Nexus - 0226 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Alternatives to Animal Testing Chemical Assays Blood harmlessly drawn from a horseshoe crab yields clumps of blood cells (in bottom of container to the left). The cells are the main ingredient of the LAL test, an in vitro alternative that screens intravenous fluids. off the market. All that may be required sider these tests their defence in the event for manufacturers to market such products that they are sued by consumers claiming is a warning label which can easily be to have been injured by unsafe products. overlooked by consumers. Nevertheless, in one often-cited lawsuit, Finally, when people are accidentally the judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to exposed to a hazardous substance, animal show that "the result of tests on rabbit eyes tests are largely irrelevant to mitigating can be extrapolated to humans" and that the injury because the tests are not designed to “rabbit studies, standing alone, do not war- yield treatments for such injuries: they rant condemnation of this product" (despite simply estimate the destruction that can be _ injury to the rabbit). caused by a given substance. The fear of lawsuits is only partially responsible for the continued use of animal AREN'T ANIMAL TESTS REQUIRED testing. Another factor is the cosmetic BY LAW? industry's slow pace in developing and No. The federal Food, Drug and _ refining alternative testing methods. It Cosmetic Act does not require premarket therefore isn't surprising that the industry testing of cosmetics and personal-care claims it needs more time to eliminate test- products. More and more manufacturers ing completely. Newer methods of safety are ensuring the safety of their products by _ testing fall into four categories: neactioina calantiua Farmulatinn neina In Vitro International (Irvine, CA) mar- kets the Eytex™ test, a chemical-test kit for estimating eye irritancy. The kit contains a mixture of chemicals that recreates key chemical components of the cornea. The test kit's chemicals, like those in the eye, turn cloudy in response to irritants. The degree of cloudiness is a measure of irritan- cy. Tests on Nonsentient Organisms Single-celled organisms and other ani- mals with limited or no capacity for suffer- ing are nevertheless sensitive to many irri- tating or poisonous substances. One of the most promising alternatives to the Draize Eye-Irritancy Test involves chicken embryos that have not yet developed to the point where they can feel pain but that have an outer membrane (within the shell) which responds to irritants. The membrane is exposed by cutting a small window in the shell. A plastic ring placed in the mem- brane serves as a well for the test sub- stance. The degree of membrane response (cloudiness, inflammation and proliferation of blood vessels) is a measure of irritancy. Computer Models Computer models can help predict haz- ardous effects based on a substance's chem- ical and physical properties. The models rely on the information accumulated on already tested compounds to help predict the effects of untested compounds. Based on this principle, Health Designs, Inc. (Rochester, NY) has developed computer models that estimate LDSO values, Draize eye-irritancy scores and other test results. Many alternative tests have been devel- oped based on these approaches. Coupled with the process of selective formulation, these methods provide cosmetic companies with the tools necessary to market new products without resorting to animal test- ing. As a result of these technical break- throughs, as well as considerable public pressure, several leading cosmetic compa- nies have announced either a permanent end to their animal testing, or substantial progress in reducing their animal testing. While questions remain about some of these announcements and about the testing of ingredients (as distinct from the finished products), it is clear that the status quo of animal testing is changing. Cosmetic companies that are unsatisfied with existing alternative testing methods should refine these methods. In the mean- AREN'T ANIMAL TESTS REQUIRED BY LAW? No. The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require premarket testing of cosmetics and personal-care products. More and more manufacturers are ensuring the safety of their products by practising selective formulation—using only ingredients that are generally recog- nised as safe—and then performing care- fully controlled studies using human volun- teers. This approach is followed even by companies that test some of their products on animals. At least two companies have admitted that, based on existing safety information, some 70 to 90 per cent of their new products are not tested on animals. Test-Tube Methods Also known as in vitro methods, test- tube procedures test the effects of sub- stances on isolated cells, tissue fragments or organs. An advantage of these methods is that they allow researchers to test direct- ly on human matter. The following two tests use human-eye tissue, which available from eye banks and eye research centres. The Clonetics Corporation (San Diego, CA) markets the Neutral Red Assay™, an in vitro eye-irritation test. Neutral red is a dye that is readily absorbed by healthy, undamaged human cells; irritants impair the cell's capacity to absorb the dye. The degree of absorption impairment is a mea- sure of irritancy potential. NEW APPROACHES TO COSMETICS TESTING Most of the cosmetic companies that use animals in safety testing do market some products that have not been tested on ani- mals, but have refused to eliminate animal testing altogether. Many companies con- 20 ¢ NEXUS JUNE - JULY 1995