Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Animal testing in the cosmetic industry is still practiced daily by several companies across the world subjecting animals to painful and cruel tests. The negative impacts of animal testing not only on animals but also on the environment as well as the cosmetic industry are evident and cannot be concealed. The purpose of this research is to examine the public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing in the cosmetic industry, particularly with regard to animals, the environment, and the cosmetic industry itself. The data was collected through a survey consisting of a sample of 538 employees from 12 multinational companies working in various kinds of industries in Egypt. Primary data was the major source of data used for the study, while questionnaire was the instrument for data collection. The study revealed the existence of a public awareness of the significant negative impacts of animal testing in the cosmetic industry on animals and the environment. On the other hand, the study unveiled the nonexistence of a public awareness of the significant negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus – Senftenberg, Germany
*Address all correspondence to: sherryradi@yahoo.com
1. Introduction
Human vanity and the desire to purchase favorite scent of deodorant or lipstick put millions of animals as victims to suffering caused by testing several cosmetic products [1].
Lab testing beauty products on animals has been a common practice for a century in the cosmetic industry in order to determine if these beauty products are safe for human use. Animals such as rabbits, dogs, rodents, or others are used in the testing of skincare, makeup, and hygiene products. These tests are considered a form of animal cruelty due to the harmful side effects they cause to animals [2].
The debate on the ethics of animal testing has been going on for long years. Although many countries such as Europe banned animal testing for cosmetics, animals are still subject to the testing of the safety of makeup and products all over the whole world. The animals are abused, burned, crippled, and poisoned in labs [3].
Animal testing should be illegal as it does not only have negative impacts, and it is inhumane, cruel, and against animals’ intrinsic rights [4].
1.1 Problem statement
Large numbers of animals are killed yearly in cruel tests carried out by the beauty and cosmetic industry in an attempt to assess the hazards of cosmetic products and their ingredients.
Guinea pigs, mice, rats, rabbits, and other animals are the victims of these tests that are administered with the purpose of predicting outcomes in humans.
These tests do not only have evident negative impacts on animals but also on the environment and the cosmetic industry.
This research examines the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals, the environment, and the cosmetic industry.
1.2 Research objectives
RO1: To examine the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
RO2: To investigate the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
RO3: To study the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
1.3 Research questions
The study will tend to answer the following research questions:
How aware is the public of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals?
How aware is the public of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment?
How aware is the public of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry?
1.4 Research hypotheses
Ha1: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
H01: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
Ha2: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
H02: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
Ha3: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
H03: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
This section will discuss the literature related to the concept of animal testing, the difference between animal testing and animal research as well as the reasons for animal testing. It also discusses types of animal testing and highlights animal testing in the cosmetic industry.
2.1 Concept of animal testing
Animal testing is defined as the use of animals in scientific research such as in testing pharmaceutical products, disease, cosmetics, biology, and others [5]. It is involved with the experimentation carried on animals [6].
2.2 Difference between animal testing and animal research
Animal testing is one particular area of animal research with the aim to test the efficiency and safety of new products. On the other hand, animal research is involved with a wide range of scientific research from learning animal behavior in the wild to research occurring in lab to understand diseases in animals. These lab researches have various types and include genetics, physiology, and modeling disease [7].
2.3 Reasons for animal testing
There are several reasons for the use of animal testing. It is used to understand the way the human body functions as well as to assess both the effectiveness and safety of cosmetics or medication before their distribution. Some products commonly use animal testing such as drugs, cosmetics, supplements, food additives, pesticides, household products, and industrial chemicals [6]. With the aim of marketing new products, manufacturers use animal testing to ensure product or ingredient safety [8].
2.4 Types of animal testing
There are various types of animal testing. Some of these tests are summarized in the following paragraph.
One of these tests is skin irritation test which tests a substance and its potential of causing skin damage that includes swelling, itching, and inflammation. Most of the time rabbits are used in these tests where a particular chemical is placed on a shaved patch of their skin. Another test type is acute toxicity testing which has the aim of determining the danger of exposure to a chemical. This can be through inhalation, skin, or mouth and can cause the death of at least half of the animals. Carcinogenicity tests include a substance or mixture of substances that cause cancer or increase cancer. It is carried out through inhaling, placing on the skin or orally. The animals are killed after the test completion, and their organs as well as tissues are examined for any evidence of cancer [9].
Apart from these above-mentioned tests, the cosmetic industry in particular carries out various tests such as dermal penetration which is also called skin absorption testing with the purpose of determining the effect of a chemical applied to the skin. This test is mostly performed on rats which have their backs shaved and chemicals applied to their bare skin. After that, in order to analyze any changes related to chemicals in their tissue and blood, the rats are killed. Another test is skin absorption test which involves the application of chemicals on the animals’ skin to test the skin response to any allergic reactions that may occur. Draize test is another form of testing that aims at determining the level of irritation to a chemical when exposed to eyes. In this test, where rabbits are mostly used, chemicals are directly placed into the animals’ eyes [1].
2.5 Animal testing in the cosmetic industry
Several beauty companies test their products on animals in order to examine the product’s safety for human beings. There are main animal-based ingredients used in beauty products. Examples of these ingredients include BEESWAX (CERA ALBA) which is mostly used in the production of moisturizers, soaps, and lip balms to increase the absorption of moisture. Other ingredients include KERATIN which is derived from the horns and hair of different animals and LANOLIN which is taken from sheep’s wool. As for KERATIN, it is used in conditioners and shampoos, while LANOLIN is used to make lip glosses, balms, and lipsticks. Additionally, SHELLAC which is used in nail polishes is from insects, and CARMINE which is used in the production of nail polishes, blushes, and lipsticks comes from crushing insects. Moreover, TALLOW used in foundations, eye makeup, and nail polishes is derived from animal fat [10].
Figure 1 demonstrated was constructed according to the study’s objectives.
Figure 1.
Public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals, the environment, and the cosmetic industry. Source: By researcher.
3.1 The negative impacts of animal testing on animals
Animal testing has several negative and harmful physical impacts on animals that are subjected to testing of products.
One of the more evident and obvious impacts is the physical reactions animals experience that begin with the ways animals are quickly identified with a physical indicator which could be tail-clipping or ear-notching. The tests themselves which force the animals to be exposed to chemicals through inhalation or physical application cause effects ranging from mild skin irritation, extreme illness up to death of these animals [2].
They also cause the suffering of animals which experience pain due to the tests that lead to skin and eye irritation conducted without pain relief by rubbing chemicals on their shaved skin or dripping them into their eyes [3].
Laboratories that carry out cosmetic testing on animals treat them in an inhumane manner and keep them in cages which cause stress, discomfort, chronic diseases, and even the death of these animals. In addition to that, the placement of different preparations and artificial ingredients on the animals’ skins to test soaps, shampoos, creams, or other products result into allergic reactions and other diseases suffered by these animals. Furthermore, the animals that have been tested suffer from various health problems such as loss of appetite, pain, hair loss, apathy, and other problems [11].
3.2 The negative impacts of animal testing on the environment
Animal testing results into the environmental exposure to diseases, toxic chemicals, and large amounts of environmental waste. The reason for that is that facilities using animals for testing dispose the animals which did not survive the testing process as well as food waste and dangerous chemicals besides supplies which were used during the process. The disposal process leads to dangerous exposure to radioactive materials and biohazards. Other negative impacts of animal testing on the environment include negative effects on air and water quality. Additionally, it causes environmental damage through the agricultural processes which are the consequence of using so much food to feed millions of animals used in testing [12].
Disposal of hazardous waste that includes the animal bodies and supplies such as syringes, caging, bedding, and needles creates air pollutants and harmful substances. On the other hand, animal tissues containing toxic chemicals and animal carcasses participate in the production of the most chemically and biologically hazardous waste. As for air pollution, it is produced by the incineration of toxic laboratory supplies and animal carcasses which result into the emission of gases. This causes developmental delays in nearby populations as well as chronic illnesses and extreme harms to human health. Other negative environmental effects include groundwater and soil contamination aggravating the drugs problem in public water supplies. Consequently, public drinking water is infected [13].
3.3 The negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry
With regard to the cosmetic industry, animal testing cannot be considered productive whether in relation to the use of resources or time due to the fact that the genetic makeup of animals is not similar to humans. Therefore, animals’ reactions do not mirror human responses. This could cause the existence of significant side effects in human trials which were absent in animal testing and vice versa. Consequently, products could still be harmful to humans showing that these tests are considered a waste of resources, money, and time for the cosmetic industry [2].
Besides being a costly and long process, animal testing lacks efficiency as it predicts human applications only 40–60% [1].
The survey design was adopted in the study. The total population of the study consisted of 5146 employees from 12 selected multinational companies working in different industries. The reason for choosing multinational companies is that the researcher believes based on online searching that they pay higher salaries than domestic firms and sometimes they could even pay above market salaries. This means that employees working in these companies particularly women would afford the purchase of cosmetics and beauty products. At the same time, men and women would also afford the purchase of pets which puts them in the category of people who love and care for animals.
The sample size consisted of 538 employees drawn from the study population.
Questionnaires which are the primary source of this study served as data collection instrument and were self-distributed to the employees in these companies with the consent of the management.
A total of 538 questionnaires were prepared with only 517 questionnaires (96.1%) were filled out and returned. Frequency distribution and percentage table were used to analyze data, while test-retest method was used to determine the instrument reliability. As for the determination of the coefficient of the reliability of the instrument, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used. Since the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was very high: r = 0.988, there was a high level of reliability in the survey items.
No personal information was collected from the respondents such as name, contact numbers, and address.
Out of the 517 questionnaires returned as mentioned above in the methodology section, 201 (38.9%) were employees who are not pet owners/breeders, while 316 (61.1%) were employees who are pet owners/breeders. 268 (51.9%) of the employees were females with 249 (48.1%) males.
With regard to the employees educational background, 114 (22.1%) are master’s degree holders, 283 (54.7%) bachelor’s degree holders, 69 (13.3%) PhD degree holders, 6 (1.1%) obtained a diploma, and 45 (8.8%) with other educational backgrounds.
5.2 Examining the respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals
Table 1 shows the respondents’ awareness of the various negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
Strongly agree (5) N (%)
Somewhat agree (4) N (%)
Neither agree nor disagree (3) N (%)
Somewhat disagree (2) N (%)
Strongly disagree (1) N (%)
Total N (%)
Animals subjected to testing suffer from extreme illness.
289 (55.8%)
120 (23.2%)
0 (0%)
54 (10.5%)
54 (10.5%)
517 (100%)
The tests cause the death of large numbers of these animals.
266 (51.5%)
93 (17.9%)
0 (0%)
79 (15.3%)
79 (15.3%)
517 (100%)
The inhumane treatment of animals subjected to testing causes them stress and chronic diseases.
142 (27.4%)
146 (28.4%)
33 (6.3%)
93 (17.9%)
103 (20.0%)
517 (100%)
Animals subjected to testing suffer from pain.
164 (31.6%)
49 (9.5%)
109 (21.1%)
114 (22.1%)
81 (15.7%)
517 (100%)
Total
1269 (61.4%)
142 (6.9%)
657 (31.7%)
2068 (100%)
Table 1.
Respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
(Question 1): Does animal testing has a negative impact on animals and how?.
Source: By researcher.
As shown in Table 1, 1269 (61.4%) respondents strongly agree/somewhat agree. On the other hand, 657 (31.7%) respondents strongly disagree/somewhat disagree. As for the respondents who neither agree nor disagree, they are 142 (6.9%).
Based on the above-mentioned, it is indicated that the majority of the respondents are aware of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
The formulated hypotheses in this study as stated in section (1.4) were tested by using regression analysis and Pearson’s product moment correlation.
The following hypotheses have been tested by using the respondents’ responses in Table 1.
Ha1: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
H01: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals.
5.3 Regression model
Y=α=βX+μ…Forallobservationsi12…n
Y = animals.
X = public awareness.
μ = error term of random variable.
α = a constant amount.
β = effect of X hypothesized to be positive.
Consequently, the regression (predict) equation will be:
Y=108.011+1.212XE1
The data from the questionnaire has been analyzed by using regression analysis to examine the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals. Tables 2–4 demonstrate that the regression result reveals the existence of significant result on the variables (R-coefficient = 0.711; p < 0.05). The significant level is 0.002. Therefore, Hypothesis Ha1 stating the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals is accepted. Consequently, the null Hypothesis H01 is rejected.
5.4 Investigating the respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment
The respondents’ awareness of the various negative impacts of animal testing on the environment is demonstrated in Table 5.
Strongly agree (5) N (%)
Somewhat agree (4) N (%)
Neither agree nor disagree (3) N (%)
Somewhat disagree (2) N (%)
Strongly disagree (1) N (%)
Total N (%)
Environmental exposure to diseases is a result of animal testing.
294 (56.8%)
115 (22.1%)
0 (0%)
54 (10.5%)
54 (10.5%)
517 (100%)
Animal testing pollutes air, groundwater, and soil.
218 (42.1%)
54 (10.5%)
76 (14.7%)
115 (22.1%)
54 (10.5%)
517 (100%)
Animal testing results into large amounts of environmental waste and toxic chemical.
71 (13.7%)
82 (15.8%)
32 (6.3%)
250 (48.4%)
82 (15.8%)
517 (100%)
The disposal process resulting from animal testing leads to dangerous exposure to biohazards and radioactive materials.
43 (8.4%)
234 (45.3%)
17 (3.2%)
76 (14.7%)
147 (28.4%)
517 (100%)
Total
1111 (53.7%)
125 (6.1%)
832 (40.2%)
2068 (100%)
Table 5.
Respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
(Question 2): Does animal testing has a negative impact on the environment and how?.
Source: By researcher.
Table 5 illustrates that 1111 (53.7%) respondents strongly agree/somewhat agree. Furthermore, 832 (40.2%) respondents strongly disagree/somewhat disagree. Only 125 (6.1%) respondents neither agree nor disagree. Derived from the aforementioned, the majority of the respondents are aware of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
The following hypotheses have been tested by using the respondents’ responses in Table 5.
Ha2: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
H02: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment.
The hypotheses data was obtained from the responses in the questionnaires. The validity of the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment was tested by correlation coefficient.
Table 6 illustrates that correlation result reveals the existence of significant result on the variables (r = 0.821; p < 0.05) and the significant level is 0.041. Based on that, Hypothesis Ha2 stating the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment is accepted, while the null Hypothesis H02 is rejected.
Public awareness
Environment
PPMC
Public awareness
Correlation coefficient
1
0.821
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.041
N
285
285
Environment
Correlation coefficient
0.821
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.041
N
517
517
Table 6.
Coefficients.
Source: By researcher.
5.5 Investigating the respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry
The respondents’ awareness of the various negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry is demonstrated in Table 7.
Strongly agree (5) N (%)
Somewhat agree (4) N (%)
Neither agree nor disagree (3) N (%)
Somewhat disagree (2) N (%)
Strongly disagree (1) N (%)
Total N (%)
Animal testing does not lead to significant side effects in human trials.
179 (34.7%)
43 (8.4%)
40 (7.7%)
104 (20.0%)
151 (29.1%)
517 (100%)
Animal testing is efficient.
218 (42.1%)
54 (10.5%)
76 (14.7%)
115 (22.1%)
54 (10.5%)
517 (100%)
Animals do not have different genetic makeup than humans.
245 (47.4%)
54 (10.5%)
49 (9.5%)
60 (11.5%)
109 (21.1%)
517 (100%)
Animal testing is a not a costly process.
71 (13.7%)
82 (15.8%)
32 (6.3%)
250 (48.4%)
82 (15.8%)
517 (100%)
Total
946 (45.7%)
197 (9.5%)
925 (44.8%)
2068 (100%)
Table 7.
Respondents’ awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
(Question 3): Does animal testing has a negative impact on the cosmetic industry and how?.
Source: By researcher.
Based on Table 7, 946 (45.7%) respondents strongly agree/somewhat agree. Contradictorily, 925 (44.8%) respondents strongly disagree/somewhat disagree. Meanwhile, 197 (9.5%)) respondents neither agree nor disagree. As a result, on the basis of the above-mentioned, the number of the respondents who are not aware of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry exceeds the number of respondents who are aware of this issue.
The following hypotheses have been tested by using the respondents’ responses in Table 7.
Ha3: The existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
H03: The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
5.6 Regression model
Y=α=βX+μ…Forallobservationsi12…n
Y = cosmetic industry.
X = public awareness.
μ = error term of random variable.
α = a constant amount.
β = effect of X hypothesized to be positive.
Accordingly, the regression (predict) equation will be:
Y=99.123+1.313XE2
Regression analysis was used to analyze the data collected from the questionnaires. Tables 8–10 demonstrated illustrate that the regression result revels the existence of significant result on the variables (R-coefficinet = 0.124; p < 0.05) with the significant level as 0.051.
In consequence, the null Hypothesis H03 that states the nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry is not rejected, while H a3 is not accepted.
In conclusion, the first objective of the study was to examine the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals. The findings of the study revealed the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on animals (Hypothesis Ha1). Not only were the respondents aware that animal testing negatively affects animals, but they are also aware of the various proven negative effects of these tests. The majority of respondents strongly agreed that animals subjected to testing suffer from pain and extreme illness. They also believed that the inhumane treatment of animals subjected to testing causes them stress and chronic diseases. Additionally, they were very much aware of the fact that the tests cause the death of large numbers of these animals. The aforementioned responses are consistent with the negative impacts of animal testing on animals as in section (3.1).
The second objective of the research was to investigate the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment. The findings of the study showed the existence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment (Hypothesis Ha2).
Besides being aware of the fact that animal testing has negative impacts on the environment, the majority of respondents strongly affirmed that environmental exposure to diseases is a result of animal testing as well as the pollution of air, groundwater, and soil created by animal testing. In addition to that, the majority of respondents believed that animal testing may result into large amounts of environmental waste and toxic chemical. Further to that, the majority of respondents agreed that the disposal process resulting from animal testing leads to dangerous exposure to biohazards and radioactive materials.
The above-mentioned responses are compatible with the negative impacts of animal testing on the environment as mentioned in section (3.2).
The third and last objective of the research was to study the existence of public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry. The nonexistence of a significant public awareness of the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry (Hypothesis H03) was found out by this study’s findings. It is clear from the responses that the majority of respondents were not aware of the various effects of animal testing on the cosmetic industry. The majority of respondents strongly believed that animal testing is efficient, is not a costly process, and does not lead to significant side effects in human trials. At the same time, they were strongly convinced that animals do not have different genetic makeup than humans.
In summary, there is a significant public awareness and a consensus of opinions on the negative impacts of animal testing on both the animals and the environment.
However, there is a lack of a significant public awareness on the negative impacts of animal testing on the cosmetic industry.
Therefore, it is essential to increase public awareness on all the various negative effects of animal testing. This can be achieved through animal cruelty awareness campaigns, social platforms, and media. These are considered powerful and effective ways to raise the public awareness and educate the public on animal rights and welfare as well as the issue of animal testing.
Moreover, people should be more encouraged in these awareness campaigns to purchase makeup, feminine hygiene products, deodorants, and household cleaners from cruelty-free brands that do not test their products on animals. These brands use only national ingredients which do not contain animal products.
Additionally, companies should consider switching to cruelty-free products and use ingredients in their products which have already been proved safe for human use and do not require additional tests.
References
1.Hussain G. www.sentientmedia.org. [Online]. 2021. Available from: https://sentientmedia.org/animal-testing-cosmetics/ [Accessed: October 17, 2022]
2.McCoy C. www.altfore.com. [Online]. 2019. Available from: https://altfore.com/blogs/news/the-effects-of-animal-testing-in-the-cosmetic-industry [Accessed: October 15, 2022]
3.Otto C. www.sentientmedia.org. [Online]. 2021. Available from: https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-animal-testing-bad/ [Accessed: October 15, 2022]
4.Ignacio M. www.honokaastudentnews.com. [Online]. 2021. Available from: https://honokaastudentnews.com/1554/uncategorized-2/the-cruelty-behind-animal-testing/ [Accessed: October 17, 2022]
5.Legal Information Institute. www.law.cornell.edu. [Online]. 2022. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/animal_testing [Accessed: October 14, 2022]
6.Murnaghan I. www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. [Online]. 2021. Available from: https://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/what-animal-testing.html [Accessed: October 14, 2022]
7.Speaking of Research. www.speakingofresearch.com [Online]. 2022. Available from: https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/faq-about-animal-research/ [Accessed: October 14, 2022]
8.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov [Online]. 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/product-testing-cosmetics/animal-testing-cosmetics [Accessed: October 14, 2022]
9.Leaping Bunny Program. www.leapingbunny.org. [Online]. 2022. Available from: https://www.leapingbunny.org/types-animal-tests [Accessed: October 14, 2022]
10.Unsustainable Magazine. www.unsustainablemagazine.com. [Online]. 2021. Available from: https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/animal-testing-in-the-beauty-industry/#What_is_animal_testing_in_the_beauty_industry [Accessed: October 22, 2022]
11.www.products.pcc.eu. [Online]. 2022. Available from: https://www.products.pcc.eu/en/blog/animal-testing-in-the-cosmetic-industry-what-should-you-know/ [Accessed: October 17, 2022]
12.Shroff J. www.aishroff.wordpress.com [Online]. 2016. Available from: https://jaishroff.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/the-significant-impact-of-animal-testing-on-the-environment/ [Accessed: October 17, 2022]
13.Corbett R. www.faunalytics.org. [Online]. 2019. Available from: https://faunalytics.org/animal-research-an-environmental-perspective/ [Accessed: October 17, 2022]
Written By
Sherihan Radi
Submitted: 03 November 2022Reviewed: 14 January 2023Published: 23 February 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
