This is an interesting article on the benefits of using non-animal tests in cosmetic/medical research — I always like to read this stuff to see if I’ll learn anything I can add to my animal testing alternatives knowledge. It’s a very nice fact sheet — I think it’s unusual in that it doesn’t just say how alternative methods can work just as well as animal-using-tests, but focuses on how they are sometimes even better — better results, more cost-effective, and more environmentally safe (that was a new one to me). I was going to summarize it but it’s a very short article and arranged nicely as an argument against animal testing, so I’m going to replicate it here in its entirety:
Benefits of Using Non-Animal Tests
“There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.”
–Dr. MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1990; XVII:24
Alternative Scientific Tests are Often More Reliable than Animal Tests
Because animal systems are vastly different from human systems, animal experimentation can be very inaccurate and potentially dangerous to humans. For instance, experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Only after human studies correlated the two did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration label it as carcinogenic.
The late Dr. Björn Ekwall of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden developed a replacement for the LD50 test (an animal test) that measured toxicity at a precision rate of 77% compared to the LD50 rate of 60%-65%. This test, which is more accurate than the animal models, is cruelty-free in that it uses donated human tissue, rather than animals. Dr. Ekwall stated that, “it would be irresponsible [for companies] not to use these…[alternative] tests to provide extra information for [the] protection of consumers.” (“There Is A Better Way; MEIC Finalizes a Replacement Method for the LD50 Test.” Boston, MA: New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 1999)
“Generally, the variability of in vivo (animal) methods is greater than in vitro (non-animal) methods because of the wider degree of genetic and physiological diversity among whole animals.” (Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods: A Report of the ad hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, March 1997) http://iccvam.niehs.nig.gov/process.htm
“There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” (Dr. MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1990; XVII:24)
Non-Animal Tests are More Cost Effective and Practical
Since companies are not currently required to document the number of rats, mice, and birds used in their experiments, it is difficult to do a cost comparison between animal and non-animal tests. However, we know that animal-based tests cost much more than just the cost of purchasing animals. Experiments can require cages, syringes, needles, specialized surgical equipment, food, watering devices, chemicals, stereotactic equipment, etc. – all contributing to significant cost increases.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, “Animal tests not only lack formal validation and generate uncertainties associated with their extrapolation to humans, they also have practical problems. Some take years to complete and/or are very expensive. For example, the standard rodent bioassay for assessing carcinogenicity takes two years to conduct and costs more than a million dollars.”
InVitro International’s Corrositex can provide a corrosivity determination in as little as three minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to six weeks. In addition, Corrositex costs approximately $200 whereas an animal test would cost $1,200 - $1,800, according to Christopher Byrnes in Our Animal Wards. Users of Corrositex can also save on shipping charges. According to InVitro International, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually in shipping costs for a single compound. Additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety.
Cruelty-Free Products are More Environmentally Friendly
Animal-tested products create unnecessary and harmful environmental waste and pollution. Millions of animals in toxicity testing are bred, used, and ultimately disposed of as pathogenic or hazardous waste . The process of manufacturing cruelty-free products, on the other hand, is not damaging in this regard since it does not use animals and therefore does not create such waste.
The Ethical Science and Education Coalition’s (ESEC’s) research has not found any reported environmental hazards from using non-animal tests for safety. Since some of the non-animal tests use computers, the improper disposal of computer monitors could pose an environmental hazard owing to the lead, mercury, barium, cadmium and phosphorous in the cathode ray tube (CRT).
However, last year Massachusetts became the first state to ban CRTs in public landfills and the proper disposal and recycling of CRTs should not pose a hazard. Additionally, since most companies would most likely own computers anyway, the use of computerized non-animal tests would not increase the number of computers.
November 2001
