Consumers have become increasingly savvy about some aspects of animal welfare. After all, who wants to buy products tested on animals - especially after techniques are explained in detail? With that said, many substances are routinely subjected to procedures designed to ensure user safety. It can be challenging to find those “not tested on animals” labels in some drugstores, whether it is face lotion or shampoo. However, the European Union is one step ahead - and March 2009 marks a ban on animal testing for cosmetics. This follows a previous ban on testing complete cosmetics that has been in place since 2004.

Companies are still under pressure to provide products that appeal to people, rather than causing them to break out in a rash. So there must be alternatives to animal testing, prior to the release of a new formulation. A team of researchers has come up with an inorganic alternative, to be released through Solidus Biosciences. The possible solution is a small glass chip, much like a microscope slide, but containing dots of cultured human cells and enzymes. When exposed to chemicals, the dots are meant to react like human skin and other organs. In the presence of toxins, the cells will stop growing or die.

While this new chip will only be part of a battery of tests, all to be conducted in vitro, it will offer a clear alternative to standard practices using mice, rats, rabbits, and other animals. Other alternatives include computer simulations and synthetic skin. Most compounds are tested for toxicity before being released on the market. This is equally true for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, including medicines. The current legislation only addresses cosmetics - other compounds will still require animal tests before human tests can be performed.

Over recent years, many cosmetic companies have reduced their animal testing - except with new ingredients - due to popular demand. After all, why should a new shade of nail polish or glossier lipstick require such measures, especially with known ingredients? Most tests focus on skin or eye irritation, along with exposure through ingestion, as well as cancer and reproductive risks.

In the UK, animals have not been used much over the past decade, owing to intense public scrutiny. In Canada, cosmetics do not have to be tested on animals; however, companies often test new ingredients, and labelling may not indicate this fact The US Food and Drug Administration also recommends alternative methods, while recognizing that some animal testing may take place.

Perhaps the upcoming European ban will accelerate research into viable alternatives, and North American companies will get the benefit of newer, cheaper, and more sustainable technologies. In the meantime, read labels and ask questions if you wish to purchase cosmetics and other products that eschew animal tests.