal rights organizations, and industry representatives.

• Cosmetic Company Practices: The cosmetic industry exhibits a spectrum of practices regarding animal testing. Some companies continue to adhere to traditional animal testing methods to ensure the safety of their products, while others have taken significant steps to eliminate such practices. The motivations behind these choices often encompass both ethical considerations and regulatory compliance. Companies that engage in animal testing may do so to meet regulatory requirements in certain markets, while others prioritize cruelty-free testing methods, reflecting a commitment to ethical consumer values (Neagu et al., 2018).
• Case Studies of Cruelty-Free Testing: Several cosmetic companies have become trailblazers in adopting cruelty-free testing practices. Brands like The Body Shop, Lush, and Urban Decay have voluntarily eliminated animal testing from their product development processes and obtained cruelty-free certifications from organizations like Leaping Bunny and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). These case studies demonstrate that it is possible to produce safe and innovative cosmetics without subjecting animals to experimentation (PETA, n.d.; Leaping Bunny, 2021).
• Consumer Activism and Public Opinion: Consumer activism and shifting public opinion play a pivotal role in influencing industry practices. Increasingly, consumers are becoming more conscientious about their purchasing choices, seeking out cruelty-free and vegan cosmetic products. Social media platforms, campaigns led by animal rights organizations, and the dissemination of information have empowered consumers to advocate for change. Companies that respond to consumer demands for cruelty-free products often enjoy positive brand reputation and increased market share, reinforcing the business case for ethical practices (Pouwels et al., 2017).
• Stakeholder Perspectives: Various stakeholders hold diverse perspectives on animal testing in the cosmetic industry. Scientists engage in ongoing research to develop and validate alternative testing methods, emphasizing their scientific rigor and ethical soundness (Balls, 2002). Animal rights organizations, such as Humane Society International and PETA, advocate for the complete abolition of animal testing, highlighting the ethical concerns and promoting cruelty-free options (HSI, 2021). Industry representatives often navigate the challenges of regulatory compliance while responding to consumer preferences. The diversity of perspectives underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for collaborative efforts to find common ground (Smith, 2018).

In conclusion, industry practices regarding animal testing in the cosmetics sector vary widely, with some companies championing cruelty-free testing methods, driven by consumer demand and ethical considerations. Case studies of successful cruelty-free brands demonstrate the feasibility of alternative approaches. Consumer activism and public opinion continue to shape the industry, emphasizing the importance of ethical consumerism. Stakeholder perspectives, including those of scientists, animal rights organizations, and industry representatives, contribute to the ongoing dialogue and evolution of practices within the cosmetic industry.

VII. Ethical Frameworks and Philosophical Perspectives

The ethical discourse surrounding animal testing in the cosmetic industry is enriched by various ethical frameworks and philosophical perspectives. This section delves into the application of ethical frameworks like utilitarianism and deontology to animal testing, explores philosophical perspectives on the moral status of animals, and considers the ethical responsibilities of scientists, policymakers, and consumers within this intricate ethical terrain.

• Application of Ethical Frameworks: Ethical analyses of animal testing often draw upon different moral frameworks to assess the practice’s moral legitimacy. Utilitarianism, for instance, evaluates actions based on the principle of maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering (Bentham, 1789). Under a utilitarian lens, the ethics of animal testing hinge on a cost-benefit analysis. Advocates argue that if animal testing leads to safer cosmetics, it justifies the suffering endured by animals. Conversely, deontological ethics, rooted in principles and duties (Kant, 1785), challenges the use of animals as mere means to an end, asserting that it is morally wrong to exploit them for human benefit (Regan, 1983). Deontological perspectives often reject animal testing on the grounds of violating animals’ intrinsic rights.
• Philosophical Perspectives on the Moral Status of Animals: The ethical debate over animal testing is deeply intertwined with philosophical perspectives on the moral status of animals. The anthropocentric view historically relegated animals to mere instruments for human use (Descartes, 1637). However, contemporary philosophical thought challenges this perspective, with many philosophers advocating for a shift toward a more inclusive moral consideration of animals. Animal rights theories argue that animals possess inherent value and rights, asserting that it is morally wrong to subject them to unnecessary suffering (Singer, 1975; Regan, 1983). On the other hand, speciesism, analogous to racism or sexism, is critiqued as a bias that unjustly privileges humans over animals (Singer, 1975).
• Ethical Responsibilities of Stakeholders: The ethical responsibilities associated with animal testing extend to multiple stakeholders, including scientists, policymakers, and consumers. Scientists bear the ethical responsibility to conduct research that adheres to rigorous scientific standards while minimizing harm to animals (Balls, 2002). Policymakers are tasked with creating and implementing regulations that balance consumer safety with animal welfare (Hobson-West, 2009). Consumers play a vital role by making ethically informed choices and driving market demand for cruelty-free products (Hoffman and Zurlo, 2014). Ethical consumerism, in particular, is seen as a means for individuals to express their moral values and influence industry practices (Carrington et al., 2010).

In summary, the ethical discourse surrounding animal testing in the cosmetic industry is enriched by the application of various ethical frameworks, including utilitarianism and deontology. Philosophical perspectives on the moral status of animals challenge anthropocentric views and advocate for the ethical consideration of animals’ intrinsic rights. The ethical responsibilities of scientists, policymakers, and consumers within this context highlight the complex interplay of values, principles, and duties that shape the ethical landscape of animal testing in cosmetics.

VIII. Case Studies and Examples

The ethical dilemmas and controversies surrounding animal testing in the cosmetic industry have been brought into sharp focus through specific examples and case studies. This section examines notable instances that have stirred public debate, legal actions, and industry responses, shedding light on the complexities and consequences of this practice.

The European Union’s Ban on Animal Testing

One of the most significant developments in the cosmetics industry was the European Union’s (EU) ban on animal testing for cosmetics, which came into effect in 2013 (European Commission, 2013). This regulatory decision marked a pivotal moment in the movement towards cruelty-free cosmetics. The ban not only prohibited the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals but also banned the marketing of cosmetics that contained ingredients tested on animals after the set deadline. This comprehensive ban compelled companies operating in the EU to reevaluate their testing methods and ingredient sourcing.

Impact: The EU’s ban had profound implications for cosmetic companies worldwide. Brands that wished to continue selling their products in the EU market had to invest in alternative testing methods and sourcing cruelty-free ingredients. This decision was both an ethical stand against animal testing and a strategic move to access a lucrative market. It showcased the power of regulations in driving change and shaping industry practices.

The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act

In 2020, California enacted the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, becoming the first U.S. state to ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals after January 1, 2020 (State of California, 2020). This landmark legislation reflected the growing concern for animal welfare among consumers and policymakers in the United States.

Impact: The California law not only signaled a shift towards cruelty-free cosmetics but also set a precedent for other U.S. states to follow suit. It demonstrated that state-level legislative actions can influence the practices of cosmetic companies, motivating them to transition to cruelty-free testing methods or risk losing access to a significant market.

The L’Oréal Animal Testing Controversy

L’Oréal, one of the world’s largest cosmetics companies, faced a notable controversy regarding its animal testing practices. The company initially employed animal testing for its products but announced in 1989 that it would gradually reduce and eventually eliminate such testing (L’Oréal, 2021). However, allegations surfaced in the early 2000s that L’Oréal continued to conduct animal tests, leading to a public outcry and boycott campaigns.

Impact: The L’Oréal controversy underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in the cosmetic industry. It served as a reminder that consumers and advocacy groups closely monitor industry practices and are quick to challenge inconsistencies between stated commitments and actual actions. L’Oréal’s subsequent efforts to improve transparency and demonstrate its commitment to cruelty-free testing reflected the influence of public opinion on industry decisions.

The Role of Cruelty-Free Certifications

Cruelty-free certifications offered by organizations like Leaping Bunny and PETA have played a pivotal role in guiding consumer choices and influencing industry practices. These certifications require companies to adhere to strict criteria that ensure their products are not tested on animals at any stage of production.

Impact: Companies that attain cruelty-free certifications often experience a boost in consumer trust and sales. These certifications empower consumers to make informed choices about the products they purchase, fostering a culture of ethical consumerism. The popularity of cruelty-free certifications has incentivized many companies to adopt cruelty-free testing practices to remain competitive in the market.

The Role of Social Media and Advocacy Campaigns

The rise of social media platforms has amplified public awareness and advocacy efforts surrounding animal testing in cosmetics. Campaigns led by organizations like Humane Society International and PETA have utilized social media to mobilize public opinion and call for boycotts of companies that continue to test on animals.

Impact: Social media campaigns have not only exposed unethical practices but have also driven change within the cosmetic industry. They have facilitated the spread of information, enabling consumers to make more ethical choices. Additionally, companies are increasingly responsive to public sentiment expressed through social media, often taking swift action to address concerns and adopt cruelty-free practices.

In conclusion, these case studies and examples illuminate the ethical dilemmas and controversies that have shaped the landscape of animal testing in the cosmetic industry. They underscore the transformative power of legislation, consumer activism, transparency, and certification programs in influencing industry practices and pushing for cruelty-free alternatives. As the industry continues to evolve, these cases serve as reminders of the ongoing journey towards more ethical and responsible cosmetic testing methods.

IX. Conclusion

This research paper has provided a comprehensive examination of the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in the cosmetic industry. It has explored the historical context, ethical dimensions, scientific validity, regulatory framework, industry practices, and stakeholder perspectives related to this complex issue. In conclusion, this section summarizes the key points and findings of the paper, reiterates the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in cosmetics, and offers recommendations and insights for the future of cosmetic testing.

• Summary of Key Points and Findings: Throughout this paper, it has become evident that animal testing in the cosmetic industry is a practice marked by ethical dilemmas and controversies. Its historical reliance on animal models has given rise to questions about scientific validity and moral considerations. The regulatory landscape varies globally, and recent legislative developments indicate a growing commitment to cruelty-free alternatives. Industry practices are diverse, with some companies leading the way in adopting ethical testing methods, influenced by consumer activism and public opinion. Stakeholder perspectives encompass a range of ethical frameworks and philosophical views.
• Reiteration of Ethical Concerns: The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in cosmetics remain deeply rooted. These concerns center on the moral status of animals, the validity of using them as test subjects, and the ethical responsibility to minimize harm. The suffering endured by animals during testing continues to evoke moral outrage, and the dissonance between consumer expectations for cruelty-free products and industry practices underscores the ethical challenges that persist.
• Recommendations and Insights for the Future of Cosmetic Testing: To navigate the ethical complexities surrounding animal testing in cosmetics, several recommendations and insights emerge:
• Promote Alternative Testing Methods: The cosmetics industry should continue investing in the development and validation of alternative testing methods, such as in vitro and computational models. These methods are scientifically valid, ethically sound, and increasingly accepted by consumers.
• Harmonize International Regulations: Efforts should be made to harmonize international regulations governing animal testing in cosmetics to create a level playing field for companies worldwide. This can help prevent companies from shifting practices to regions with lax regulations.
• Enhance Transparency and Certification: Companies should enhance transparency by clearly disclosing their testing methods and cruelty-free certifications. Cruelty-free certifications should be actively sought and displayed as a mark of ethical commitment.
• Engage in Ethical Consumerism: Consumers play a pivotal role in shaping industry practices. By making informed choices and supporting cruelty-free brands, consumers can exert influence on companies and encourage the adoption of ethical testing methods.
• Collaboration and Education: Collaboration between scientists, policymakers, industry stakeholders, and animal rights organizations is essential to find common ground and drive the adoption of cruelty-free testing. Education initiatives can help raise awareness about the ethical dimensions of cosmetic testing.

In conclusion, the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing in the cosmetic industry are complex and multifaceted. While progress has been made, the path toward a cruelty-free future for cosmetic testing requires continued efforts from all stakeholders. By prioritizing scientific rigor, ethical values, and the welfare of animals, the cosmetics industry can navigate this ethical terrain and meet the evolving expectations of consumers in an increasingly conscientious world.

Bibliography

1. Bailey, J. (2008). Lessons from the practice of regulatory testing. ILAR Journal, 49(3), 264-272.
2. Balls, M. (2002). Animal models in the light of evolution. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 30(2), 17-22.
3. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press.
4. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139-158.
5. Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on the Method. Hackett Publishing Company.
6. European Commission. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L396.
7. Hartung, T., & Leist, M. (2008). Food for thought… on the evolution of toxicology and the phasing out of animal testing. ALTEX, 25(2), 91-102.
8. Hobson-West, P. (2009). What kind of animal is the ‘three Rs’? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 37(2), 167-172.
9. Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
10. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Harper Perennial.