Animal testing is a controversial issue having many supporters as well as non-supporters. People have been debating over this issue for years with no avail. Animal rights activists form groups that try to stop animal testing while scientists around the world argue that it is an important procedure that has led to many discoveries.
In January two thousand one, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) high production volume chemicals testing initiative. This plan uses animal testing and PETA felt that the EPA was testing the same thing over and over again producing the same result. They were also killing thousands of laboratory animals in the process. This lawsuit was rejected because the EPA stated, "such mandates would complicate and possibly delay the entire testing program"(Franz 11).
PETA also argues that chemical company's test and retest issues that are unnecessary. For instance, it is a fact that arsenic in drinking water causes cancer in humans. But the EPA tested arsenic enriched water on laboratory animals for over twenty years and killed hundreds of thousands of animals only to prove what was already known. Many scientists prefer animal tests as opposed to non-animal tests even though "non-animal tests are often faster, cheaper, and their results are less subject to manipulation [ ]"(Sandler 46). .
The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) do not endorse non-animal testing because they cannot scientifically "validate" their relevance to human beings. Unless they can prove that non-animal tests are actually proving that a chemical is harmless to humans, they will not incorporate them into their research procedures (Sandler 46).
Gina Solomon from the NRDC does not agree with the over testing of the animals but does accept that laboratory animal testing as well as non-animal, and human testing are valuable resources in protecting humans and other animals from dangerous chemicals.