Click here to go back.
			VIVISECTION IS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED A study has found 75% of Americans are opposed to testing our personal care and household products on animals. Then why does product testing on animals continue? Because the companies that manufacture personal care and household products have convinced consumers that it is necessary for our safety. Yet their only aim is to avoid responsibility for any damage done by their products. With industry-accepted animal data deeming a product safe, the company is often not held responsible if the product then harms people.   Animal laboratories are set up to cage, restrain, and experiment on animals. This requires a lot of equipment, which means a lot of money has already been spent. It may seem a significant undertaking to re-establish the laboratory as a non-animal testing facility? Yet the truth is that by utilizing non-animal testing methods, money will in fact be saved. Gone are the expenses for the animals themselves, their cages, food and water bottles, the restraining equipment and testing tools. By embracing change and adopting non-animal tests, less money is spent, and the tests will finally be legitimate.   Vivisection has not proven to be valid or useful, but its long history is enough to convince some that it is legitimate. Insurance companies and lawyers fall into this category. They typically rely on animal data to assess and ensure human safety, assuming such an old tradition must be well-founded. Their ignorance and fear of potential liability lead them to overwhelmingly accept animal data over replacement techniques.   This long history also endows vivisectors with a false sense of relevance and importance in their profession. With blind acceptance of such an enduring tradition, they see no need to question the value of their test methods. But, just because vivisection has been conducted for centuries does not indicate its legitimacy or usefulness.