Must Mascara And Soap Hurt This Much? by Brenda Shoss To subscribe to Kinship Circle Letters for Animals, email: subscribe@kinshipcircle.org Imagine you are strapped to a table. Your gut instinct is to trust the people around you. You are in their care. But your body begins to burn. Behind you, muddled words escalate with the same fury as the scalded skin you cannot reach. You are afraid. They seem indifferent to your now blood-splattered limbs. That morning, you'd dreamed about a walk and food. But today you are their research. Their data is your response-pain, boundless and unrelenting. As they blind, burn and inject poison into your exhausted body, you wonder: why? Imagine you are an animal in a laboratory. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require animal tests to ensure the safety of cosmetics. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) doesn't specify animal research for soap, detergents and other personal care items. Yet every year, millions of rabbits, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, ferrets, primates, rats and mice undergo gruesome tests. In the Draize test chemicals are poured into the clipped-open eyes of restrained animals. Many break their necks or backs trying to escape. Reactions include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises bleeding, massive deterioration and blindness. For Draize skin irritancy tests, abrasive chemicals seep into the shaved skin of immobilized animals. To expose skin, adhesive tape is repeatedly stripped off an animal's body. After every test animals are killed and analyzed. The Lethal Dose 50 Percent (LD-50) measures the volume of substance it takes to kill half of a test group of live animals. In studies that last up to 2 years, animals ingest chemicals through stomach tubes, inhalation, sprays and injections. They suffer vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose and mouth. Surviving animals are destroyed. These tests aren't mandatory, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CPSC do ask manufacturers to pursue all means necessary to verify product safety. Since regulatory guidelines typically don't mention non-animal options, many companies follow the implied animal-test policies of supervisory agencies and industry legal departments. The FDA stipulates animal tests for drugs, including items that modify bodily functions such as sunscreens, antiperspirants, anti-dandruff shampoos or acne medicine. Yet science takes a back-door approach when it utilizes animals to mimic the human reaction to drugs, chemicals or injury. According to Science Journal (1999) the way a drug interacts with various tissues and liver enzymes deviates significantly between species. Small animals excrete drugs faster than humans. By the time a drug exits a mouse, it doesn't correspond to the human version. Over a 9-year period, 198 of 209 animal-tested drugs were relabeled or withdrawn because they led to hospitalization, disability or death. The FDA recently recalled drugs with Phenylpropanolamine-Alka-Seltzer cold remedies, Comtrex, Dimetapp, Robitussin, etc.-due to their link with hemorrhagic stroke in women. The hepatitis drug fialuridine represents still another animal-to-human blunder. Fialuridine proved safe in dog tests. It caused liver failure in 7 out of 15 humans. Dogs possess an enzyme that inactivates the drug's lethal effect. Humans don't have that enzyme. Animal test results cannot reliably estimate allergic effects in humans. Until rabbits wear mascara and dogs use fabric softener, this flawed methodology will offer little more than speculation and comparison. The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and the National Toxicology Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) now develop and validate non-animal tests. President Clinton signed the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Authorization Act to install an official body to accredit non-animal modes. With ICCVAM-approved Corrositex Assay (artificial skin to test a chemical's burn potential) companies can discard cruel Draize skin tests. Numerous other non-animal safety tests are available. The Agarose Diffusion Method, to study the toxicity of synthetic materials, mixes human cells with test matter inside a container. If the test stuff is toxic, dead cells cluster around it. EpiDerm uses neonatal skin cells cultivated into 3-dimensional tissue to simulate human skin. EpiOcular provides an alternate cornea made from manufactured tissue. Cloned human skin cells in the Epipack Test assess the response to a skin irritant. The PVC "rat" is test-ready with latex veins, organs, skin and muscle. These tests, along with the Irritection Assay, Neutral Red Bioassay, and Transepithelial Passage Assay, blend in vitro (test tube) technology with human tissues and computer technologies. Not only do they delete costs to breed, confine, feed and discard laboratory animals, they also supply data relevant to humans. When combined with human clinical studies, computerized "virtual organs" and mathematical models, post-market surveillance of drugs and the U.S. GRAS (Generally Regarded Safe) database of proven ingredients, alternate strategies offer a viable substitute for antiquated animal labs. But for manufacturers such as Alberto-Culver, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Procter & Gamble, old habits die hard. Though these big firms claim to no longer use animals for accepted ingredients and finished products, they rely on animal labs for new products. Other companies, like Dial and Colgate-Palmolive, proclaim voluntary moratoriums that may be product-specific or end after a given period. Johnson & Johnson uses animals for predictive tests, while its subsidiary Neutrogena employs only human volunteers. To shop compassionately, consumers navigate this maze of industry jargon. Gillette, Clinique, Loreal, Estee Lauder, Liz Claiborne, Lancome, Nexxus and Revlon are among over 600 alternative testers in the National Anti-Vivisection Society's (NAVS) "Personal Care for People Who Care" guide. Similar handbooks from the American Anti-Vivisection Society, PETA, or the Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine are a prerequisite for anyone who wants to spend cruelty-free dollars on personal care and household goods. Tom's of Maine gained FDA consent for fluoride toothpaste without animal safety tests-proving that when there is a will to relieve animal suffering, there is always a way. Their carton reads: "Tom's of Maine products are tested for safety without the use of animals." I find great solace in these words. I know that my oral hygiene doesn't depend upon the terror and pain of animals. WHAT YOU CAN DO: 1.) Purchase cruelty-free products. Bring a compassionate consumer guide every time you shop. To order guides, contact: The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS); 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1552; Chicago, IL 60604-3703; ph: 800-888-NAVS (6287); www.navs.org; email: navs@navs.org The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS); 801 Old York Road, #204; Jenkintown, PA 19046-1685; ph: 215-887-0816 or 800-SAY AAVS People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA); 501 Front Street; Norfolk, VA 23510; ph: 757 622 PETA; www.petaonline.org 2.) Write to manufacturers that still test on animals. Private industries care about publicperception. Your respectful, but resolute message can have a persuasive effect. Durk Jager, CEO; Procter & Gamble Company P.O. Box 599; Cincinnati, OH 45202; ph: 513-983-1100; email: shareholders.im@pg.com Mr. Richard Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer; Unilever United States Inc. Lever House, 390 Park Ave.; New York, NY 10022-4698 3.) Voice your opposition to tax-funded animal tests authorized by federal agencies. Ask that they support non-animal alternatives. Send letters to: Dr. Michael D. Maves, President; Consumer Healthcare Products Association 1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1200; Washington, DC 20036-4193 U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 5600 Fishers Lane; Rockville, MD 20857 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 200 Independence Ave. SW; Washington, DC 20201 National Institutes of Health; 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 1; Bethesda, MD 20892 4.) Urge your representatives to increase the budget for validation and use of \alternative tests. The Honorable Representative ___________________________ U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. 20515; ph: 202-225-3121 The Honorable Senator _________________________________ The U.S. Senate; U.S. Capitol Building; Washington, D.C. 20510 To locate your elected legislators, go to: www.hsus.org/forms/search_reps.html or http://www.congress.org/, or call: 202-955-3668