There is a sequence of legal requirements and laboratory tests that has to be followed before a pesticide/drug/anything that may be consumed or in contact with humans (or animals!) will be given approval to be used (and even then, there will often be a sequence of "field" trials before approval for general release is given, including trials on humans). It is in these intial tests that do not use whole animals that many substances are already weeded out (pardon the pun) because they turn out be toxic. But after that, more demanding tests are needed. Included in that sequence will be testing on animals, initially, using cell culture or "lower" animals like fruitflies, worms or zebrafish, but , eventually, testing on "higher" vertebrates including mammals. Those are the rules. That said, alternatives to some of that live animal use are continuously sought (I say "to some" because eventually, testing in all the complexity of a real living organism is still needed); you may have heard of the "three Rs", reduction, refinement, replacement, which apply to animal research and testing equally. However, before alternatives can be used, first of all, they must be proven to really work, that is, be a true alternative. Second, such an alternative must then be approved by law for use in testing - otherwise the final product will not be given legal permission for release. I am not sure what you intended with your question, since it is a bit troll-like. Who wants (or even, in law, be allowed) to use animals in research or testing (and you know, of course, that animals are still protected in that use!) if there are alternatives? Quite apart from the moral and ethical concerns, animals are simply very expensive and need looking after, including nights and weekends - who would not prefer a tissue culture? OTOH, it will probably always be a legal requirement that a final testing phase involves intact animals - including (as many anti-animal users do not seem to know) that animal we want to also protect, Homo sapiens.
There is another question, that may be implicit in your: do we need another pesticide? The answer is probably yes, because the pests that eat our crops and other plants needed for a still increasing human population (and their animals) adapt to resist pesticides. And don't start the "let's all go organic" argument. Organic farmers use pesticides too, they just claim these are not "chemicals".
|