Most Popular in:
Considering Test Methods’ Impact on Your Brand
By: Brian Dell, Celsis Analytical Services
Posted: December 7, 2009, from the December 2009 issue of GCI Magazine.
page 2 of 4A second factor is the changing regulatory culture around the acceptability of animal testing, particularly as applied for cosmetics and personal care products. Following the lead of the U.K., which banned animal testing in 1998, the EU joined ranks in March 2009 enacting a ban on all animal testing of cosmetic ingredients and formulations.
Supporting this ban, the EU simultaneously passed legislation preventing the sale of all beauty products and ingredients that use animal testing in development, regardless of the availability of in vitro standards.
These EU rulings are influencing regulatory policy in other countries, as well as thought leader opinion regarding the continued acceptability of animal testing for product development. Because of the changing regulatory landscape, globally-focused companies find themselves increasingly incentivized to find proven in vitro alternatives for their traditional animal-based platforms.
The third factor driving the increased use of in vitro test methods is the availability of new assay and screening technologies that allow in vitro test methods to offer substantial benefits over previously employed in vivo platforms. With the technical advances of the last 30 years, today’s in vitro test methods demonstrate superior efficacy as defined by the four Rs.
Compelling Business Case
In vitro testing offers a compelling business case for use. Improved reproducibility and consistency in lot-to-lot test data yields highly correlated results. The opportunity to administer assays in a high throughput format means a quicker turn-around time for results—typically 48 hours versus two to three weeks with traditional in vivo method. These efficiencies reduced costs sufficiently to enable testing of smaller amounts of more substances at an earlier stage of development.