Colombia Set to End Animal Testing For Cosmetics

The Plenary of the House of Representatives in Colombia unanimously voted on passing the bill of law 120/2018. The bill forbids animal testing in cosmetic and personal care products either imported into or manufactured in the country. If passed, the interdiction would come into force in one year’s time.
The bill was introduced to the Colombian Congress in August of 2018 by House Representative Juan Carlos Losada. Mr. Juan Carlos Losada has long been an advocate of the ethical treatment of animals. He was a renowned journalist and political analyst prior to joining the Colombia Congress and most recently was a designated speaker at the World Forum for Ethics in Business.

The category of products encompassed in the bill are cosmetics, cleaning products and absorbents used in diapers and feminine hygiene products that are manufactured in Colombia or imported or exported to and from Colombia.

Details of the Colombian Ban on Animal Testing Legislation
The specific provisions of the proposed legislation include:

• Tests using animals are prohibited during research, development, and commercialization of categorized products.
• All categorized products that are produced, traded, imported or exported into and out of Colombia must bear a seal that states, “Not tested on animals.”
• The Colombian government shall generate incentives to support the exportation and commercialization of categorized products that are not tested on animals.
• The Colombian government shall generate incentives to support scientific research programs that develop alternative testing models to facilitate the avoidance of using animals as testing subjects.

The next stage of the bill will move to the Senate. It will go through two debate sessions before being put to a final vote. If passed, the bill would become an enforceable law and Colombia would be the first Latin American nation to ban animal testing on cosmetics. “Colombia is taking its first steps to becoming a leader in Latin America and banning cosmetics testing on animals. With advanced alternatives available and currently in use around the world, this historic bill should pass at the earliest opportunity,” says Jan Creamer, President of Animal Defenders International.

Colombia is set to join a league of almost 40 nations that have already legislated against animal testing for cosmetics.

There are many alternatives to animal testing available with better efficiency than tests involving rodents, cats, dogs and/or chimps. We at InVitro International offer three different product testing services that do not involve animal testing of any kind: Irritection® Assay System, the Corrositex® test, and the Ocular/ Dermal Irritection® Assay System. We also offer custom technological services that adhere to non-animal testing requirements. If you are seeking products or technology to help you manage ethical ingredient or product testing for your business, please contact us.

Two Non-animal Safety Tests: Cell Tissue and Test Tube Method

Since the 1940s, researchers have used the Draize rabbit skin test to determine the potential of a particular chemical to irritate human skin. In the Draize skin test, researchers shave a patch of the rabbit’s fur, apply the test substance and monitor the skin for up to 4 hours, and then monitor the skin for 14 days to look for signs of irritation or soreness. An organization known as the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) will classify a substance as an irritant if the chemical causes reversible damage to the skin, or as a corrosive if it burns the skin or causes permanent scarring.

Fortunately, we live in a time where there are better alternatives to using animals to predict skin irritation in people. Today, these alternatives include cell tissue and test tube methods.

Cell tissue and test tube methods accomplish similar goals – they both replace the use of animals in skin irritation testing.

Tests using cell tissue and test tubes provide quantitative results, which means the results are reported in a reliable, scientific way rather than relying on one person’s interpretation of how the animal’s skin looked.

About Cell Tissue and Test Tube Methods for Measuring Potential Irritation

Skin tissue testing

Cell skin tissue comes from normal human skin. Scientists culture the human cells in specialized media, where the cells form a 3-dimensional reconstruction of real human skin. This test skin closely resembles normal human skin both biochemically and structurally, consisting of multiple layers of cells. This tissue even has the layer of dead cells on its surface, known as the stratum corneum, which creates a protective barrier from irritants and corrosive substances. These properties make cell tissue suitable for use in irritation and toxicity tests.

Research shows that test tissue grown in the lab performs better than rabbit testing when it comes to predicting which substances will irritate human skin. In one study, researchers used cell skin to test 16 chemicals classified as irritants using the rabbit model and found that only five of the chemicals actually irritated human skin. Superior test results means that manufacturers can bring more products to the market with less risk of causing irritation to consumers.

Test tube methods

Test tube methods, also known as in vitro tests, use glass vials and other scientific equipment to test a chemical’s irritancy and corrosive potential to human skin. These methods produce reliable, verifiable results that help researchers distinguish irritating ingredients from non-irritating and non-corrosive ingredients without cruel experiments using animals.

In vitro test tube methods typically involve mixing the chemical in question together with other solvents inside a glass test tube; the resulting solution will turn a specific color according to its potential for causing irritation.

Test tube methods can replace the rabbit test when measuring a chemical’s corrosiveness to human skin by providing a reliable means of mimicking the rabbit test. Such methods can help researchers distinguish toxic from non-toxic chemicals without cruel experiments using animals. Unlike animal testing methods that can take 4 to 8 weeks for results, test tube methods provide results in a much shorter time – usually just a few minutes up to an hours. Research shows they can be more accurate than rabbit testing too.

Cell tissue grown in the lab and test tube methods provide better results when predicting skin irritation and corrosion in humans. These tests can also save thousands of rabbits from painful irritation and skin corrosion tests each year.

Australia Passes Ban of Cosmetic Testing on Animals

Australia Bans Animal Testing

The Australian Government Department of Health has announced that the country is committed to banning cosmetic testing on animals. The bill originated from the 2016 election campaign within the Australian government. However, government delays left the campaign promise unfulfilled and the compliance deadline of July 1, F2017 passed without the ban in place. The government called for another delay, of 12 months, that started in March 2018 and extended until March 2019.

That brings us to today when the Humane Society International came to an agreement with the Australian Senate regarding the animal ban. The HSI and the campaign for Humane Research Australia, #BeCrueltyFree Australia, were involved in the negotiations for the bill with the Liberal National Government.

In response to passing the bill, Deputy Leader of The Nationals Bridget McKenzie sent an official letter to the campaign manager for Be Cruelty Free Australia, Ms. Hannah Stuart, and the Humane Society International VP of Research and Toxicology Mr. Troy Seidle. Enclosed with the letter is the final set of commitments from the Australian government regarding the ban.

The ban is against the use of animal testing for chemicals used only for cosmetic ingredients. It also includes several points against the use and reliance of data that comes from animal testing research. By ending the use of data, countries can help eliminate the market for animal testing.

History of Animal Testing Bans

According to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), there are several countries that have placed blanket bans against animal testing. Germany was the first country to ban cosmetic testing on animals back in 1986. Then in 2013, the European Union banned the sale of any cosmetic beauty ingredient or product that was tested on animals. This was the final step in making the EU cosmetic marketplace totally cruelty-free.

One country that surprisingly still has not banned animal testing is the United States. However, the US is working to end animal testing and animal-tested cosmetics.

Learn More About Non-Animal Testing Services

If you are searching for products or technology to help you manage ingredient or product testing for your business, we can help. Here at InVitro International, we supply the Irritection Assay System, Corrositex chemical testing, and customized technology and lab testing services.

Could Ukraine be the Next Country to Ban Animal Testing on Cosmetics?

A recent announcement from the Ukrainian Ministry of Health has animal rights activists justifiably encouraged. The nation may be the next country in line to completely ban testing cosmetic products on animals, if trends continue in the direction that the government has recently set.

The Ministry of Health is attempting to bring its cosmetics laws in correspondence with the Cosmetics Regulation of the European Union. Among the laws in the regulation is a stoppage on cosmetic testing on animals.
Kerry Postlewhite, Director of Public Affairs for Cruelty Free International, welcomed the news that was first reported on the Ministry’s Facebook page.

One of the new technical regulations on cosmetics will increase the list of banned ingredients by a factor of three. As a result, producers will only be able to use UV filters, preservatives and coloring that are completely safe.

If future efforts move forward in the wake of the current announcement, European Union standards will serve as the basis of the Ukrainian norms in terms of regulation. The Healthcare Ministry has stated that it will consider the business community by providing a transit period for companies to switch over into the new regulations. The transit period will allow businesses in the Ukraine to continue development without hindrance and keep a level playing field in the market.

However, the Ministry’s decision to move forward could be stalled. According to the Ministry, Ukraine has not officially endorsed any alternative testing methods that are considered viable.

Ukrainian culture upholds a special respect for breeding and hunting dogs, as well as, caring for stray dogs. Many industry experts believe that the catalyst for the legislation came from the Ukrainian people, paying more attention to the issues of animal rights.

Ancillary initiatives include bills currently making their way through Parliament, which will consider many new concepts as legally appropriate. “Animal abuse,” “preparing dogs to go hunting”, and “injury of animals” are new phrases that are making their way through the legislative branch with punishments attached to them.

The two animal protection bills with the most support are No. 6598 and No. 8256. 6598 looks to amend a number of the Ukraine’s laws to better match EU standards on animal abuse. No. 8256 is the initiative to make it a crime to prepare a dog to hunt. 6598 has gone through legislative committee and is fully ready for consideration.

Recently, the Council chose not to consider it. 8256 has not been placed for consideration yet and is still waiting for its first exposure to the full Parliament.

The Growing Spotlight on Animal Testing and the Call for More Non-Animal Testing Methods

It seems that the cosmetic industry is getting a makeover. In light of recent industry leader concerns and consumer feedback, many beauty brands are moving away from animal testing and seeking out alternative methods.

Today’s consumer is more conscientious about not only what they are buying, but the sources of those products as well. There is a growing interest in companies that are “green”, and supporting social causes, such as, the #BeCrueltyFree movement. Interestingly, this is a significant concern for millennials as the generation becomes a large population of key players in the marketplace. Many companies have made more environmentally and socially conscious business practice decisions in response to millennial influence.

What is the Cruelty-Free Movement?

A common misconception about the cruelty-free movement is that all the products are vegan. This is not entirely accurate. A vegan product does not contain any animal products at all. Products under the cruelty-free movement may contain animal products like beeswax or honey, but those products are not tested on animals.

Another misconception is that a cruelty-free product does not use animal testing at any point in the supply chain. However, some companies that claim cruelty-free only apply it to the finished product.

Cruelty-free certifications like the Leaping Bunny certification allow qualifying companies to register with them. Once the certification has been provided, they can display the Leaping Bunny seal on their cruelty-free product labeling and advertising. To qualify, a company must be animal free across the entire supply chain.

Non-Animal Testing Methods as Viable Alternatives

As the cruelty-free movement has become more visible and active, a growing number of companies are looking at alternative methods to animal testing. Many of these alternatives have proven to be more accurate, more cost-effective, and much more scientifically relevant than animal testing. The significant genetic differences between animals and humans create a rather large variance in accuracy which can skew may results.

Some of the more common non-animal testing methods include:
• In vitro (test tube) testing
• Computer models and simulations
• Artificial human tissue testing

Companies that choose non-animal testing methods usually discover a number of surprising benefits for their decision. From results that impact their bottom line, to consumer approval, they often find that choosing to go with non-animal testing methods is a smart business decision.

Will the FDA Take Further Steps to Reduce Animal Testing in Cosmetics?

The global cosmetics market, currently worth nearly $600 billion annually, is steadily growing. As the world’s population grows larger — and people live longer — the market opportunity for cosmetics grows. A recent study by Orbis Research predicted the market will reach $800 billion annually by 2023.

Yet this rising demand for cosmetics also raises serious questions about industry practices. Namely, are there sufficient laws and regulations in place to protect the consumers who use these products — and the animals on which they are tested?

Why the Cosmetics Industry is Facing Tougher Oversight

The cosmetics industry has been lightly regulated for most of its history. In the United States, the onus has fallen upon cosmetics companies to self-regulate, for the most part.

That, however, is quickly changing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is undertaking its first examination of the practices of cosmetic companies. The move came after U.S. federal lawmakers expressed concerns about the possible long-term health risks associated with some of the chemicals used in beauty products.

Additionally, animal welfare advocates and other observers have lodged complaints about the excessive use of animals in cosmetic product testing.

Oversight of the cosmetics industry currently falls under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which was passed by U.S. lawmakers 80 years ago. The act, however, is very limited in scope: It does not require cosmetics manufacturers to monitor the chemicals in their products or issue safety recalls of dangerous products. Nor does it offer any protections for animals used in testing.

This initial examination by the FDA comes in concert with vigorous regulatory action taken by California in September of 2018. In September, 2018, the California legislature passed a bill making the sale of animal-tested cosmetics illegal in the state, effective in 2020.

The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, represented the first-ever ban of animal-tested cosmetics by an American state. California joined 40 nations worldwide in the banning of introduction of new cosmetics if tested on animals. Given the size of California’s market (roughly one-in-eight Americans lives in the state), the ban sends a powerful signal to cosmetics makers.

The ban also raised another key question: Would the FDA — or federal lawmakers — follow California’s lead in the fight against animal testing on all new cosmetics?

The FDA’s Position

Historically, the FDA has chosen to remain somewhat neutral on the issue of animal testing in cosmetics. The cosmetics industry is allowed to test products on animals, as the practice is not directly prohibited by the FD&C Act. Additionally, the FDA advises cosmetics manufacturers to pursue whatever testing is “effective and appropriate” to keep human users safe.

However, many observers have pointed out that the development and rising popularity of cruelty-free cosmetics has shown that it is possible to create beauty products without the need for animal testing.

Meanwhile, the FDA has also strongly signaled that it supports the development of such alternatives. In a statement the agency released on the issue, the FDA said it supports “the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing,” while also saying the agency would “continue to be a strong advocate of methodologies for the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests with alternative methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.”

In Conclusion

Historically, the FDA and other regulators have allowed the cosmetics industry to self-police. This lax approach to oversight included no restrictions on animal testing.

However, it appears the political winds are shifting. California’s statewide ban on the introduction on new cosmetics if tested on animals cosmetics can be a seismic shift for the testing industry; in fewer than two years, no animal-tested new cosmetic products can be sold on the shelves of the most populous and economically-powerful of all American states.

Additionally, the FDA’s ongoing examination of cosmetic industry practices is a highly significant event. For the first time in more than a century, the FDA appears ready to consider stronger federal oversight on cosmetic products.

Given its stated preference for animal testing alternatives, it appears that the FDA may also choose to pursue tougher protections for animals as well.

Advanced Computer Algorithms Could Provide Cost-Effective Alternative to Animal Testing

There has been a long-standing debate against animal testing from the perspective of animal welfare. While this argument may have its merits, it often demonizes scientists and companies that use animal testing. Value-based arguments rarely gain much footing and usually lack validity in certain circles. The real problem though is that the picture is incomplete. The three factors that should be under scrutiny are rarely discussed: Effectiveness, time, and economic impact. Additionally, the reduction of animal testing may not be the best metric for measuring the success of alternative methods.

Alternative Testing Methods and the Landscape of Safety Testing

Currently, there are around 50 alternative methods to animal testing that are at least partly accepted by the scientific community. In vitro methods are a large part of this group. A July 2018 article in alternatives to animal experimentation publication, Altex, discussed the current landscape. Since the 1970s and 1980s when animal testing by drug companies peaked, there has been a steady decline of around 80% as it has been replaced by in vitro testing. Biomedical research and basic biological research have seen a continual decrease in animal testing since around 2000 to 2010. Many of these tests have been replaced with invitro and human stem cell methods. In some cases, in vitro is used to confirm, expand, or complement data derived from animal testing.

Other areas are seeing the same shift as companies work to find testing methods that are less expensive, more effective, and faster. This is the language that elicits the greatest response from most businesses.

Advanced Algorithms Predict Toxicity of Chemicals

Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health conducted a study to see how well large chemical databases that utilized advanced computer algorithms could stand up to animal testing when predicting the toxicity of a chemical. The results were surprising.

In the study, a large database that contained known chemicals was mined and the data extracted was used to analyze various chemical structures and their known toxic characteristics. These relationships were then mapped so that it could be used as a predictor for the toxicity of any chemical compound. The goal was to exceed the effectiveness of animal testing.

The most advanced version of this tool performed at an average of 87% accuracy. In contrast, those same tests performed using animal testing had an 81% accuracy. This strongly suggests that computer-based prediction could replace a number of animal tests. It is less expensive and faster than animal testing as well.

Methods of Research

When the researchers performed their study, they began by increasing the size of the database and employing machine learning algorithms to extract and read the data. These algorithms analyzed known chemical structures and mapped them to the toxic properties associated with them. The results showed that an automated, computer-assisted approach to determining a chemical’s toxicity properties outperformed animal testing on all levels. It was cheaper, faster, and more effective.

It is not unreasonable to believe that there will soon be a day when alternative methods like in vitro and advanced algorithms are the preferred methods for safety testing. Change is rarely easy, and it can be difficult for a company to break away from doing things like safety testing the way they’ve always done it. But alternative testing methods are slowly becoming the first choice and animal testing is losing ground.

InVitro International offers an alternative to skin toxicity and skin irritation animal testing methods. To learn more about our non-animal testing methods like the Irritection® Dermal and Ocular Irritection® visit our website and complete the convenient email form or contact us at 1-800-2-INVITRO to speak to a representative.

What Impact Do State Laws Against Animal Testing Have on The Skin Care Industry?

Animal testing for skin care products in the U.S. can be a highly-charged, emotional topic. There are many pros and cons on this procedure, with some states banning the process outright, without trying to find an alternative that would satisfy the needs of the industry’s human clients while appeasing the concerns of the animal rights activists. Although animal testing is not specifically required by the FDA for cosmetics, it has also not been implicitly banned at the federal level in the United States. A bipartisan Humane Cosmetics Act has been introduced in Congress and seeks to follow the example of the European Union by doing so. Until that law is enacted, the issue is currently being debated on a state by state basis.

In 2002, California politicians enacted legislation which made it the first state to prohibit using traditional animal testing methods for skin care products, when an alternative test that has been approved by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is available. Other states that have banned animal testing for cosmetic care products with similar restrictions include New Jersey, New York and Virginia. These bans did not prevent companies from marketing cosmetic products that had been tested on animals elsewhere; however, California also recently enacted legislation that will make it illegal as of January 1, 2020 to sell cosmetics, with minimal exceptions, that have been (or include ingredients that have been) tested on animals.

Ethical and legal considerations aside, animal testing results may not be reliable enough for companies that invest great sums of money in cosmetics research, marketing and production. Some animal species may respond differently to specific irritants, and test results can sometimes prove difficult to interpret. This may produce skewed results if they are extrapolated to human consumers. At the very least, manufacturers are attempting to reduce the number of animals involved and to refine the procedures used.

In light of all of this, how is an ethical manufacturer supposed to produce a product that is legal, effective and safe, and that appeals to a more socially aware marketplace? Fortunately, alternatives that do not involve the use of animal testing are becoming more available. These may involve human blood and tissue samples, artificial skin, or computer models which can deliver human-based results. These alternatives can actually produce results more quickly than long-term, animal-based tests, with the added benefit of being more reliable and cost-effective than results obtained through other means.

One area making great strides in the cosmetics industry is in vitro testing. This is being used to confirm the lack of certain toxic properties in cosmetic products, as well as their ingredients. It can safely be used to test product efficacy and receive regulatory approval. Examples of safer, in vitro test methods which represent the very best techniques that modern science has to offer include Irritection® and Corrositex® from InVitro International. The Irritection® Assay System allows users to predict the ocular and dermal irritancy of chemicals, mixtures and product formulations, while Corrositex® is used to determine chemical corrosivity. Corrositex® has also been approved for determining GHS/UN Packing Group classifications that are required for the storage and transport of corrosive substances.

About InVitro International: Headquartered in Placentia, CA, InVitro International was established in September 1985. The company is recognized as being a pioneer in the development and application of non-animal testing alternatives for irritation and skin toxicity testing. Its mission is to assist the cosmetics industry in the development and marketing of faster, simpler more cost effective product and environmental safety testing methodologies. Visit our website or call 800-246-8487 for further information on non-animal testing alternatives.

Cosmetic Testing: 3 Non-Animal Testing Alternatives

Throughout history, animal testing has been the primary tool used to determine whether certain chemicals are safe for use in humans and/or the environment. However, this method of testing poses several concerns. For example, animal testing is often harmful to the animal subjects involved, which is considered inhumane by some critics. In addition, animal testing is not always effective, providing results that may not translate to humans. Furthermore, animal testing is expensive.

All of these drawbacks have led researchers to look for alternatives to animal testing. Below are three viable alternatives that can be used to test chemicals for toxicity.

1. Human volunteers.

Tests performed on human volunteers translate much better into the general population than animal tests. Critics of this alternative point out the obvious risk to human volunteers. However, advances in technology allow researchers to test chemicals on humans with minimal levels of risk. One of the best methods available is known as “microdosing.” Microdosing involves giving a human volunteer a very small dose of a drug and then using advanced imaging techniques to watch the drug interact with the body. With regard to cosmetic testing, this method usually involves testing a small area of the skin and using advanced techniques to analyze the response.

2. Computer Models

Another alternative to animal testing is the computer model, which allows scientists to simulate the biology of the human body for the purposes of testing different chemicals. These sophisticated models can anticipate the way the body is most likely to react to a specific substance.
Computer models eliminate the need for testing on animals, and they don’t require human subjects. These models are also cost-effective and can be repeated many times without wasting resources. For example, one type of computer-based model known as “quantitative structure-activity relationships” can use data about existing chemicals to estimate the likelihood of toxicity for a new chemical.

3. In Vitro Testing

Another viable alternative to animal testing is known as “in vitro testing.” This method utilizes actual human cells to test the toxicity or irritation potential of specific chemicals.

For example, one type of in-vitro testing developed by researchers at Harvard involves the creation of microchips that contain human cells. Different types of human cells are used on these microchips to simulate the structure and function of specific organs or systems in the human body, such as the skin. Researchers can use these chips to test the reaction of specific body systems to a new chemical, thus reducing the need for animal testing. In the cosmetics industry, the cells used would mimic the function of human skin in order to test reactions to specific substances.

High-quality in vitro testing assays are already available to cosmetic companies. A prime example is the Ocular/Dermal Irritection® Assay System from InVitro International, which can provide accurate results in as little as 24 hours.

At this time, these alternatives cannot entirely replace animal testing. However, when used properly, they can reduce the need for animal tests, especially in the cosmetics industry. In many cases, these alternatives are also more cost-effective and accurate than animal testing, making them even more desirable to researchers. As alternatives to animal testing continue to become more sophisticated, it is likely that the need for animal tests will continue to decline.

Chemical Screening Software May Be More Effective than Animal Testing

For many decades, animals have been subjected to toxicity testing in order to determine whether certain compounds were safe for use in the environment or in humans. In many cases, this testing has led to severe and even deadly side effects for the animals in question. To prevent these negative outcomes, researchers have been searching for alternatives to animal testing. Recently, toxicologists have successfully developed a software program that may be more effective than animal testing, thus reducing the need for animal-based experiments.

About the Software

The software program created is capable of predicting the outcomes of animal assays, which eliminates the need to perform the actual test. In order to develop this program, the researchers gathered information from the US National Toxicology Program, PubChem and other public databases. Using this information, the researchers developed an algorithm that was 87 percent accurate in predicting the results of an animal test. Repeating animal tests is only effective 81 percent of the time, making the algorithm a more effective testing option.

During the course of their research, the scientists also discovered that animal testing involves a high level of redundancy. They discovered 69 chemicals in the database that had been tested more than 45 times each, in many cases by different companies. Two of these chemicals had been tested more than 90 times each.

Although the algorithm performed at least as well as the actual animal tests in the simulations conducted, this method still comes with limits. Specifically, the program has not been able to accurately predict a chemical’s propensity to cause cancer or other long-term effects.
The work on this program was partially funded by Underwriters Laboratories, a safety science company based out of Illinois. This company has already released the software they created to other companies that want to evaluate their chemicals before releasing them.

What It Means for Animal Testing

The United States and several other countries have established regulations that determine how companies must evaluate new chemicals that are intended to be used for consumer products, in the environment or for commercial purposes. Most of these regulations require companies to submit data on the safety of these chemicals before they can be sold or distributed. However, many of these countries are also working to limit the use of animals in the chemical testing process.

For example, in the United States, the National Toxicology Program, Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health initiated a program to develop better, more efficient non-animal toxicity tests in 2008. In 2016, the United States passed a law that requires federal agencies to make an effort to reduce and replace animal testing with alternatives. In the European Union, animal testing for cosmetic products has been banned since 2013.

The FDA is currently in the process of testing and evaluating this new software program. If the program proves successful in the long run, it will provide an inexpensive alternative to animal testing that could revolutionize testing processes all over the world. This program is unlikely to be the end of animal testing altogether, but it represents a step in the right direction.