Animal testing is an issue that’s been debated for years. The problem is, animals don’t have a voice in that debate.

According to www.allforanimals.com, there is no law requiring companies to test personal care and household products on animals before selling them to consumers, and yet they still do. Why? If a company is sued by a customer for injury caused by one of its products, the information they have gathered from tests on animal subjects is used in its defense.

But the results yielded by these tests are not always reliable. A product injected into a rabbit’s eye may blind it during testing, but instead of stating the actual test results, a company will merely say that the product has been tested. It would rather reimburse the customer than admit its own failure. This allows a company to sell almost any product and literally get away with murder.

There are three sides to every issue. In the case of animal testing, there are those who remain obstinately opposed and who find all forms of this kind of testing unnecessary and inhumane, those who are in favor of the testing IF it produces viable results; and those who are in favor of the testing if it produces viable results and involves little to no cruelty. If one is looking to be ethical without being extreme, this last stance might be the best one.

A good place to start looking for middle ground may be the consideration of how much truth you’re actually getting from a product. If you’ve ever read a package that said, “This product has not been tested on animals,” you may not be getting the entire truth. The finished product may not have been tested, but its components probably were.

But there are some companies that have found alternatives that are more cost-effective, better at predicting human injury, produce quicker results and involve less cruelty. These alternatives include in-vitro testing, computer software, databases of tests already performed (to avoid unnecessary repetition) and human clinical trials (involving only willing individuals).

The strange thing is, while companies search for alternatives, the use of animals in their research actually increases because old tests must be done in conjunction with new ones to ensure consistent results.

According to the U.S. Humane Society, alternatives are scientific methods that accomplish one or more of the “Three Rs”: replace, reduce and refine. They replace the use of animals; they reduce the number of animals used; and/or they refine a procedure so the animals involved experience less pain, suffering or discomfort.

There is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to execute all three of these. It’s possible to create high-quality products without testing them on animals. Companies like The Body Shop, Almay, Pure & Basic, Avon, Bath & Body Works and Crabtree & Evelyn have already promised that neither their finished products nor their ingredients have been animal-tested.

If we can’t stop using animals altogether for testing, we must at least find ways of minimizing their suffering. It’s up to us to give voice to those who don’t have one.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.