![]() Alternatives to Cosmetics Testing on Animals
In some cases, non-acceptance of new methods is directly due to the lack of available data about existing animal test methods. Additionally, double standards are shown by the fact that even recent proposals for new animal tests have not always been subjected to the rigorous validation demanded for in vitro methods. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) , which validates alternative tests at European level, has validated tests for (inter alia) skin corrosivity and skin sensitisation. Regulatory acceptance has been granted for skin corrosivity, phototoxicity, percutaneous absorption and skin sensitisation. For photoirritancy and skin penetration, some leading scientific experts believe that in vitro methods are already better than existing animal tests. In other areas (and not forgetting the scientific criticisms of the animal tests), it is generally agreed that more work is needed to develop non-animal tests. There is a strong case for targeting research funds towards developmental research for non-animal test methods in these fields given the wider importance of such tests. The cosmetics industry’s version of the state of alternatives is given on the Web Site of the European Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association.
Finished products (or combinations of ingredients) are generally no longer tested on animals by the industry. Eye and skin tolerance can be tested safely in vitro and/or with human volunteers.
Top | Cosmetics Testing: Background | Cosmetics Campaign Index | WAN Home |