The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Cutting the cruelty from cosmetics > Comments

Cutting the cruelty from cosmetics : Comments

By George Seymour, published 14/3/2013

This week the European Union finalised a complete ban on all animal testing for cosmetics.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
This is great news for animals and for humans. Animals are not good models for human anatomy. Testing animals for cancer treating drugs is one thing where there can be argument, but for new makeup lines this is simply obscene. I would have to question the morality of anyone who would slowly toxify the eyes of restrained rabbits for this purpose.

Non-animal methods usually take less time to complete than the crude, archaic animal tests that they replace. In addition, they cost only a fraction of what animal experiments cost and are not affected by species differences that make applying test results to humans difficult or impossible.
Posted by D.Pearson, Thursday, 14 March 2013 9:24:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just finished reviewing a scientific manuscript describing an attempt to develop a suitable skin substitute for drug/cosmetic testing. Most researchers/businesses would prefer to use non-animal models due to them being cheaper, easier, quicker, reproducible and of course more ethical.

However, it seems like many articles I read about animal testing, the author simply states "Non-animal alternatives exist" with very little understanding of these alternatives. Currently non-animal substitutes are inferior and are not very useful in predicting outcomes when the product reaches humans. If they were suitable, we would already be using them for the reasons stated above. Perhaps this ban will increase investments in these alternatives due to the increased costs businesses will face. These costs will arise for the need for greater levels of human testing.

This is the main point I would like to emphasize. Testing of a product (cosmetic or drug/other) needs to be performed before it makes it to market. Reducing animal testing without suitable substitutes means that this testing needs to be performed in human clinical trials. This moves the risk onto humans. If we decide that decreasing animal testing is worth the increased risk to humans then so be it.
Posted by Stezza, Saturday, 16 March 2013 3:12:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy