Animal Testing - Alternatives

            According to Humane Society International, an organization that works on animal protection issues around the world, stated more than forty non-animal tests have been authorized for use. They stated that companies can start by utilizing any of the ingredients already identified to be safe that don’t need new testing. They stated that there are various skin tests available that use human reconstructed skin, such as EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, as well as the “3T3 neutral red uptake test for sunlight-induced “phototoxicity,” and the Bovine Cornea Opacity and Permeability test for eye corrosion.”  
            According to freelance science writer, Zeeya Merali, who has worked for Scientific Magazine and National Geographic, EPISKIN has been approved for testing for cosmetics that are likely to irritate the skin and “it is the first complete replacement for animal testing.” These modern alternatives can give results that are more accurate, less expensive, and more efficient. Cosmetic companies should stop using animal testing so they can focus on producing new, safe and amazing beauty products by testing the cruelty-free way. 

For more on alternative testing:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/facts/alternatives_animal_tests.html

Animal Testing - Organization and celebrity support for alternatives

            In March of 2014, Cruelty Free International, a global organization working solely to end animal testing for cosmetics and consumer products, applauded the introduction of the Humane Cosmetics Act by U.S. Representative Jim Moran from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This landmark legislation concentrates on the cruelty of animal testing for cosmetics and that modern non-animal tests are to be used instead to produce products safety. The Humane Cosmetics Act would “ban animal testing for cosmetics after a one-year phase” and then have a “three-year phase period for a ban on the sale of animal tested cosmetics.” The Humane Cosmetics Act provides a chance to ensure modern, humane alternative tests are at the “heart of ensuring U.S. consumers' safety.”

            Monica Engebretson, North American manager from Cruelty-Free International, wrote in the Huff Post Impact that the support of high-profile celebrities to raise awareness of this issue is essential to informing Americans about animal experimentation. “Sir Paul McCartney, Ricky Gervais, Norman Reedus, Peter Dinklage, Ashley Bell and Joss Stone” help bring up the issue of cosmetics testing on animals and pursue consumers and policy makers around the world to stop cruel animal tests for cosmetics. 

Animal Testing - An expensive and cruel practice

            Humane Society International states that scientific drawbacks of animal tests have been proven on several occasions. They state that comparison of reactions in animals to reactions in humans is questionable and that animal testing has scientific limitations because different species can react differently, even when given the same chemicals. Consequently, results from animal experiments can turn out inaccurate in humans, which can cause hazards to people. Undependable and un-predictive animal experiments mean consumer safety cannot be guaranteed. 

            Gregory Mone, an MA-based writer, stated animal-based experiments “take too long and are too expensive, often requiring several years and millions of dollars or more to carry out.” 

            In Dr. Martin Wasserman’s article in the Baltimore Sun, he wrote that the most common animal experiments were the Draize skin and eye tests which involve placing a substance on an animal to check for toxic effects. He stated these tests are inaccurate and extremely expensive and time consuming; as series of tests on one chemical can “cost around $6 million and can take three years to complete.” There is also the apparent pain due to the animals used in these experiments being fully conscious. Dr. Martin Wasserman stated that they are “scalded by chemicals on their skin and eyes, shoved into tubes no larger than their bodies and forced to breathe [toxic] fumes,” and are not any more immune to pain than any other animal. 

            Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society wrote in the Huff Post Green agreeing on this issue of finding alternatives.  He stated that The National Academy of Sciences says that they are leading toward modern computer and humane-based approaches that can produce results in days rather than years, and at a small fraction of the cost of animal testing.  Pacelle said the participating scientists foresee the complete replacement of animal tests and this work is long overdue, greatly needed, and a transformation in the regulation of chemicals. 

For a list of all the tests and descriptions, visit:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/tips/common_cosmetics_tests_animals.html?credit=web_id329654370

Animal Testing - Big companies support for alternatives

            
            According to an article in the NY times by Barnaby J. Feder, human skin, eyes, the lining of the throat are now continually being grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products. He stated that these methods for creating these tissue samples are one of the most complex of an expanding part of technologies created to eliminate or reduce animal testing. he also stated in other cases, testing is being conducted virtually, using computers and simulation software. And for other tests, people have replaced animals; volunteers get micro-doses of potential drugs that can be analyzed but cause no ill effects. 

            Feder ststed that the alternatives are being pushed by a few giants eager to move from animal testing for scientific, business and image reasons. Len Sauers, the executive who oversees the work for Procter & Gamble, ststed that the company has spent "$225 million" developing and executing alternative testing methods for a wide range of personal and pet care products and food over the last 20 years. Feder stated that L’Oréal, the French cosmetics giant, spent more than "$800 million" over the same period. That includes contracts to buy Episkin and SkinEthic, two companies that make alternative test samples. 

            Patricia Pineau, L’Oréal Research’s spokeswoman, stated, “this is not an area of competition for us,” and that tissue testing products and services were sold at regular cost to other companies, including rivals like P.&G. and Unilever. 

For more information on the companies alternatives: 

http://www.loreal.com/csr-commitments/loreal-answers/the-question-of-animal-testing.aspx

http://www.pgbeautyscience.com/animal-testing-alternatives.php

Animal Testing - FDA regulations

            The FDA states that a common issue asked from product consumers pertains of the use of animals and alternatives in cosmetic testing.  The FDA does have information on their website regarding this issue. The FDA regulates that all cosmetics be safely and properly labeled. This is measured through the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), and related standards and regulations under this act. 

            The FD&C Act "does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval." The FDA does advise cosmetic companies to use the testing that is effective and appropriate for keeping the safety of their products. It is the responsibility of the company to keep the safety the ingredients and finished product before distribution. 

            The FDA supports the applicable policies, regulations, and laws regarding animal testing, including the "Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." In cases where animal testing is used, the FDA states that research and testing should get their information from the minimum amount of animals and carry out the most humane methods within the limits of scientific capability.

            In 1997, the FDA "joined with thirteen other Federal agencies in forming the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)." ICCVAM and its supporting center, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), coordinate the "development, validation, acceptance, and harmonization of alternative toxicological test methods throughout the U.S. Federal Government." The FDA states they will continue to be a strong supporter of methods for the "refinement, reduction, and replacement" of animal tests with alternative methods that do not require the use of animals. 

Resources from Other U.S. Government Agencies:

• Animal Welfare Act
• National Toxicology Program--Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Test Methods (NTP-ICCVAM)
• Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals