Search Cosmetics & Toiletries: Page 2

32 Results

Type: Article

Section: Testing > Animal Alternatives

General Assembly Discusses Endocrine Disruptors, Nano, Animal Alternatives and More

Cosmetics Europe—The Personal Care Association, formerly Colipa, held its annual General Assembly in Brussels, Belgium in June 2012. The scientific forum discussed topics of interest in EU legislation such as The Cosmetics Regulation, which was set to replace the Cosmetics Directive on July 11, 2013.

A Synthetic Tissue-based In vitro Ocular Irritation Assay

The testing of personal care products for ocular irritancy ensures their safety, proper labeling and consumer satisfaction. In relation, there is a current demand for animal-alternative tests. Thus, described here is a method using synthetic tissue to test for mild, moderate and severe ocular irritation, including data validating this method as an effective means to screen products.

Patch Testing vs. In Vitro Alternatives

A comparison between results of in vitro and in vivo testing on a selection of personal-care products begins to establish a validation database for in vitro product safety testing.

Patent Picks—Imaging Skin, Simulating Eyelashes, Assaying Immune Response and More

This edition of "Patent Picks" features recently issued patents relevant to advances in testing for cosmetics R&D.

EU Regulation Update: Tackling the Animal Testing Ban

The European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) has developed an approach for its members to address animal testing bans imposed by the 7th Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive.

Microfluidic Testing for LLNA Replacement

The Hurel Corp. has developed a microfluidic, non-animal alternative to the LLNA and it has partnered with L’Oréal to make this approach a reality—in the form of a chip.

EU Regulatory Update: Recast of the Cosmetics Directive Published

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 was published on Dec. 22, 2009 with the intent to simplify rules and procedures related to the marketing of cosmetic products, a need resulting from different implementations of the Cosmetics Directive.

Comparing Methods to Measure Porcine Skin Integrity In Vitro

To confirm the integrity of porcine ski prior to penetration tests, published studies show that measuring transepidermal water loss, transdermal electrical resistance or caffeine penetration levels are often chosen techniques. New results demonstrate that

Virtually Real

This edition of C&T magazine takes a closer look at alternatives to animal testing with Oborska’s review of existing and pending methods. In addition, the author discusses the complexity of the process to validate alternative test methods.

Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review of Trends and Perspectives

Alternative test methods have the potential to reduce animal testing; however, the extent to which in vitro methods can be replaced is questionable. This article summarizes validated alternatives to test the safety of cosmetic ingredients. It also illustrates how great a challenge it is to devise a proper alternative method.

Using Tissue Engineered Skin to Eveluate the Irritation Potential of Skin Care Products

Using tissue engineered skin to evaluate the irritation potential of skin care products.

Ethics, Ethics Everywhere

Nowadays, however, personal care has evolved even further to encompass the root of human being-ethics and morals, where the purchase of a personal care item relates to one’s concern about the environment and animal welfare. But the involvement of ethics does not just apply to the consumers using the products; it applies to scientists conducting safety studies.

REACH and In Vitro Alternatives: Phototoxicity Testing

This is the third column in a continuing discussion regarding the new REACH regulations and their impact on chemical testing. The first appeared in December 2007 and discussed dermal corrosive potential testing; the second, in February 2008, covered dermal irritancy potential testing.

Testing Tactics—REACH and In vitro Alternatives: Corrosive Potential Testing

The authors of the REACH directive had the foresight to recognize the impact of such a large amount of testing on animal use and mandated that in vitro testing methods should be used as animal testing alternatives whenever possible.

Page 2 of 2