Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.
That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that ethics committees are much more averse to human testing than to animal testing, so we're less conscientious about animal testing.
The quality of results from human testing is many orders of magnitude better; if you're willing to do it, there's no point in doing any animal testing.
2. Using humans for testing makes no sense bc. animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans
>> if you're willing to do [human testing], there's no point in doing any animal testing.
> animals are exactly used to avoid early testing on humans
These are two statements of the same idea.
If we remove animals from this process, the first time a lot of products will touch living tissue is during these trials.
Also, some Asian countries would get a huge advantage as they don't seem to care as much about animal rights, unfortunately.
Anyway, it's a bad argument, but one that has to be taken into account as the practice won't stop anyway.
Animal testing is unnecessary most of the time. Even when its necessary they are brutally tortured and after testing is over they are simply killed. But you know companies don't think animal deserves to live. We can use simulations etc but you know its hard to change culture.
1. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ethics-in-human-experimenta...
> Animal testing is unnecessary most of the time. Even when its necessary they are brutally tortured
If animal testing involves brutally torturing the test subjects, then surely it would be much worse for poor human test subjects if they are swapped in, compared to what they go through now. Those steps that involve torturous pain would have to happen with the human subjects instead of the animals.