EPA Recommends Moving Away From Animal Testing, While Big Data Shows Testing Is Often Unnecessary


In March of 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a document outlining a multiyear plan for identifying alternative testing methods that will reduce the use of animal testing. The EPA’s strategy is to reduce and eventually eliminate chemical testing on all vertebrate animal species, which necessarily includes mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians alike.

This policy shift comes after a push from animal rights advocates like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has estimated that hundreds of thousands of animals may be spared from harm and death with a shift away from animal testing. For its part, the Humane Society of the United States has also hailed the EPA strategy as a meaningful step toward advancing the science of chemical safety while protecting animal welfare.

It must be said, however, that these changes are about far more than animal welfare and ethical practices. While a reduction in animal harm and cruelty is, of course, a pressing ethical concern, research continues to show that animal testing is ineffective compared to alternative forms of testing used by researchers.

Groundbreaking Big Data Study Reveals a Path Forward for the Reduction of Animal Testing

In what has been triumphed as the largest publicly available study of its kind, Elsevier partnered with Bayer AG’s pharma division to analyze the effectiveness of animal testing for predicting human safety. The findings provide valuable insights that may be useful for reducing animal testing, all while improving clinical care and patient outcomes.

The primary goal of the research was to determine how consistently animal testing could predict human safety during clinical trials. To this end, the research was exceptionally comprehensive, investigating more than 1.6 million harmful events reported for humans, as well as five of the most commonly used animals during preclinical research testing.

The study ultimately found that some animal tests are far more predictive of the ways in which humans will respond at clinical trial than other forms of animal testing. The predictive efficacy often hinges on the animal species used for testing as well as the symptoms that were reported.

In short, the study reveals that plenty of current animal testing methods are both unnecessary and ineffective. The study goes on to conclude that Big Data and better analysis can significantly reduce animal testing. This positive outcome is achievable by choosing animals for testing based on the species that have the most predictive outcomes for patients who have specific symptoms or are using specific drugs.

This influential study shows that the way toward improving patient safety and outcomes is likely paired with the reduction of animal testing.

Proven Alternatives to Animal Testing Already Exist

It is important to understand that important progress has already been made in the efforts to reduce animal testing while improving human safety. One such development is the use of in vitro systems to better understand how humans will respond to chemicals. Specifically, in vitro systems can now effectively identify eye irritants and allergic skin reactions without the need for animal testing.

Traditional animal test subjects for allergic reaction research — often guinea pigs or mice — have a test chemical applied to their skin. After the chemical is applied, the animal is killed and examined for signs of an allergic response or reaction. Recent studies increasingly show that non-animal methods of predicting human allergic reactions — such as in vitro — are more effective than traditional tests on animals.

In addition to in vitro, computer modeling (in silico) has also made significant advancements that can reduce the use of animals for testing. These complex computer models aim to simulate human biology with a specific focus on disease progression. With the help of these computer-generated models, it is increasingly possible to successfully predict how drugs will react within the body, undoing the need for animal use during exploratory testing. And, once again, recent studies continue to suggest that in silico modeling research prove accurate enough to do away with the need for harmful testing on animals.

The rapid and cutting-edge advancements of in vitro and in silico have created proven alternatives that can improve patient safety and cut down on the overuse of animal testing at the same time. There are many reasons to be concerned with animal testing, which range from the ethical to the practical. As science continues to advance, the goal is to increasingly phase out and reduce the need for animal testing as proven and often superior alternatives take their place.

The EPA’s latest recommendation and the latest Elsevier/Bayer research, fortunately, push us closer to the increased prioritization and adoption of alternatives to animal testing.





https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/big-data-study-shows-unnecessary-animal-testing-can-be-reduced https://www.dddmag.com/news/2018/05/big-data-study-probes-how-well-animal-studies-predict-human-safety




Corrositex®: 3 Reasons to Use this Cruelty-Free Corrosivity Testing Method

Corrositex® is a revolutionary dermal corrosion testing assay that replaces the rabbit test that was previously the primary means of determining this. By using Corrositex®, a company is able to determine the dermal corrosivity of its products and allows the assignment of GHS categories, 1A, 1B and 1C, and U.N. Packing group classification for corrosives that are Class 8 hazards. A wide swath of regulatory agencies accept the results of Corrositex® which was developed by In Vitro International. Since it was first granted regulatory approval in 1992, Corrositex® has been accepted by United States agencies such as the FDA, EPA, OSHA, DOT and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In addition, agencies from across the globe accept the results of Corrositex® including the IATA, EU/OECD, Transport Canada and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM).

Other Advantages of Using Corrositex®

Not only is the innovative and cruelty-free corrosivity testing method, Corrositex®, accepted by top regulatory agencies across the globe, there are other key reasons for choosing this method instead of rabbit testing.

1. Rapid Results

Getting a product to market is a path that is rife with processes that require significant investments of time including those related to regulations, product development and marketing, to name just a few. Testing for corrosivity using rabbits is a time investment of at least two to four weeks. In contrast, using Corrositex® can provide results in as few as three minutes. A determination when using Corrositex® takes no more than four hours to complete — a significant time savings that can improve a company’s profit margin.

2. Convenient

Using Corrositex® gives companies greater control over their products. There are two ways that Corrositex®  can be used: a sample of the product can be sent to the In Vitro International labs where their highly-trained team tests it fully or the company can obtain Corrositex®  test kits and perform the tests at their own facility.

3. Easy to Use

Corrositex® makes it quick and easy to get the results needed to secure the appropriate regulatory approval. This three-step process begins with a compatibility test between the testing solution and the sample. Next, the test determines the applicable indicator solution to aid in the categorization of the product. Lastly, the sample is exposed to the solution which results in a color change. The time that this change requires is recorded.

In Vitro International is a pioneer in non-invasive and cruelty-free testing that gets products to market quickly. Contact them for more information about Corrositex®, lab services and their other products.

Can New Technology Eventually Eliminate the Need for All Animal Testing?

The vast majority of cosmetic companies no longer need to test their products on animals in order to assure their customers will be safe. Company decision-makers and government officials alike have learned that they can instead rely on technology such as in vitro testing to provide accurate results about the chemicals in their products. But what about the many other industries that still use animals for answers? Will this trend continue across the board? There’s recently been a major push from top levels to implement technology instead of animals in order to find the right answers.

New Roadmaps

A federal committee, named the Interagency Coordinating Committee, recently came out with a report that laid out suggestions on how to replace animal testing with other forms of toxicological testing methods. Right now, there’s a certain amount of confusion about the current state of testing. Different states may require different tests, which can make for inconsistent information depending on the company, product, and location. The federal report wanted a true representation of each and every detail and discrepancy. From there, they developed a strategy for how to promote and convince both politicians and researchers alike that there’s a smarter (and less cruel) way to arrive at the same conclusions.

Understanding Testing

For all of the studies done on animals, there’s unfortunately not a lot of translation between their results and human results. Animal studies often aren’t conducted with the precision and controls that the experiments require to produce consistent results that will apply to humans.While we still don’t test on humans for obvious reasons, researchers continue harming countless animals for surprisingly few benefits. So aside from ending animal cruelty, advanced technology gives testers a better way to regulate their methodology so there’s less room for error (and ultimately, a safer product.)

How the Report Is Structured

The report is encouraging people to remain flexible when it comes to how they approach their testing solutions. Animal testing is a system that has deep roots in so many labs. Regardless of the evidence that animal testing may not be the most efficient solution, it’s always going to be difficult to implement wide-spread change. The federal report is encouraging people to start adopting new technologies such as computational models or tissue chips to replace live animal studies. (Tissue chips are artificial 3D models that replicate human organs.) These new methods may be an initial investment, but they eventually save researchers countless dollars while simultaneously improving every aspect of their organization.

Change Through Encouragement

This report does not mandate change in any way. It doesn’t even give specific ideas about how new legislation should be structured to gradually transition everyone to a new system. It’s merely pointing out that there may be more than one way to solve a problem. However, leaders of the committee do mention that legislation pertaining to animal testing is woefully outdated, which makes it difficult to see the big-picture impact on consumers, companies, and animals. The report stresses the importance of communication among researchers, as well as the benefits of keeping an open mind to alternative testing methods. They suggest that grants should also be changed to reflect the importance and validity of new alternative methods.

Lasting Effects

There’s no reason to delay replacing animal methods with new types of methods for all industries, despite the fact that it will be a major adjustment. Cosmetic companies have been able to make the switch without endangering their customers, profits, or the lives of animals. In fact, animal testing is typically more expensive than alternative methods. This report is a huge step down the road to relying on technology for better results rather than notoriously unreliable animal testing.

How Are In Vitro Testing Methods Being Used In the Cosmetic Industry?

In vitro testing has come a long way in the past several years. The cosmetic industry has benefited from advances in this form of testing, especially in regard to assessing the sensitivity of cosmetic ingredients. One of the newest forms of in vitro testing that the cosmetic industry is benefiting from involves 3D reconstruction of human skin models. For now, let’s take a close look at in vitro testing and the advantages it is bringing to the field of cosmetics.

Transforming the Cosmetic Industry Across the Globe

The cosmetic industry is greatly benefiting from in vitro testing, especially in Europe. One of the top factors that have led to an increasing popularity of this type of testing in this country is an outright ban of animal testing. There have been major advancements in in vitro testing because of this ban, causing it to become far more effective and cost-efficient than it used to be.

Europe isn’t the only place to jump on the in vitro testing bandwagon. Scientists are continuing to confirm the safety of this form of testing and its benefits over animal testing. In doing so, China has responded positively and is quickly moving away from animal testing methods. Over the next few years, this country is expected to be home to the largest cosmetics market in the world. Still yet, China hasn’t moved completely away from animal testing. In fact, it requires that cosmetic products go through animal testing before they can hit the shelves. Fortunately, though, the country is moving toward alternative testing methods, including in vitro testing. It is hoped that advancements in this type of testing and new technologies will hasten the country to eliminate animal testing requirements.

Importance of Testing In the Cosmetic Industry

The safety and efficacy of cosmetic ingredients can easily be tested through in vitro testing. The testing can confirm ingredients claimed to be used in cosmetic products as well as test for toxic properties. Many cosmetic retailers use this form of testing to both check for the efficacy of different products and meet or exceed regulatory approval.

Nearly 20 percent of the European population is affected by allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). This condition also presents a significant public health concern in the United States. With in vitro testing, though, it is possible to test cosmetics for the nearly 4,000 chemicals that have been deemed as skin sensitizers. In fact, this non-animal form of testing has been extremely effective in assessing how cosmetics interact with the body from many viewpoints, including protein binding and epidermal inflammation.

3D reconstruction of tissues is just one of the latest in vitro forms of testing that are advancing the safety of cosmetics. Results received from this form of testing can be combined with skin metabolism data, as well as with bioavailability data, to render proper identification of potential skin allergens. More so, it can help identify the characterization that goes along with ingredients’ relative potency.

Any cosmetic manufacturer must follow a strict set of rules and guidelines to stay in regulatory compliance. With in vitro testing, it is possible to assess an ingredient’s possibility of causing adverse skin reactions, including dermal corrosion.

As to be expected, the various in vitro testing methods that can be used to test ingredients according to different sets of criteria. For example, some ingredients are tested for use with oily skin while others are tested according to their ability to enhance skin firmness.

Here is a look at different testing methods for different testing purposes:

Skin Hydration and Skin Barrier

  • Full-thickness skin models
  • Reconstructed human epidermis models
  • Skin explant models

Skin Firmness

  • Dermal equivalent models
  • Normal human dermal fibroblasts models
  • Full-thickness reconstructed skin models

Oily Skin

  • 3D sebocyte cell line models
  • Sebocyte cell line models
  • Sebocyte cell line in response to androgens models

The Takeaway

As advancements continue to take place, in vitro testing is expected to become more effective, and, hopefully, it will soon be considered as a permanent replacement for animal testing.

Latest News On Non-animal Testing Methods

It may come as quite a surprise, but on average, humans purposely come into contact with at least 127 chemicals each day. These chemicals come from a wide variety of sources, including hair products, toothpaste, soaps, and more. What we need to be asking ourselves, though, is are these chemicals safe?

Thankfully, we have toxicologists who take on the responsibility of making sure the products we are using are in fact safe. The job of a toxicologist is to test different products and the chemicals used in them, and then deem them as either safe or unsafe. And while many toxicologists do perform tests on animals, we have seen a great shift over the past few decades toward non-animal testing methods.

For now, let’s take a quick look at the latest news relating to non-animal testing options.

Modern Methods of Non-animal Testing Are Becoming Even More Modern

There are a variety of modern non-animal testing methods available today. Those using human cells and tissues are commonly referred to as in-vitro methods, while those taking advantage of computer-modeling techniques are typically known as in silico models. There are also testing methods in which humans become live subject volunteers.

One of the top reasons to take advantage of these testing methods is that they are not species-specific like they are in animal testing, thus rendering invaluable results that are not applicable to the human use of the products being tested. Furthermore, non-animal testing methods tend to cost less money and take less time to perform than animal testing options.

Understanding Advanced In-vitro Testing

With today’s latest in-vitro testing options, organs-on-chips can be used to “mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems.” These organs-on-chips are created using state-of-the-art systems to grow human cells. There are a variety of testing fields that the chips can be used in, including drug and toxicity testing as well as for disease research purposes.

More notable is that the results tend to be far more effective than those acquired through animal testing options. The HuRel Corporation is well known for using these chips and manufacturing products for research facilities in hopes that they will replace their animal testing methods with chip testing options.

Understanding Advanced In Silico Modeling

Silico modeling testing methods have become much more advanced over the past decade thanks to sophisticated computer models. These models are able to simulate human biology in ways like never before, thus showing replicas of the progression of developing diseases.

The data acquired through these models can be used by scientists and physicians to properly predict the various ways in which both experimental and existing drugs will react in the bodies of those who have certain diseases. Computer-based techniques that have become more advanced over the past decade leading to the effectiveness of in silico modeling are known as quantitative structure-activity relationships; they give precise estimates of a drug’s likelihood of being hazardous to the human body.

There are a variety of companies, including governmental ones as well as PETA, that actively use their funds to invest in this type of non-animal testing method.

Understanding Advanced Human Volunteer Testing

Microdosing is becoming more advanced and more commonly used in product testing. This form of testing allows researchers to gather vital information related to the safety of experimental drugs, including how the substances are metabolized by the body, without having to initially carry out large-scale human trials.

During this type of testing method, those who choose to volunteer are given a single small drug dose, and then, extremely advanced imaging techniques are implemented to monitor how the substance interacts with the body. Functional magnetic resonance imaging is also causing volunteer testing methods to become more advanced.

This type of imaging enables researchers to safely study the human brain on a more in-depth level. In some cases, researchers have even been able to reverse certain brain disorders.

The Takeaway

Animal testing has been deemed as cruel and highly ineffective. Thankfully, though, there are many other alternatives of which to take advantage.

Vegan and Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: Is There a Difference?

Vegan and cruelty-free are two labels that get a great deal of attention by both the media and consumers. They often get used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion because one cannot necessarily be used for the other.

What is Vegan?

The “vegan” label is one of the most popular terms that consumers look for when they purchase products such as cosmetics. In 2017, vegan cosmetics sales jumped 100 percent with people aged 16 to 34 years of age noting that they find animal welfare very concerning, according to Mintel, a retail research company.

In order for cosmetics to be labeled as being vegan, it must not contain any products derived from an animal nor can it contain any animal ingredients. This means that makeup that is tested on animals can still claim to be vegan if they don’t contain any animal products. However, a vegan product might still be tested on animals before being released to the market.

What is Cruelty-Free?

In contrast to the vegan label — which refers to the ingredients that comprise a product — the cruelty-free label denotes the process of testing. Makeup that sports the cruelty-free label means that none of its ingredients or components, as well as the final product, has been tested on animals. However, a cruelty-free product could still contain ingredients derived from animals so it wouldn’t necessarily be vegan.

The Confusion

Sometimes confusion arises because there are no standardized definitions of what a product means when it carries the vegan label. To many people, vegan cosmetics are those that don’t have any ingredients derived from animals. Others see the vegan label and think it means that the makeup doesn’t have any animal products nor has it exploited animals during the manufacturing, development or testing phases.

In reality, this thought process is actually referring to cruelty-free testing and not necessarily to whether or not a product is vegan.

As companies move toward a more animal-friendly approach and legacy, it’s important to partner with a business that offers products that support the appropriate label.

As a pioneer in the development and application of cruelty-free testing methods, InVitro International has been meeting the needs of animal-conscious companies since 1985. InVitro International provides a range of products and services that companies can utilize to meet those goals. Contact us today for more information.

The Importance of Testing Products for Skin Irritation Prior to Mass Production

For your company, nothing is as important as the integrity of your product. This is especially true in skincare. Your customers want a product that delivers what it promises. They don’t want adverse side effects.

For your company, getting the right formula before mass production is a key to success. If you find out that there’s a high rate of toxicity or that consumers are having major issues with your product after the release, it’s difficult to recover from that type of set back. Depending on the adverse reaction, there may be legal ramifications. If the product is poorly rated by consumers, the negative publicity is almost impossible to overcome.

The Importance of Testing

In producing any type of skin care for the public, you’re required to make sure that it’s safe when used correctly. Testing for safety is an integral step. Your team should also research and compile information on ingredients so that you can benefit from studies which were already completed. However, research alone isn’t enough. Considering that your product will be proprietary, information on individual ingredients can’t tell you how they’ll react together with human skin.

Some people may be more sensitive to certain ingredients or have allergies. While you can’t possibly know how each individual’s skin will react to your product, you can test widely so that you’ll be able to judge whether people with sensitive skin might not be the best consumers.

Here are a few key reasons that you’ll need to test thoroughly before releasing your product to the public:

  • Liability. You’re required to make certain that your product is safe if used according to the directions. If you release a product that has a widespread negative impact on consumers, you may be legally liable.
  • Quality. The main reason that you should test your product thoroughly is to maintain the highest quality. Your product should do what it advertises for the widest swath of consumers.
  • Consumer Satisfaction. There’s no quicker way to sell a product or sink a product than word of mouth. Testing thoroughly will give you the ability to accurately assess how successful your product is in use. Word of mouth recommendations from satisfied customers will help you build a loyal consumer base. A great many dissatisfied consumers can do the exact opposite. Today, many people research new products before buying. Negative reviews can cost you customers for a long time, which is why it’s important to get the formula just right prior to launch.

In Vitro Testing for Your Products

In the past, many cosmetics companies used animal testing to make certain their products were safe for consumers. This type of testing was deemed the most scientific for many years, but it has traditionally caused some ethical issues. Many consumers and companies today prefer to use testing methods that are cruelty-free and don’t in any way harm animals.

Today, there are in vitro testing methods which prove safe and even more effective than the animal testing predecessor. In vitro methods test the product in a lab setting, using an assay which yields comprehensive, accurate results. This testing method can be completed in less time and is more cost-effective than other options. It is also cruelty-free and can be a selling point for your line of products.

How to Create Customizable Solutions for Your Lab

If a testing lab has its own personality and culture, then it needs solutions that reflect how the staff really functions from day to day. The more workarounds a lab creates, the more likely it is the lab will be losing time or money in the process. See how owners can better address the obstacles that stand in their way without compromising their accuracy, efficiency, or safety.

Problem: Assembly for Testing Takes Too Long

Depending on the number of procedures a lab completes, it can become time-consuming to do the prep work for each one. Labs are often under pressure to hit a certain quota every day, and even a few minutes can add up quickly. Not only can several steps eat up precious minutes, it can also increase the likelihood of a mistake being made. The process of putting everything together for test after test can become so rote that workers may inadvertently skip a step without realizing.

Solution: Use Testing Kits

Testing kits are increasingly being used in the sciences because they’re convenient and effective. Testing kits ensure labs get exactly what they need and no more, which can make tests much faster. While some people find testing kits to be superfluous, forward-thinking researchers understand that a little help can go a long way. The more helpful tools people have at their disposal, the more likely it is that productivity will increase while stress decreases.

Problem: Testing Protocols Are Generic

Some companies prefer to do their irritancy and corrosivity testing in-house so they can have total control over the results. Outsourcing these services may yield inaccurate results or even dangerous products being sold to consumers. However, in-house testing for these safety attributes is often more complicated than owners think. Depending on the type of technology used, each lab may need its own specific instrumentation and processes.

Solution: Look for Personalized Advice

Labs need to seek out a partner who specializes in testing for both irritancy and corrosivity. InVitro International uses Irritection® technology that can be adapted to fit our clients’ needs. From developing testing protocols to advice on how a lab can implement the technology for themselves, it’s our job to look at the anomalies that make each lab unique. Whether a lab is developing all-new products or improving on their original concepts, they need a solution that fits company goals and meets safety requirements.

Problem: Compliance Worries

All companies have federal guidelines and regulations they need to follow as well as global standards they may have to meet as well. These regulations can change at the drop of a hat, and not every company is aware of the new restrictions imposed upon them. The end results can be anything from major fines from government organizations to endangering the lives of consumers all over the world.

Solution: Don’t Go It Alone

Decision-makers don’t always have time to do the research necessary for every change. For example, when the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) was first introduced, it caused labs to rethink how they made everyday decisions. But the stringent rules made it easy for labs to make mistakes, which made them liable for anything from a routine inspection to a serious problem. Partnering with someone who understands the minutiae of these rules is sometimes the only way to ensure that every audit is as quick and painless as possible.

InVitro International is staffed with experts who understand how to conduct accurate lab tests for eye or skin irritants without the help of live animals. Corrositex is globally accepted as an approved means of assessing dermal corrosivity while our Irritection technology is accepted and under review for full adoption by a major international regulatory body for ocular irritancy determinations now. Our proprietary methods, Ocular Irritection® and Irritection® Dermal, are the result of more than two decades of research and experience in this field.

In Vitro Testing in China: A Brief Overview

China recently made headlines when it opened a new laboratory that would use in vitro rather than animal testing to determine the safety of certain products, including cosmetics. They’ve also made a promise to explore in vitro for other testing facilities. The country is making these changes because the evidence that’s been presented to officials is irrefutable. In vitro testing is not only effective at determining safety for humans, it’s also cheaper and easier to perform than animal testing. See where China has been, and where it’s going.

The Role of the CFDA

The Chinese Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has historically considered animal testing to be the only way to authorize the safety of potentially dangerous products. Changing the opinions of officials and lawmakers won’t happen all at once, but it’s clear the nation is open-minded about different testing methods. In 2014, the CFDA made it easier for Chinese cosmetics companies to complete their paperwork. This change subsequently led to the removal of the mandate for animal testing on domestic cosmetic products.

Currently, the CFDA still requires all imported cosmetics to be tested on animals. However, they’ve also recently introduced the same administrative paperwork change for international companies that domestic companies benefited from in 2014. Each change in their regulations shows a major shift in their priorities for the future. Where they may have once thought that animal testing was the only way to keep people from dangerous products, they’re being persuaded by the many studies that prove this is not the case.

Changing Times

Companies have gotten the message when it comes to how the tides are changing, and many professionals in China are working hard to get their facilities ready for alternative methods of testing. Once regulations and laws have been worked out, they’ll be ready to hit the ground running to get new cosmetics to the market. The infrastructure in China right now for in vitro testing is unsurprisingly lacking, but the opening of this new laboratory is a good sign that it won’t stay that way for long.

In fact, China has already approved a phototoxicity in vitro test that tells the manufacturer how chemicals will respond when exposed to light. Certain products that may cause skin or eye irritation can be tested from the comfort and the safety of the lab, without the help of live animals. More and more experts from animal-rights organizations are volunteering their time and expertise to educate officials about the efficacy of in vitro testing to identify potentially harmful substances.

A Brighter Future

Appealing to decision-makers in charge is easier than one might think. While it’s true that animal testing has been a long-accepted practice there, business leaders are simply responding to how practical in vitro testing can be. Not only are animal tests difficult to perform, they’re also not very accurate. Statistics vary across the many tests performed on them, but it’s been established that an animal’s body chemistry is different enough from a human’s that animal testing results are unreliable.

In vitro testing can cost several hundred dollars less than animal testing, and it’s faster. It can test hundreds of substances in a fraction of the time and doesn’t require animal handlers to do so. It should come as little surprise that China has started to let go of its antiquated views on the most effective ways to bring their beauty products from idea to reality. Along with its new laboratory and changing regulations, it’s clear the country is on track towards a better tomorrow.





InVitro International   Contact: W. Richard Ulmer
330 E. Orangethorpe Ave., Ste. D   (800) 246-8487
Placentia, CA 92870    http://www.invitrointl.com


Placentia, CA – November 15, 2017

Last week, at the annual meeting of the Organization for Economic Common Development (OECD) Expert Group on Skin and Eye Irritation Test Methods in Paris, InVitro International and its long-time Italian in vitro testing partner, INT.E.G.RA, received final OECD Expert Group on Skin and Eye Irritation Test Methods acceptance of Ocular Irritection®.  The OECD is generally viewed as the world’s foremost regulatory authority on in vitro test methods.

The company plans to move forward immediately to compose a Test Guideline (TG) document for submission to the OECD. The TG will make our test method both clear and available to all laboratories that wish to use the Ocular Irritection® test.  Completion of a TG can take several months to more than one year.

InVitro CEO & President, W. Richard Ulmer, said: “This nearly global level of regulatory support for a non-mammalian (plant protein) test technology not only means much to InVitro, but also could possibly encourage more innovative in vitro test methods to be developed as well. We continue to be very enthusiastic about the future for non-animal testing on a global basis. Ocular Irritection® is the only such method with OECD acceptance which can be shipped anywhere in the world with significant remaining shelf life for its laboratory users.”

This release may contain “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by forward looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: acceptance of the Company’s technology by customers or regulatory agencies, changes in market conditions and other competitive factors. The forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release and the Company assumes no obligation to update such statements.