Prompt: As public safety is of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer from for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. Ċ To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The testing of new products on animals is controversial. Some people claim that in view of public safety, it is essential to test these new products on animals. These people also feel that instead of putting human life at risk, it is better for a few animals suffer by untested products. I completely agree with this statement. Ċ Firstly, few animals has the same genetic configuration as that of humans. Hence their manifestations are similar to the humans. For instance, injection insulin is a life saving drug for diabetics. It was released to the public, only after testing on animals for immediate and delayed manifestations. Perhaps, millions of people would have succumbed to diabetes, if this life saving drug was not tested on animals. Therefore, to attain utmost safety for millions of people any new drug or product must ensure adequate testing on animals, which are genetically similar to human genome. Ċ Secondly, humans are allergic to certain chemicals and they are prone to anaphylactic shock, which can cause death instantly. For example, certain untested perfumes or deodorants can result in severe life threatening allergic reactions. Moreover, if some animals are sacrificed while testing, it has indirectly saved lives of thousands of people. Because, such products will not be released into the market. Overall, humans can be at risk, if they are using products, which are not tested adequately. Ċ In conclusion, many human lives can be protected, if the new products undergo prior adequate animal testing. Finally, harming few animals is better than risking the human life.