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.

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.