Due to the seriously compromised nature of existing replacements are widely used in-house by industry to eliminate nearly all requirements for the classical Draize test.
Alternatives have also been accepted on a case-by-case basis by several regulatory agencies outside of the U. The Consumer Product Safety Commission drew up new and more humane guidelines for conducting the Draize, which included the use of local anesthesia, the reduction of the number of animals used, and the elimination of testing known corrosives and irritants.
With adequate commitment and funding, the development of non-animal alternatives in this area promises less expensive and more reliable risk assessment procedures.
Alternatives to the Draize eye test include the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test and the Isolated Chicken Eye Assay (ICE) method; both can be used to determine severe/corrosive categories and to test for eye safety.
In most instances, the conscious animals are immobilized in full body restraint stocks and remain unanaesthetized for up to 14 days for evaluation.
However, these tests still utilize animals (albeit from slaughterhouses), and live animals are still required to confirm negative results.
Animal-based () toxicity testing, which causes severe suffering, distress, and death for the animals used, is typically performed without anesthesia or analgesics and is of questionable, if any, scientific value. Gerhard Zbinden, one of the world's leading toxicologists, once described a standard test as little more than “a ritual mass execution of animals.” The testing of just one substance alone, be it a potential drug or toxic chemical, can involve using up to 800 animals and cost over million. Although seldom mentioned, essentially all of the animal safety and toxicity tests in use today were never validated and would be unlikely to meet current validation requirements.
And while dependence on outmoded and imprecise animal toxicity tests has actually hindered enforcement of both consumer and environmental protection laws, federal agencies continue to accept data from animal tests—all the while recognizing the dangers of applying these results to humans.
These tests cause severe pain to the animal and can result in ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, and discoloration of the skin.
Skin corrosivity and irritation can be easily measured using systems based on human cell and tissue cultures, such as EPISKIN and Epi Derm—both of which measure cell viability as an endpoint. government that coordinates new and revised safety testing methods, including “alternative test methods that may reduce, refine, or replace the use of animals.” Skin sensitization tests are used to determine if a substance causes an allergic reaction and were typically performed on guinea pigs.