non-animal testing

/Tag:non-animal testing

Harmonisation of Animal Testing Alternatives in China

Shujun Cheng, Xiaoting Qu and Yao Qin

More and more countries are lining up to follow the EU’s approach and implement a full ban on the sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals, which has been the case in the EU since 2013. Besides animal welfare considerations, the need for mutual acceptance of data (MAD) and harmonisation of the global market have made the move toward non-animal testing a desirable general trend for countries
worldwide. Over the last 10 years, the concept of alternative methods has been gradually developing in China. This has seen the harmonisation of relevant legislation, the organisation of various theoretical and hands-on training sessions, the exploration of method validation, the adoption of internationally recognised methods, the propagation of alternative testing standards, and an in-depth investigation into the potential use of in vitro methods in the biosciences. There are barriers to this progress, including the demand for a completely new infrastructure, the need to build technology capability, the requirement for a national standardisation system formed through international co-operation, and the lack of technical assistance to facilitate self-innovation. China is now increasing speed in harmonising its approach to the use of non-animal alternatives, accelerating technological development and attempting to incorporate
non-animal, in vitro, testing methods into the national regulatory system.

This article is currently only available in full to paid subscribers. Click here to subscribe, or you will need to log in/register to buy and download this article

It Takes a Village: Stakeholder Participation is Essential to Transforming Science

Kristie Sullivan

Efforts toward replacing the use of animals in toxicology testing have begun to make significant headway in the last several years, due to co-operative and pragmatic efforts on the part of many stakeholders, and the public pressure that non-governmental advocacy organisations represent. Science-focused advocacy organisations have a unique role to play in these efforts, as they often have flexibility to adapt quickly to keep a project going and forge connections among different kinds of stakeholders to help encourage buy-in. This year, meaningful progress has been made, especially in regulatory laws and policies, which will lead to the replacement of animals in toxicology testing. In order to keep this momentum, we need to measure progress — but this requires improved transparency and regular reporting of animal use. In addition, we should consider how strategies that have successfully reduced and replaced animal use in toxicology can be applied to basic biomedical research practices.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Animal Use in the Chemical and Product Manufacturing Sectors — Can the Downtrend Continue?

Rodger Curren

During the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of manufacturing companies in the cosmetic, personal care and household product industries were able to substantially reduce their use of animals for testing (or to not use animals in the first place). These reductions were almost always the result of significant financial contributions to either direct, in-house alternatives research, or to support personnel whose duties were to understand and apply the current state-of-the-art for in vitro testing. They occurred almost exclusively in non-regulatory areas, and primarily involved acute topical toxicities. Over the last few years, the reduction in animal use has been much less dramatic, because some companies are still reluctant to change from the traditional animal studies, because systemic, repeat-dose toxicity is more difficult to model in vitro, and because many products still require animal testing for regulatory approval. Encouragingly, we are now observing an increased acceptance of non-animal methods by regulatory agencies. This is due to mounting scientific evidence from larger databases, agreement by companies to share data and testing strategies with regulatory agencies, and a focus on smaller domains of applicability. These changes, along with new emphasis and financial support for addressing systemic toxicities, promise to provide additional possibilities for industry to replace animals with in vitro methods, alone or in combination with in silico methods. However, the largest advance will not occur until more companies commit to using the non-animal test strategies that are currently available.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.