The Necessity for Alternative Methods for the Draize Rabbit Eye Irritancy Test in the Cosmetic Industry

The use of animals in laboratories in the field of cosmetics is an unnecessary cruelty. There are ethical apprehensions concerning these animal experimentations, and a reasonable need for more effective and economical means in acquiring the necessary data. Replacing these animal-testing techniques with efficient alternatives could potentially be a step toward a humane scientific community within the cosmetic industry. The burdens of this paper are to bare emphasis on the disadvantages of conducting the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test for cosmetic purposes, examine the potential alternatives to this specific toxicity test, and briefly assess the benefits the alternatives may have on the cosmetic industry.

The tests conducted on animals by cosmetic companies serve as a means to assess the safety of the products in question. The evaluation is “performed for each product prior to marketing, taking into account the general toxicological profile of the ingredients, their chemical structure and level of exposure” (Illing, et al. 95). In order to test these ingredients cosmetic companies conduct experiments on animals. Let us consider some of the experiments performed by the cosmetic industry in the course of manufacturing a particular cosmetic product. According to the Humane Society these tests include “skin and eye irritation tests… repeated oral force-feeding studies, [and] lethal dose tests.”

In an effort to demonstrate the ethical issues evident in these studies, let us develop a better understanding of one of these tests, specifically the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. This method of testing is utilized as a means to assessing the ocular irritation/corrosion potential of a particular ingredient or substance. The experiment is carried out by applying the chemical in question into a conscious rabbit’s eye and monitoring the damages caused to the eye. It should be noted that in some cases, while rare, dogs might also be used to perform this particular test. In cases where the experiment ensued irreversible effects to the animal’s eye, the animal is then euthanized once the necessary analysis is complete.

It will be beneficial to the topic in question to note that there are numerous accounts portraying the failures exhibited by the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test. For instance, Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D. states that he strongly supports the use of alternatives to the Draize test to demonstrate ocular irritancy of cosmetic products. Dr. Kaufman maintains that relying “on this test is in fact dangerous, because the animal data cannot be reliable extrapolated to man. Substances ‘proven’ safe in lab animals may in fact be dangerous to people.” The fundamental point for present purposes is that there are largely significant variances between the structures of a human eye to that of a rabbit’s eye. Here is a more comprehensive concern illustrating the issue at hand. Freeberg reported “281 human ocular toxicity exposures to 14 household products, and compared the findings to Draize test results. The human experiences differed from the Draize results by a factor of up to 250. Furthermore, the severity of rabbit eye response predicted poorly the degree of human ocular injury.” That is, the Draize eye irritancy test is unreliable because it fails to give an accurate account of the human eye toxicity.

Recent innovations in the science community have allowed for alternatives to the Draize eye irritancy test. These alternatives include in vitro eye irritation tests. That is, human hemoglobin denaturation, red blood cell tests, chorioallantoic membrane, isolated cornea, isolated eyes and cell cultures. A study conducted by Mitjans, Infante and Vinardell found that the red blood cell test, or RBC test, is a validated alternative to the Draize eye irritation test for the acute effects of typical surfactant-based formulations and ingredients. The method of the RBC test is clear and the process is simple. It also has the merit of being rapid and inexpensive (50). We can turn now to a different test that may serve as a substitute for the Draize eye irritation test. Mitjans, Infante and Vinardell also discovered that another alterative to the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test is using human hemoglobin in order to accurately test the protein denaturation produced by likely irritants. The study claims that “among the factors that affect eye irritation, protein denaturation has been reported as one of the most important factors that can result in corneal opacity” (Mitjans, et al.). As a result, the ends produced from this particular in vivo study had a better effect in regards to human hemoglobin absorbance. All in all, the study’s results demonstrate how the alternative method in question is easy to oversee, quick, cost-effective and provides sufficient information about the potential eye irritant action of diverse compounds.

It will be beneficial to the discussion at hand to reveal the flaws that might surface from these alternative methods. “Only a few in vitro assays actually attempt to model the entire eye. In fact, most in vitro tests that have been proposed…tend to model only one small part of the complex process of eye irritation” (Curren, et al. 487). While this may seem like a drastic flaw within the alternative approach, one must remember that in manufacturing a cosmetic product, companies have an abundance of previously accredited research to refer back to when choosing a potentially harmful element. Unless a new chemical is preferred, previous studies can be utilized to create a reliable ingredient list. There are, of course, ways to improve upon these alternative methods, just as there are ways to modify other relevant scientific experimentations. However, cosmetic companies would have to first steer away from the imprecise Draize rabbit eye irritancy test and move toward a more potentially effective process.

Aside from its poor reliability, there is another setback to the animal experimentation being discussed, which is potentially more troubling. That is, the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test is an unnecessary cruelty. Consider the alternatives to this cruel test. There is potential in these methods becoming the replacement for the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test. Given these dependable alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test, certain cosmetic companies have implemented a ban on animal testing for their products. A few of these companies include Estée Lauder, Milani, and Kat Von D Beauty. Perhaps the United States should implement a complete ban of cosmetics with animal tested ingredients just as the European Union has employed since 2013. While there may be some misgivings about abolishing animal-testing entirely, there should at least be a serious consideration on eliminating the Draize eye irritancy test. This irritancy test can be substituted by all cosmetic industries just as some have already done. Why subject rabbits to this painful test if there are indeed cost-effective and time saving alternatives?

As demonstrated earlier, utilizing rabbits in examining eye irritants is not as effective as utilizing human derived elements such as red blood cells or hemoglobin. And so we see that there is a more effective way in promoting human health in the fabrication of cosmetic products, while also implementing a cruelty free means of production. It is safe to conclude that while there is no agreed upon way of testing for eye irritants within the cosmetic industry, it remains true that there are in fact alternatives available in the scientific community that does not exploit animals in its methods. The refusal of certain companies to change the deep-rooted practice of the Draize test creates a danger to the population and raises ethical concerns for the animal population. The cosmetic industry can make use of these alternatives and attempt to take a step toward a cruelty-free establishment, at least in the eye irritant assessment. In general, these successful alternatives are likely to be of valued significance in the anti-animal cruelty population. Additionally, reflection on the success rates of these alternative techniques suggests that there are prospects for a cruelty-free cosmetic industry and a broader population of satisfied consumers.

 

 

Works Cited

“About Cosmetics Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 13 Oct. 2016, http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html.

Curren, Rodger D., John W. Harbell. “In Vitro Alternatives for Ocular Irritation.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 106.2 (1998): 485-492. JSTOR. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.

Illing, Paul, R E Hester and Michael Balls. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology: Alternatives To Animal Testing. Royal Society of Chemistry, 2007.

Kufman, MD, Stephen. “Problems with the Draize Test.” Safer Medicines, http://www.safermedicines.org/reports/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Problems%20with%20the%20Draize.html. Accessed 13 October 2016.

Mitjans, Montserrat, M. Rosa Infante, M. Pilar Vinardell., “Human Hemoglobin Denaturation as an Alternative to the Draize Test for Predicting Eye Irritancy of Surfactants.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 52.2 (2008): 89-93. PubMed. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.