Abstract
Since the 1940s the Draize test had been the standard
test applied to any substance that might conceivably get
into a human eye. The Draize test involved immobilizing
fully conscious rabbits in stocks so that they could not
scratch their eyes, and then applying the substance to
one eyeball of each rabbit. The eyeballs were examined
at intervals of, for example, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and
graded for damage such as blindness or blistering. In 1980
Henry Spira launched a campaign against the Draize test.
By taking out full-page ads asking Revlon why it was blinding
rabbits for the sake of beauty, he persuaded that company
to donate $750,000, over 3 years, to a search for alternatives
to the Draize test. Other leading cosmetics corporations
soon followed suit. By 1982 there were signs that progress
was being made. In July of that year Revlon reported that
it had established a panel to ensure that unnecessary Draize
tests are not performed, and as a result it had cut back
the number of rabbits it used annually in the Draize test
from 2,210 in 1979 to 1,431 in 1981. Avon adopted a policy
of always using local anaesthetics if there was any anticipated
discomfort for the animals. Bristol-Myers said that it
was using fewer animals than had been used in the classical
Draize test. All three of the companies were continuing
to contribute substantial sums to research programs designed
to find alternatives to the Draize test.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献