Cosmetic testing is playing an increasingly important role in today’s industry. The first cosmetic tests took place in 1933, after an eyelash darkening treatment blinded several women. In 1938, the US Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act to define stricter regulations for cosmetic products[1]. While the FD&C did not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, the cosmetics industry increasingly resorted to animal experiments, which was a common scientific testing practice at the time. However, today, animal testing is leading to growing public outrage over the fate of laboratory animals and cosmetics manufacturers resort to new techniques to validate the safety and efficacy of their products.
The case for ex vivo: realistic and harm-free human testing
Genoskin suggests unique, standardised and ready-to-use ex vivo human skin models as a highly relevant, animal-free and harm-free option for testing cosmetics
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more.
Click here to find out more.
You may also like
Trending Articles
-
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more. -
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more.
You may also like
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more.
Click here to find out more.
Regulatory
Why true trust in beauty requires more than self-certification
Consumer trust is a business imperative for beauty brands vying for loyal customers. Yet in a marketplace where transparency is prized, too many brands are still relying on self-certification to make claims their customers increasingly question
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more.
Click here to find out more.
You need to be a subscriber to read this article.
Click here to find out more.
Click here to find out more.
Regulatory
Analysis: What’s the future for SPF after Australia’s testing scandal?
Consumer trust in SPF has taken a hit, and innovation could be stifled after dozens of sunscreens were found to be offering less protection than promised in Australia. But new testing methods could be adopted more swiftly, too