Cruelty Free Beauty Products
Source 1
Corbett, R. (2019). Animal Research: An Environmental Perspective – Faunalytics. Retrieved from https://faunalytics.org/animal-research-an-environmental-perspective/
Summary
The article written by Corbett (2019) mentions how using animal resources is raising serious environmental impact concerns. Corbett first starts to list the resources used in animal research, which include toxic drugs, toxic chemicals, energy and sanitation chemicals. Corbett then moves on to explain the waste production that happens in laboratories after animal tests. Millions of bodies and experimentation tools like needles, bedding and syringes are disposed of each year. She then states that the routine of this disposal is what raises serious concerns like air pollution. She then moves on to explain in detail how it is a source of air pollution which is due to the gas emissions released from the incineration of animal carcasses and laboratory supplies. The then finishes off by stating how the outcomes of animal research can be harmful to the environment, and human health especially laboratory workers and it can cause chronic illnesses in nearby populations.
Source evaluation
This article has been peer reviewed and produced by the website Faunalytics.org and was written by Rebekah Corbett. This organization is dedicated to saving animals, they conduct essential researches, experiments and maintain other external researches on animal issues. The range of data provided by the organization is to help create change for animals. The writer, Rebekah Corbett is a PhD student researching the law and ethics of smart city technology. During her Master’s in philosophy and public affairs, she completed a research project examining utilitarian justifications for the use of animals in science. The article was originally a study conducted by
Katherine Groff, Eric Bachli, Molly Lansdowne, and Theodora Capaldo who are all scientists and research specialists. This gives the reason to believe that the source is reliable. Not only that but the text states facts followed by evidence which shows no indication that the source is bias. The source is from 2019, so it is recent and gives up-to-date information about this topic. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
How this article helped to write my essay and what I learned from it
I looked for this information because I needed to prove that the manufacturing of non-cruelty free beauty products has serious environmental consequences. There were many articles about the environmental and health consequences of non-cruelty free products, but most of them were non-reliable sources and the ones that were reliable I found that they did not have as much information and depth that the website I chose did. This information helped me because I wanted to demonstrate that cruelty free beauty products are harmful. If there are this many consequences, this proves that just how harmful it is. I used this information in body paragraph 1 where I mentioned how non-cruelty free beauty products have far too many damaging consequences. This source changed my opinion because some of the consequences that were mentioned did not come to mind before and it uncovered more damaging consequences of the issue which mad the issue more concerning to me. I knew that the manufacturing of non-cruelty free beauty products has a large amount of toxic waste, but I did not know that it contributes to global warming and has impact on laboratory workers. I tried to look for other examples like this, but I could not find any others that is why I think that this was the best source I could have found.
Source 2
Engebretson, M. (2015). Cruelty Free Cosmetics Are Healthier For You. Retrieved from https://www.thedodo.com/cruelty-free-cosmetics-health-advantages-1397034753.html
Summary
The article written by Engebreston (2015) mentions the advantages of alternatives to animal tests. The writer first starts off by mentioning what the alternative tests are which is “vitro-tests” a vitro-test is a test conducted by the use of human tissues and cells. These modern alternative tests require to undergo a validation process that scientifically demonstrate that they are more effective than the tests they replace. In contrast animal tests animal tests have never been validated. Engebreston then states that modern tests are faster in the sense that they can be conducted in one day unlike animal tests that usually take weeks. Not only are they aster, but they are more accurate and safer she demonstrates this by listing how animal tests are conducted like repeated dose, or rubbing substances on shaved animals for consecutive days. Finally, Engebreston lists how the modern alternatives have the ethical and scientific advantage.
Source evaluation
This article was produced by website Thedodo.com, and written by Monica Engebreston. The Dodo is an American media brand focused on telling animals stories and animal rights issues. Although the website has some controversy on whether it is a trusted source or not because it has had bias articles before. However, there are reasons to believe that this source is reliable. Monica Engebreston is a professional in the field of animal protection since 1999 with range of experience including field work, undercover investigations, lobbying and media and public education campaigns. Has expertise in several wild life issues. Engebreston is also Head off Public Affairs in North America at Cruelty Free International which is an organization that certifies cruelty free beauty products. There is no indication that the source bias, because the writer states evidence in every point she makes. The source is from 2015 however even though it is not up to date the information about this topic is still relevant and effective. The article was relevant to my topic which was cruelty free beauty products because it describes how alternatives to animal tests are more efficient, safer and overall better.
How this article helped to write my essay and what I learned from it.
I looked for this information because I needed to prove that alternative methods of testing beauty products rather than animal testing are better. There were many articles about how there are better alternatives to animal testing, but most of them either had the intention of bias or was they were mostly just stating the same point rather than supporting the idea with different reason as to why alternative methods are better. This information helped me because I wanted to demonstrate that alternative methods have better results and are more ethical and effective. I used this information in body paragraph 2 where I mentioned how animal testing is an unnecessary act of product safety validation as it does not always provide accurate results. This information did not change my opinion because almost everyone knows that animal testing is wrong, but I had never heard of the benefits that come along with alternative methods other than they are less harmful. I tried to look for other examples like this, but I could not find any others that is why I think that this was the best source I could have found.