All cosmetic companies, with an exception of a few, test potential chemicals, which will act as ingredients for the company's products, on animals. Scientists conducting experiments for a certain company will test the chemicals on animals in order to decide whether or not it can go in the final product, based on the reaction the animal has. Researchers and Scientists working with the cosmetics company L'Oreal, have recently found a new and more effective way to test these chemicals that does not require the harming of an innocent animal. These methods are called the in-vitro method and Episkin method. Both of these ideas are still in the making and with more research could potentially end all of animal testing. There are many reasons that describe why this method is more reliable than any other animal based tests, which I will further discuss. Through intense research of humans and animals' reactions to chemicals, I am going to argue that since animals and humans are so vastly different, testing animals is inaccurate and unreliable for chemicals being put in cosmetics people will use, and the in-vitro and episkin methods should be used as replacements. 

Using animals as a way to test chemicals being used as ingredients for cosmetic companies has been going on since the early 1900's. Each year the number of animals killed due to the tests performed on them ranges from 17 million to 100 million. As one can see, since the 1900's far too many animals have died because of testing, but this can easily be stopped with new and improved testing methods that do not require the use of an animal. In October of 2000 the International Workshop on In Vitro Methods of Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity met to talk about the in-vitro method currently being created and how it can potentially end the deaths of many animals. The International Workshop on In Vitro Methods of Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity consists of a group of representatives from industries and agencies who are working to develop new strategies for advancements in alternative methods for testing. The main in-vitro test I will be discussing is Corrositex, which is very similar to another method called Episkin. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternate Methods (ICCVAM) spoke out about this new method, "Corrositex uses a synthetic membrane-based detection system to determine the UN packing group classification of chemicals, consumer products or other hazardous materials" (ICCVAM). This method is similar to the Episkin method, which will be later discussed. There have been successful results to this test, such as correlating well with rabbit skin corrosivity tests, which are tests conducted on the skin of rabbits to eventually get a reaction to the chemical being tested. An example of a rabbit skin corrosivity test is the Draize test. The Draize test forces rabbit's eyes open and drops chemicals into its eyes to see if there will be a reaction or not. Since Corrositex has been well correlated with rabbit skin corrosivity tests, it gives the Corrositex method a better name and a higher possibility it will replace animal testing. 

Episkin is one of the latest advancements in working towards ending animal testing, but it was originally created to treat patients with horrific burns by re-growing the skin they lost and replacing it. This method is seen as far more accurate and relevant than any test performed on animals, and will eventually save many animal's lives. The French cosmetic company, L'Oreal, is home to the researchers responsible for this new advancement in the cosmetology world. In 1997, researchers from L'Oreal's team created the foundation for the Episkin idea, but it still needed some work. A few years later in 2002 it was officially given the conformation to be used. "Episkin is grown from cells harvested from the top layer of pieces of skin. The pieces used so far have been removed from donors during cosmetic surgery to cut away excess folds after weight loss" (Fiona MacRae). Skin is taken from donors during cosmetic surgery and is grown in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory. After some time has passed and the skin has grown, there will be a significant amount melanocytes added to the skin. Melanocytes are skin pigment cells that give skin differing colors, such as tan or pale skin. The reason melanocytes are added to the skin is to have varying colors of skin for the scientists to test on. Along with adding melanocytes to the skin, it is also helpful to have donors who are of different ethnicities. One reason having differing skin colors and ethnicities makes it easier for scientists is so the measurements of efficiency of sunblock on different skin tones is accurate. The main reason L'Oreal created this method was to appeal to more diverse customers that account for 53% of the global beauty market. With fingers crossed, L'Oreal is now hoping to gain at least one billion new customers with their new animal-free approach in the years to come. This method not only saves millions of animals' lives each year, but it also is faster than any other testing method. One of the current tests used on animals is called the Draize test. This test is one of the cruelest tests because it forces rabbit's eyes open and drops chemicals into them with a dropper and waits for a reaction. It usually takes up to a month to see any reaction from the animal with the Draize test. With the Episkin method, the reaction to the drug or chemical given shows up almost instantaneously, think of this method as an allergy test. When people go to the allergist to see if they are allergic to food or dust, the doctor puts a series of needles into the patient's back and waits for a reaction to occur, which shows what the allergy is. Episkin and an allergy test are similar because they both have direct contact with the skin, which is what the final cosmetic product will go on. I believe the Episkin test is most accurate because it does have direct contact with human skin, thus giving a more precise indication of how human's will react to the final cosmetic product.

Researchers and scientists have been using the reactions animals have to chemicals as an indicator of how humans will react, but recently it has come to many scientists' attention that the reaction between humans and animals are quite different. As stated in an article written by multiple doctors, "Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair -- among myriad other differences between humans and other species -- can give us inadequate or erroneous information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses" (Miles, Berthet, Hopf, Gilliet, Raffoul, Vernez and Spring).  By testing animals with chemicals that will potentially be ingredients in products used by humans, it will provide scientists with information that is incorrect. The information is thought to be incorrect, or not as accurate aws Episkin results because there is such a difference between how animals react to a drug and how humans react to it. It was also stated by Dr. Richard Klausner, the former Director of the National Cancer Institute, that animals and humans are so different that the same drug that cured cancer in mice had no effect on humans who had cancer. He also mentioned that many drugs humans take to relieve the smallest headache are poisonous to animals. This shows how detrimental it is to have drugs and chemicals tested on the same source the final product will be used by, such as humans. So, the question remains, why do scientists continue testing animals when they know the different reactions humans and animals give off? 

In 2009 the process to ban all products tested on animals was first started. It was not until March of 2013 that the European Commission finalized a review process that placed a ban on the selling of products that used animals for testing chemicals. This ban is called "Communication on the animal testing and marketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics". (European Commission). Even if products were made outside of Europe, they were not allowed to be sold in Europe because this ban was so specific on not having any products that were previously tested on animals. Any tests and studies that took place before the prohibition was put into place is accepted for the safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients to ensure the products are, in fact, safe for people to use. The number of studies taken place before the ban took effect that do not involve animals is very low. The European Commission Regulation does not view any of the cosmetics produced, before the ban, as safe to use even though none of the final products have had any hazardous reports. The reason the European Commission decided to place a ban on the use of animals for testing is because they found it immoral, selfish and a waste of money to harm innocent animals for the sake of a cosmetic product. According to Monica Engerbretson, a North America Campaign Manager for Cruelty Free International, "Europe is the largest cosmetics market in the world and since the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics is now prohibited here, moving away from animal testing makes good economic and trade sense in addition to simply being the right thing to do" (Huffington Post). Due to the ban on animal tested products, Europe's economy is thriving along with feeling morally correct. It is no shock that the L'Oreal was so open to conducting research to find a new method of testing, Episkin, because they are a French company and need to stay in business but still following the rules. With the ban on animal testing in Europe they had to find a new way to continue selling products. Even though this ban directly affected European cosmetic companies, some American companies decided to follow along with it and voluntarily stop the use an animals in their testing process.  The American companies who decided to stop their testing on animals have gained great respect in Europe, but sadly little recognition is being given in the United States. 

On the other hand, many argue that using animals to test future products is beneficial for various reasons. One reason some people believe it is necessary to test drugs on animals is because certain drugs that are for animals need to be tested on animals first. If an animal is in need of surgery, the type of anesthesia that will be used should be previously tested on an animal to make sure it is safe to use. This comes back to my point about needing to use Episkin to test drugs on actual human skin because it will be used by humans in the end. As Dario L. Ringach, PhD, MSc, Professor of Neurobiology and Psychology at the University of California LA stated, "Hopefully, animal activists will come to accept that our work is driven similarly by an honest attempt at advancing knowledge and alleviating suffering and disease in the world" (Dario L. Rinach). His point of view on using animals for testing is solely for collecting knowledge and information. Dr. Rinach makes a valid point when he says the reason animals should be used for testing is when trying to learn more and conduct research. Of course scientists have to conduct research on animals in order to gain new information about them. He does not, however, mention anything about the idea of using animals when testing for the safety of human used cosmetic products. In terms of toxicity challenges and Episkin challenges, it is believed that there are too many chemical candidates that require testing. This allows people who oppose Episkin to believe it will cost less money to conduct test on animals than to use the Episkin method. 

In any business everything comes down to money, and how much it costs to make and sell that product. After viewing the different tests conducted on animals to sell cosmetic products, I saw a tremendous difference between using Episkin and in-vitro testing than when using animals. Genetic toxicity describes the property of chemical agents that damage a genetic formation with a cell that causes mutation. In order to test genetic toxicity it costs $32,000 when using an animal, but while using in-vitro methods it costs $11,000. When testing skin corrosion using the Draize method it costs $1,800. If the same test is conducted while using the Episkin method it only costs $850. While a $950 difference does not seem like much of a gap, that money could be put towards something else within that company. Those are just a couple of examples of how drastic the cost difference is between using an animal to conduct a test and using the Episkin and in-vitro methods. The Humane Society International stated "The inefficiency and exorbitant costs associated with animal testing makes it impossible for regulators to adequately evaluate the potential effects of the more than 100,000 chemicals currently in commerce worldwide ... computer modeling techniques are lightning-fast, and many call-based in vitro methods are amenable to 'high throughput' automation using robotics -- all at a much lower cost than animal tests" (Cost of Animal and Non-Animal Testing). The Humane Society International is arguing that using animals for testing is, essentially, a waste of money. In-vitro methods provide faster results and cost less, making it the most reasonable option for testing.  

In conclusion, I believe the in-vitro and Episkin methods for testing drugs should be used instead of using animal testing methods, such as the Draize test. There is a significant cost difference between animal testing methods and the Episkin method, which will help cosmetic companies in the long run by saving money in the testing field, and spending it in other departments of the company. The Episkin method also gives results faster than any other animal testing method can because of the direct contact it makes with the human skin grown and modified in the laboratory. Not only does Episkin cost less and gives faster results, it also provides more accurate information because it is actual human skin being tested, instead of being tested on an animal and having the hope for the best when people use the product. Europe did the right thing when deciding to place a ban on the testing of animals for cosmetic products, and I also think the United States should too. Episkin is saving money for cosmetic companies, and Europe reported after placing the ban their economic status went up drastically. I think the Episkin and in-vitro methods should be used instead of using animals, not only because it is more accurate, more time efficient and cost less, but because it does not endanger innocent animals who have no say in the matter. Furthermore, Episkin should replace all animal testing methods world-wide to save money, provide more accurate results from the test and save time. 

