European cosmetics producers seek alternatives to animal experiments

Testing times

31 March 2008 00:00  [Source: ICB]

With increasing Europe-wide restrictions on the testing of new cosmetics on animals, the industry is scrambling to find safe alternatives and cut the volume of tests

Rachel Uctas/London

ANIMAL TESTING is one of the most controversial topics, evoking strong reactions in its defense and opposition. Companies are at great pains to disassociate themselves from images of rabbits having substances dripped into their eyes. In fact, the cosmetics sector has had to invest heavily in finding different methods of testing, prompted by a stringent regulatory environment.

Tough legislation has been introduced in the EU to curb the use of animals in the field of cosmetics, leading to an ultimate ban. The 6th Amendment to the European Commission's Cosmetics Directive was introduced in 1993, with the aim of phasing out the use of animals in testing. The dates of implementation proved difficult and had to be postponed, but a ban on the testing of finished cosmetic products has been in place since September 11, 2004. By March 11, 2009, the testing of ingredients or combinations of ingredients on animals will come into force, irrespective of the availability of alternative testing methods.

Furthermore, a controversial ban on the marketing of animal tested cosmetic products in the EU is also due to come into force on March 11, 2009, whether or not any alternative test is available, for all human health effects except repeated-dose toxicity and toxicokinetics. As the legislation stands, these are bound by a deadline of March 11, 2013.

With this backdrop, it is clear that scientists need to come up with other ways of ensuring the safety of cosmetics and the ingredients used in new developments. A lot of money has already been ploughed into this area, and so far, according to data from the European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (Colipa), a number of replacements for animal tests have become mandatory within the EU. These include tests for assessing dermal corrosivity.

Episkin is a human skin grown in a lab as an alternative to animal testing, which was developed by French cosmetics giant L'Oreal to test new products for skin corrosion or irritation. Previously, rabbit skin would have been used for this purpose, but this new testing method is seen to be just as effective.

The industry has developed a barrage of in vitro screening tests by which it becomes clear that an ingredient is not suitable for further development, therefore never having to come near an animal.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has set up a group known as the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, bringing together six business associations including the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and Colipa to examine the use of animal testing with a view to its reduction. The group has adopted the "three Rs" principle - reduction, replacement and refining.

MINIMAL ANIMAL TESTING

Under reduction, the aim is to use as small a number of animals as possible to do a test that will still yield scientifically valid results. The idea of refinement is that tests should be tweaked in order to reduce and minimize the suffering that an animal will have to endure as a result of a test.

Replacement extols the benefits of using different methods to test products that do not involve the use of animals.

But research takes time. Cefic executive director for research and innovation Gernot Klotz points out that however desirable the idea of phasing out animal testing completely may be, "Jumping from animal testing to no animal testing is impossible." However, taking steps to change the current situation, by making more intelligent use of existing data and reducing the number of animals used in testing, can at least begin to satisfy all parties.

He admits that the high cost of using animals to test products is a factor that prompts the industry to look at cheaper alternatives. It is expensive to breed and keep animals in preparation for their use in experiments. Therefore, finding other ways of proceeding makes sense from a financial perspective as well as for public relations.

There are some areas of research where animal testing cannot yet be replaced - medicine and pharmaceuticals being the most obvious example. If human safety is of paramount importance, then the practice of using animals will not be eradicated easily.

Within the cosmetics industry, there are still areas where science lags behind, Klotz emphasizes. "It is not a question of resources, but intellectual knowledge," he says, arguing that in some areas, research is far from finding a viable alternative to animal tests.

That means more animals, and the introduction of Europe's Reach regulations will inevitably see a huge increase in the number of animals used in testing in the chemical industry as a whole, estimated at a minimum of 6m-8m overall, with some even suggesting a figure of 30m.

The overall number of animals used for testing purposes in the EU stands at roughly 12m/year, but of these, the number recorded in the testing of cosmetic ingredients is comparatively small, amounting to just under 9,000, according to the Commission's Report on the Development, Validation and Legal Acceptance of Alternative Methods to Animal Tests in the Field of Cosmetics 2005, which took figures submitted in 2004. Only France, Spain and Denmark had used animals to test ingredients, with 5,496 animals used in France, 3,480 in Spain and just 12 in Denmark. The UK did not submit figures, on the basis that no animal tests for the development and safety of cosmetic products were carried out there.

The same report concluded that chemicals were rarely tested on animals solely for their use as ingredients in cosmetics, but that the majority of animal tests were undertaken for multiple uses by chemical manufacturers. An estimated 80-90% of cosmetic ingredients were tested for multiple uses. Kirsty Reid, policy officer on animal research for pressure group Eurogroup for Animals , sees this as a problem. "Although cosmetics ingredients won't fall under Reach, companies can say that they'll use the ingredient in question for a household product," she says. This again makes it very difficult to assess the reality of the numbers of animal tests carried out.

CHANGE OF APPROACH

The use of animal tests in the cosmetics industry is seen as a last resort, and wherever possible, altnernatives are used. The industry makes heavy use of in vitro tests, existing data, supplier information and computer-based systems. It has also invested substantially in the research and development of new testing methods.

Klotz makes the case for "a more intelligent testing approach," making better use of existing data and adapting tests to ensure that animal use is minimized. This would involve bringing together resources in order to optimise animal usage under the three Rs principle. He admits that some current testing practices are carried out just to tick boxes, and are not essential.

Europe has taken a leading role in promoting the use of alternatives and implementing legislation. The US is following suit, while Japan is far behind in accepting alternatives, according to Reid. However, efforts are being made at international dialogue. Klotz agrees that a global harmonized approach is necessary, in order to ensure fair rules for all countries and to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing animal suffering.

Sign up for our free fine and pharmaceutical chemicals e-newsletter

< previous article(VIDEO - ICIS news Asia Lunchtime Bulletin 16 October 2009)

For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.

Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.

Printer Friendly