Needless Animal Testing Is Cruel 

The sad fact is, that the needless cruelty of outdated animal testing does not need to exist.  

There are many modern animal-free methods available for to test the safety of cosmetics. Plus, these can better predict human responses in the real world than the animal tests they replace!

We go into more detail below, so our supporters understand that there are better ways to test the safety of products like cosmetics, than archaic, cruel and unreliable animal tests.  

Animal-Free Methods 

The countries using animal-free 

Many animal-free testing methods have been officially validated and approved for regulatory use and are now being used in various countries worldwide!

For example, in Japan, companies can avoid animal testing by using methods approved by the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), run by the National Institute of Health Science. ¹ 

In the U.S. and the EU, a wider range of animal-free methods are accepted. You can find detailed lists on the websites of NICEATM (National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods) ² and EURL ECVAM (European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing). ³

Please note that while these methods don’t use any live animals, some use eggs or animal organs and tissue.  

Animal-Free Methods in More Detail  

Skin Testing 

EpiSkin⁴ is lab-grown skin that is made by culturing human skin cells to create a three-dimensional model that mimics the structure and function of human skin. 

It can be used to test whether a product or product ingredient will damage or irritate human skin.  

This is more effective both ethically and scientifically than the notorious Draize Test, an archaic animal test in which substances are forced into the eyes or onto the skin of rabbits.  

The image below shows you what EpiSkin looks like!

Eye Testing 

SkinEthic⁵ is an eye irritation test using a non-animal testing method designed to evaluate the potential eye irritation effects of substances.  

This model uses a reconstructed human corneal epithelium (HCE), which is a lab-grown model that mimics the outer layer of the human eye.  

Made from cultured human eye cells, this model replicates the structure and function of real human corneal tissue. 

Inhalation Testing  

EpiAirway⁶ is an animal-free testing model used to evaluate the effects of substances on human respiratory tissue.  

This test uses reconstructed human airway epithelial tissue created from cultured human cells, which closely mimics the structure and function of the human respiratory tract. 

This model is used to assess various respiratory endpoints, including irritation, inflammation, and toxicity, providing a humane alternative to traditional animal testing methods.  

The EpiAirway method is particularly useful for testing the safety and efficacy of inhaled products, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. It is recognised for its reliability and relevance to human biology, making it a valuable tool for regulatory testing and research. 

Testing DNA Damage 

GreenScreen Genotoxicity Test⁷ is an animal-free test method used to assess the genotoxic potential of substances, which means evaluating their ability to damage the genetic material (DNA) within a cell and cause mutations (which can lead to cancer).  

This test employs genetically modified cells that produce a fluorescent signal when DNA damage occurs. 

An example of what this test looks like is below - Imagine that each cell of the plate replaces an animal to be tested on. 

Animal-Free Methods Are Better: Examples

In vitro methods are more accurate at predicting human reactions.  

A short definition of - In vitro: is testing via a process of examining a test tube using tissue samples. (Please see below for a more detailed definition).  

Episkin has an accuracy of 70%, and the similar test EpiDerm has an accuracy of 76%, whereas the success rate of the Draize Test is much lower at 56%, which is very close to the odds of flipping a coin! ⁸  

EpiOcular showed an accuracy of 81.8% for liquids and 84.6% for solids, determining eye irritants.⁹ In a different study, the related SkinEthic method showed 84.4% accuracy, with 93.3% inter-laboratory agreement.¹⁰  

The Draize Test has a notoriously high variability rate¹¹ and does not predict human data well.¹²   

Studies comparing the Draize test results to actual human reactions showed that this test using rabbits often greatly overestimates the level of irritation and how long it takes to heal, though not in a consistent way. ¹³  

Additionally, the Draize test results vary so much that up to 23.3% of the rabbits gave results that didn't match the true irritancy level of the substances tested. ¹¹ 

 In Vitro Explained further: An in vitro method refers to a scientific testing procedure conducted outside of a living organism, typically in a controlled laboratory environment such as a test tube, petri dish, or culture flask.  

The term "in vitro" is Latin for "in glass," reflecting the original use of glass containers for these experiments. In vitro methods use isolated cells, tissues, or biological molecules to study biological processes, chemical reactions, and the effects of various substances. 

Animal-free lab tests are more accurate!  

Data reveals that animal-free lab tests are more accurate at predicting human reactions than animal tests, for example: 

Note: We could not find any studies validating the Draize eye irritation against human data for accuracy.