What it Took to Find that Perfect Shade of Red: Animal Experimentation & the Alternatives

Irritation and corrosion to the skin, loss of sight, endocrine
disruption, inflammation of airways, brain damage, burns and LD₅₀ (lethal dose killing 50% of animals treated)… these are only a few of the repercussions of animal experimentation purely to find that perfect shade of red...

From tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib (Glivec) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia, to therapeutic antibodies such as trastuzumab (Herceptin) for the treatment of breast cancer, to cosmetic ingredients such as Botox, animal testing has contributed significantly to the testing of efficacy, toxicity and hypoallergenic properties of medicinal and cosmetic products for human use. 

Despite animal rights organisations such as the RSPCA and PETA protesting against cruelty plaguing animal experimentation, many organisations/institutions believe animal use in research is fundamental to human benefit. These include the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the Royal Society. A statement published by the Royal Society (2002) (click here) proclaimed the following:

"Modern biology, with all its contributions to the well-being of society, is heavily dependent on research on animals. Along with the great majority of the scientific community, the Royal Society considers that the benefits provide the justification for the research that led to them. At the same time, the Society also recognises that special ethical considerations are involved and that animal research must be undertaken only with the greatest care." (1)

To ensure utmost care, regulatory measures on animal testing are being taken into high regard for animal welfare; companies/organisations in the UK have adopted the 3 R's as part of their recognition of the “special ethical considerations” involved in exploiting animals for research (2). These don't eradicate animal experimentation, but offer a system to ensure the soundest utilisation of animals and reduce animal suffering:

  Refine. Reduce. Replace

Existing UK legislation puts forward obligations for researchers proposing to carry out research using animals to comply with the 3 R’s. Consent processes for scientific research licenses stress that scientists should strive to avoid animal usage wherever feasible, as well as delivering sound and in-depth scientific reasoning for animal use, justifying the rationales for no other alternatives (3). With a mountain of scientific knowledge gained from animal testing, do human benefits outweigh the welfare of animals? Are the 3 R’s enough?

The EU Ban on Animal Testing for Cosmetics

     Despite attempts to make animal testing more "ethical", EU bans have transpired on cosmetic ingredient testing on animals:

• These initiated in 1993 with the first directive EU requirements on a marketing ban of cosmetics tested on animals
• Followed by a ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products in 2004
• Followed by a ban of testing cosmetic ingredients on animals, marketing of finished cosmetic products, as well as the sale of most animal tested cosmetics in 2009
• Followed by a full ban entering into force in 2013, ending animal suffering for cosmetic reasons and prohibiting marketing of cosmetic products in the EU that have been involved in (or comprise ingredients) newly experimented on animals, even if such testing was conducted outside the EU (4).

However, international companies dodge these bans; they may still experiment on animals in other countries to achieve the regulatory necessities of that country and continue to sell/advertise them in other markets outside the EU. The USA and China have yet to enforce bans; their governments require animal trials for all novel cosmetic products. The EU may not push global brands to extract themselves from markets where animal testing still exists, however, there has been a giant bunny leap forward for animal rights since 2013.
 

Alternative methods

A whopping €238 million has been spent on alternative methods to animal testing:

• in vitro (‘test tube’) testing‒ Yet animal experiments are challenging to impersonate in vitro as they are a golden model for toxicity testing.
• Omics technologies‒ Molecular methods for detection of tissue-specific alterations when tissues are sensitive to an ingredient. They allow simultaneous examination of numerous genes, proteins or metabolites, therefore, the discovery of cosmetic-related alterations at transcriptional and translational expression levels, as seen in animal trials, is possible. Omics technologies can include: metabolomics, toxicogenomics and toxicoproteomics (5).
• Structure-activity relationship modelling‒ Predicting an ingredient’s biological properties based on its molecular structure, compared to similar ingredients that have comparable structures and modes of activity.
• Kinetic modelling‒ Mathematical method for estimating how ingredients will be absorbed, transported, metabolised, and excreted from the body.
• High-throughput platforms‒ High-speed robotic automation of human cell-based studies.
• Computational systems biology modelling‒ Human body computer simulation to explain and estimate interactions among organ systems, organs, tissues and cells.
• Cell-based assays‒ Simulate ‘circuits’ in human toxicity pathways and test for ingredient induced stresses on cells.
• Biomonitoring‒ Measuring toxic ingredients in human blood, urine or other tissues that can be used for the recognition of biomarkers that identify exposure and toxicity to an ingredient.
• Biomarkers‒ Predictive markers of biological change that can be distinguished before a toxic effect is seen in humans.
• Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) elucidation‒ Studying ingredients’ mode(s) of toxic action to detect cell targets which, when disturbed by compounds, cause toxicity. These targets can then be demonstrated in human cell studies. (6)

So can we justify the exploitation of animals with these emerging technologies? In the end it all boils down to one’s ethical values. In favour of animal testing? This view might bloom from a self-examination of one’s individual and scientific intentions, and feeling comfortable carrying out research through animal suffering. I personally believe testing of cosmetic ingredients on animals should be banned worldwide with the emergence of alternative testing methods. However, with regards to testing drugs such as those for cardiovascular disease, AIDs and cancer, animals should be used in research if human benefits are obtained that cannot be acquired with other methods, as long as research complies with the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA).

More Information:

Support cruelty-free testings of cosmetic products? Visit PETA and the RSPCA.

An in-depth debate on the pros and cons of animal testing: ProCon.org.

How animal testing has contributed to medical science: Contribution to Medical Science

Image credit: bostonpeter7, RSPCA, European Commission

Bibliography:

(1) The Royal Society Animals in Research Committee, “The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists” (2004) The Royal Society.

(2) National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, "Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research: Expectations of the major research council and charitable funding bodies"(2014).

(3) BBSRC Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research report: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/animals_in_bioscience_research.pdf

(4) The European Commission ban on animal testing page: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing/index_en.htm

(5) Kroeger, M., (2006) “How omics technologies can contribute to the ‘3R’ principles byintroducing new strategies in animal testing” Trends in Biotechnology 24(8): 343-346.

(6) The AXLR8 Alternative Testing Strategies Progress Report 2012:  http://axlr8.eu/assets/axlr8-progress-report-2012.pdf