Animal testing is the exploitation of animals in laboratories for human gain, where living beings are subjected to confinement, invasive experiments, and often death in the name of research, profit, and convenience. Read on for honest answers to common questions about this system built on cruelty.
Every year hundreds of millions of animals are forced into laboratories for experimentation. Because rats, mice, and birds — the vast majority of animals exploited — don’t require documentation for use, the true number of lives stolen by this outdated practice is a guarded secret. This means the public has no real accounting of how many animals are harmed or killed in labs annually.
Laboratories use a wide range of animals—nearly all of whom are intelligent, social, and capable of fear, pain, and emotional suffering. Dogs (often beagles), cats, rabbits, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds, fish, rats, mice, and farmed animals are routinely confined and experimented on in U.S. labs.
Here’s the hard truth: most animals used in testing aren’t protected by any meaningful law—and the animals who are “protected” are covered only by bare-minimum, survival-level standards.
The primary federal law that governs some animals in laboratories is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). But the AWA doesn’t prohibit painful experiments or prevent animals from being harmed or killed. Instead, it sets minimal requirements—basic housing, minimal sanitation, and access to food and water—while allowing facilities to still seek exemptions from even these standards if they claim the deviation is “scientifically justified.” Even when the AWA applies, violations are common and enforcement is often weak, meaning many facilities face little real accountability for failing to provide animals with rudimentary survival standards.
And, most animals aren’t covered at all: rats, mice, and birds—who make up an estimated 90–95% of animals used in U.S. laboratories—are specifically excluded from AWA protections.
In other words: cruelty becomes legal when it happens behind a lab door and, oftentimes, there is no such thing as an illegal experiment, no matter how cruel, depraved, or pointless.
In the United States, animal testing for cosmetics, personal care, and household items is no longer legally mandated, and yet, the U.S. still engages in testing for the development of such products. All countries in the European Union as well as Norway, Israel, and india have banned animal testing on cosmetics.
Beagle Freedom Project, the organization behind Cruelty Cutter, is working every day to expose the horrific realities of animal testing and ban the practice altogether.
This answer is disturbing, but you deserve to know the truth Animals like beagles, rats, cats, and monkeys are subjected to:
These “tests” aren’t controlled clinical trials, they are forced suffering; almost always with no relevance to real human biology.
No, not usually.
Most human diseases don’t even naturally occur in other animals, meaning scientists must artificially induce them — creating distorted and misleading results. Even genetically close species like chimpanzees have been proven unnecessary for biomedical research by major scientific reviews (Institute of Medicine, 2011).
Furthermore, contrary to propaganda, animal tests are not reliable predictors of human reactions. Billions of dollars have been wasted on animal experiments that don’t translate to human health, and many drugs once deemed “safe” in animal tests later harm people, even killing them. This system kills animals and risks human lives.
Over 92% of medications that were “successful” in animal trials FAIL in human tests (NIH, 2023).
No.
Government-commissioned reviews found that “most current biomedical research use of chimpanzees is not necessary.” Their genetic similarity does not justify the suffering forced upon them in labs. (Institute of Medicine, 2011). In 2013, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released its own report corroborating these findings, stating that “research involving chimpanzees has rarely accelerated new discoveries or the advancement of human health for infectious diseases.”
No. The FDA has acknowledged that roughly 92% of drugs that appear safe in animals fail in human trials, and many harmful drugs reach the market each year. This stark data shows animal testing isn’t just cruel — it’s scientifically unreliable.
Because there’s money to be made and little accountability.
The animal testing industry is propped up by:
Many researchers stick with old methods out of convenience or habit, not necessity — a classic case of “publish or perish.”
We’re living in the 21st century, yet we cling to 19th-century methods.
Better options already exist:
These methods are often more accurate, faster, and cheaper than animal testing — and they don’t torture and kill animals in the process.
Alternative approaches like in-vitro testing and advanced imaging don’t just replace animal testing — they outperform it in relevance to human biology (FDA). These modern tools give meaningful, reproducible data far more useful to doctors and researchers than forcing another generation of beagles or mice into a life of suffering.
Far too many. Because lab testing is still used by companies making beauty products, household items, and more, you need real tools to expose who’s really complicit. The Cruelty-Cutter app exists to give you that power — so you can choose compassionate brands and avoid those still profiting from torture. Cruelty-Cutter allows you to scan barcodes of products and see instantly if they were tested on animals, and you can boycott or Bite-Back at cruel companies to let them know that you won’t support their abuse!
Download the Cruelty-Cutter app (Google Play, Apple Store)
You have real power.
✔ Scan products with BFP’s Cruelty-Cutter app to avoid companies that test on animals. Live a cruelty-free lifestyle!
✔ Speak out and educate others. Many people are not aware that dogs and cats are still used in painful animal testing every single day.
✔ Demand laws that ban animal testing outright! Contact your state’s representatives to compel them to support legislation that prohibits animal testing!
✔ Donate to Beagle Freedom Project, Cruelty-Cutter’s parent organization, so our team can continue to save laboratory survivors and shut down animal testing facilities.
Together, we can end this misery.
There is no such thing as “lab animals” — they are individuals stolen from their lives, never asked if they want to suffer, and too often erased when no longer “useful.”
Animal testing is not science — it is systematic abuse, and it must be dismantled.
1 Taylor, K., Gordon, N., Langley, G., & Higgins, W. (2008). Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 36(3), 327–342.
2 USDA-APHIS “Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year [2013]. Published online on November 28, 2014. Available for download at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/7023/Animals%20Used%20In%20Research%202013.pdf.
3 7 U.S. Code § 2132(g).
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities,” audit report, Dec. 2014. Available for download at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33601-0001-41.pdf.
5 Grimm, D. (2015). Audit questions U.S. oversight of lab animal welfare. Science. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6311.
6 Roller, E. (2011, June 21). Bill exempts researchers from animal cruelty cases. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124325039.html.
7 Lutz, C., Well, A., & Novak, M. (2003). Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience. American Journal of Primatology, 60(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.10075.
8 Hubrecht, R. C., Serpell, J. A., & Poole, T. B. (n.d.). Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 34(4), 365–383.
9 Eraslan, G., Kanbur, M., Siliğ, Y., Karabacak, M., Soyer Sarlca, Z., & Şahin, S. (2015). The acute and chronic toxic effect of cypermethrin, propetamphos, and their combinations in rats. Environmental Toxicology, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1002/tox.22147.
10 Morton, D., Reed, L., Huang, W., Marcek, J. M., Austin-LaFrance, R., Northcott, C. A., et al. (2014). Toxicity of Hydroxyurea in Rats and Dogs. Toxicologic Pathology, 0192623314559103. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192623314559103.
11 Yaksh, T. L., Hobo, S., Peters, C., Osborn, K. G., Richter, P. J., Rossi, S. S., et al. (2014). Preclinical toxicity screening of intrathecal oxytocin in rats and dogs. Anesthesiology, 120(4), 951–961. http://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000148
12 Werley, M. S., McDonald, P., Lilly, P., Kirkpatrick, D., Wallery, J., Byron, P., & Venitz, J. (2011). Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs. Toxicology, 287(1-3), 76–90. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2011.05.015.
13 Schmeltzer, S. N., Vollmer, L. L., Rush, J. E., Weinert, M., Dolgas, C. M., & Sah, R. (2015). History of chronic stress modifies acute stress-evoked fear memory and acoustic startle in male rats. Stress (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2015.1016495.
14 Carroll, M. E., Kohl, E. A., Johnson, K. M., & LaNasa, R. M. (2013). Increased impulsive choice for saccharin during PCP withdrawal in female monkeys: influence of menstrual cycle phase. Psychopharmacology, 227(3), 413–424. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2963-y.
15 Farese, A. M., Brown, C. R., Smith, C. P., Gibbs, A. M., Katz, B. P., Johnson, C. S., et al. (2014). The Ability of Filgrastim to Mitigate Mortality Following LD50/60 Total-body Irradiation Is Administration Time-Dependent. Health Physics, 106(1), 39–47. http://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182a4dd2c.
16 Rapp, S. J., Rumberg, A., Visscher, M., Billmire, D. A., Schwentker, A. S., & Pan, B. S. (2015). Establishing a Reproducible Hypertrophic Scar following Thermal Injury. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 3(2), e309–9. http://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000277
17 Zhang, B., Suarez-Jimenez, B., Hathaway, A., Waters, C., Vaughan, K., Noble, P. L., et al. (2011). Developmental changes of rhesus monkeys in response to separation from the mother. Developmental Psychobiology, 54(8), 798–807. http://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21000.
18 Kind, P. C., Sengpiel, F., Beaver, C. J., Crocker-Buque, A., Kelly, G. M., Matthews, R. T., & Mitchell, D. E. (2013). The development and activity-dependent expression of aggrecan in the cat visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 23(2), 349–360. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs015.
19 Pound, P., & Bracken, M. B. (2014). Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 348(may30 1), g3387–g3387. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3387.
20 Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. http://doi.org/10.1038/483531a.
21 Attarwala, H. (2010). TGN1412: From Discovery to Disaster. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 2(3), 332–336. http://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1483.66810.
22 Singh, M., Lima, A., Molina, R., Hamilton, P., Clermont, A. C., Devasthali, V., et al. (2010). Assessing therapeutic responses in Kras mutant cancers using genetically engineered mouse models. Nature Publishing Group, 28(6), 585–593. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1640.
23 Gura, T. (1997). CANCER MODELS: Systems for Identifying New Drugs Are Often Faulty. Science, 278, 1041. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5340.1041
24 Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Altevogt, B. M., Pankevich, D. E., Shelton-Davenport, M. K., & Kahn, J. P. (2011). Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
25 Report of the Council of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research. Released January 2013.
26 Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the critical Path to New Medical Products (March 2004). FDA Report.
27 Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–1205.
28 Herzberg, N. (2015, March 20). Mice losing their allure as experimental subjects to study human disease. The Guardian.
29 Rothwell, P. M. (2006). Funding for practice-oriented clinical research. Lancet, 368(9532), 262–266. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69010-7