Author: Kristin Stone

Pigs are one of the smartest animals on Earth. Highly social, intelligent, and curious, they engage in complex tasks, form elaborate, cooperative social groups. Scientists have demonstrated that pigs are capable of playing simple video games, learning from each other, and even learning names. Undoubtedly, these animals feel fear, pain and stress.

Yet, most breeding pigs in Brazil are confined in “gestation crates” for virtually their entire lives, enduring a cycle of repeated impregnation. These individual cages are approximately 2 feet wide by 7 feet long—so small the animals can’t even turn around or take more than a step forward or backward.

Sows confined in crates are likely to experience boredom, frustration and psychological trauma. They also suffer from numerous health problems due to the confinement, such as urinary infections and lameness.

Viable alternatives exist

Alternative systems exist and are being used by many producers in Brazil and abroad. The most commonly used alternative to gestation crates is “group housing,” which allows animals to move around and socialize.

Iowa State University conducted a two-and-a-half year long economic comparison of gestation crates and group housing and found that “reproductive performance can be maintained or enhanced in well-managed group housing systems…without increasing labor.” Overall, the study concluded that “group housing…resulted in a weaned pig cost that was 11 percent less than the cost of a weaned pig from the individual stall confinement system.”

For more information on the economics of gestation crate alternatives, see HSI’s report [PDF]

The world moves away from gestation crates

Gestation crate confinement has come under fire from veterinarians, farmers, animal welfare advocates, animal scientists, consumers and others. Renowned animal welfare scientist Dr. Temple Grandin says, “We’ve got to treat animals right, and gestation stalls have got to go.” She continues, “Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life.”

The continuous confinement of breeding sows has already been banned throughout the European Union, Canada and nine US states. It will also be phased-out in New Zealand by 2015 and Australia by 2017. The South Africa Pork Producers Organization expects to phase out the continual confinement of sows in gestation crates by 2020.

Leading multinational food retailers are also adopting crate-free purchasing policies.  McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway and around 60 other leading food companies are implementing crate-free policies for their supply chains in the United States.

The movement is also gaining momentum in Brazil. Arcos Dorados, McDonald’s largest operator in Latin America and the Caribbean, announced that all its pork suppliers will have to present documented plans to limit the use of gestation crates and adopt group housing systems.

Major pork producers are also moving away from this practice. Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world, will be gestation crate-free in its whole supply chain by 2022.  Olymel, the largest pork producer in Canada, also announced it will be crate-free by 2022. Pork producer Cargill is already 50 percent gestation crate-free in its operations.

You can help

• Learn more about gestation crates
• Watch a video about intensive confinement
• Read our report about the environmental impacts of industrialized animal agriculture
• Eat more humanely
• Join us! Sign up to receive the latest news and action alerts
• Join our global community on Facebook
• Back to HSI in Brazil’s main page

Humane Society International (HSI) and our partner organizations together constitute one of the world’s largest animal protection organizations. We work globally to protect animals in laboratories, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife.

We participate in international forums such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Our sister organization, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), was elected by philanthropy specialists of Guidestar as number one in high impact in animal protection and was named by Worth Magazine as one of the top 10 as one of the 10 most fiscally responsible charities in the US.

In Brazil, HSI works on three core programs: the implementation of alternatives for intensive confinement of farm animals, Meatless Monday, and ending animal testing in the cosmetics sector.

Intensive confinement

HSI is working with companies, government institutions, civil society organizations, and consumers to improve the way animals are treated in food production.  Our main focus is the implementation of systems that substitute two of the most intensive forms of animal confinement: the use of battery cages for laying hens and the confinement of breeding sows (female pigs) in gestation crates.

Meatless Monday and reducing or replacing meat consumption

We also invite people to reduce or replace their consumption animal-based foods as a way to help animals, health, and the planet. Our main initiative is the Meatless Monday campaign, a growing international movement that asks consumers to leave meat off of their plates one day a week, on Mondays.

Be Cruelty-Free

The Be Cruelty-Free campaign was launched to end animal testing in the cosmetics sector in Brazil. Rabbits, mice and guinea-pigs have chemicals forced down their throat and dripped into their eyes and on to their shaved skin. It’s the ugly secret of the beauty industry that we are determined to end.

Learn more

Read the latest news on our campaigns in Brazil and worldwide.

Hens are intelligent animals who form strong family ties; yet, in Brazil, approximately 95 percent of egg-laying hens, or more than 80 million animals, are confined in battery cages so small that the birds are prevented from performing many important natural behaviors, including walking, perching, dust bathing, nesting, or even fully stretching their wings.

They suffer psychological stress as well as numerous physical harms, including bone weakness and breakage, feather loss, and diseases. Confined in battery cages, each bird has less space than a sheet of paper on which to spend her entire life.

The science supports what common sense already tells us: that animals confined in such an extreme manner endure constant suffering. Studies also show that not confining animals in cages may also improve food safety.

Alternative systems

In Brazil, there are more humane production systems that do not use cages, including free-range and organic. Not only do free-range and organic certification in the country prohibit confinement in battery cages, they also require that the birds have access to outdoor areas where they can exercise and carry out more natural behaviors, such as foraging. Another alternative are eggs labelled as “Certified Humane”. This certification does not necessarily mean that hens have access to outdoor areas, but cages are not allowed and hens are free inside sheds with areas for nesting, foraging, perching and dust-bathing.

International trend

The world is moving away from barren battery cages. In Switzerland, they have been banned for more than 20 years. In 2012, the European Union banned the use of conventional battery cages. In the same year, Bhutan also banned the confinement of laying hens in battery cages. In the U.S., the states of California, Michigan and Ohio have passed laws to restrict the confinement of egg-laying hens. In India, the world’s third largest egg producer, most states have declared that confining hens in cages is a violation of the country’s anti-cruelty legislation and a national ban is being considered.

Important multinational companies are also adopting cage-free egg purchasing policies.  Burger King, Subway, and WalMart are using cage-free eggs in the United States and the European Union. Unilever announced that by 2020, all eggs used in the manufacturing of Hellmann’s mayonnaise will be cage-free globally, including in Brazil.

You can help

• Learn more about the implications of battery cages
• Read our report about the environmental impacts of industrialized animal agriculture
• Eat more humanely
• Join us! Sign up to get the latest news and action alerts
• Join our global community on Facebook
• Learn more about our work in Brazil.

The following is a list of ways you can help end the cruel spectacle of bullfighting:

1. Never attend a bullfight, and educate your family, friends, and coworkers, encouraging them to never attend bullfights.

2. Wherever you live, speak out against all government support for or promotion of bullfighting. If you are a taxpaying citizen in community where public funds are provided in support of bullfighting, call and write to your elected officials to let them know this is not acceptable. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. If you see a government-funded brochure, website, advertisement, or televised program that promotes bullfighting, contact the sponsoring government agency to register your strong objection.

3. If you learn that a company sponsors and supports bullfighting, call or write to its public relations department expressing your disapproval.

4. Flex your consumer muscle if you are planning to travel to a country that still allows bullfighting. Refuse to stay at a resort that is currently building or already has a bullfighting arena as part of its recreation facilities. Let the resort know why you are opting for alternate lodging. Refrain from eating at restaurants, patronizing tourist shops, or hiring local travel agencies that promote and advertise bullfighting. Let them know why. If you encounter a travel book that includes information on attending a bullfight, write to the publishing company and the author, asking them to remove this information in future editions of the book.

5. Anytime the topic of bullfighting arises in print, e-mail a letter to the editor explaining why bullfighting should be relegated to the past.

A bullfight is commonly depicted as “a dramatic struggle between man and beast,” (1) feeding the popular myth that bulls are fierce and violent creatures. Bullfighting spectators may agree as they witness the bull charge at the bullfighter, occasionally causing injury and even death. Former bullfighting fan Antonio Moreno explains how at a young age he was “taught that the bullfighter was risking his life against this wild beast, and that he had to conquer it and humiliate it by getting it to chase the cape at whatever cost… This is the reality that a child sees: the bull is the ‘bad guy’ and the other participants in the bullfight are the ‘good guys.’” (2)

The truth is that bulls normally are calm, peaceful creatures. In fact, when a bull charges at the bullfighter, he is not actually trying to attack. According to zoologist Jordi Casamitjana, when a bull is provoked in the ring, “[t]he most common response to attack would be to turn towards the attacker and try to push him away with its horns… In other words, the charging of the bull should not be interpreted as an attack (so the term “fight” in bullfighting is an absolute misnomer), but as a way to push away the attackers, to avoid the adverse situation.” (3)

Manipulation in breeding

Bullfighting industry insiders acknowledge that bulls are expressly bred for increased aggression in the ring. Says sociologist Jorge Ramón Sarasa Juanto, “La bravura nace durante la selección realizada por los distintos ganaderos que han creado el desarrollo del toro de lidia [The ferocity is born during the selection, carried out by different breeders that have created the development of the bull used in bullfighting].” (4)

Breeders have recently turned to cloning in an attempt to replicate “aggressive” audience-pleasing bulls for future bullfights. Those fans who regard bullfighting as a deep-rooted facet of their culture might ask themselves, with new biotechnology manipulating the bullfight today, if this “tradition” really is the same as it was years ago.

---

¹ Wall, Allan.  Mexidata.info.  Will Cloning Change Bullfighting in Mexico? http://www.mexidata.info/id1624.html. Accessed July 11, 2008.

² Moreno, Antonio.  How is a Bullfighting Fan Born? http://www.ffw.ch/files/Corrida%202008/eng_moreno.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2008.

³ Casamitjana, Jordi.  ‘Suffering’ in bullfighting bulls; An ethologist’s perspective. http://www.ffw.ch/files/Corrida%202008/eng_jordi_casamitana.pdf.  Accessed July 14, 2008

⁴ Juanto, Jorge Ramón Sarasa.  Sociología del Toro de Lidia: Tesis Cultural de la Bravura.  http://www.ganaderoslidia.com/webroot/tesis_bravura.htm.  Accessed July 14, 2008.

Canada holds more than half the world’s population of polar bears, most ranging either solely or partially within the vast borders of Nunavut, a territory spanning nearly 2 million square kilometers. These ice-dependent bears—beloved by people worldwide—have become a symbol of wilderness species most vulnerable to the threats of global climate change.

New research confirms that sea ice in the Arctic is declining rapidly and scientists believe that continued melting will have devastating effects for the long-term survival of polar bears; this is not to mention polar bears’ sensitivity to other human disturbances, such as toxic pollution and oil and gas development in the north.

But these are not the animals’ only challenges to survival. Trophy hunters have also set their sights on Canada’s polar bears. Inuit hunters in Nunavut are allowed to kill polar bears for subsistence, but they have the right to sell their subsistence tags to foreign sport hunters. Years ago, this opened the door for trophy hunters—mostly from the United States—to offer large cash payments for the “privilege” of killing polar bears.

Profit or protection?

In 2005, the government of Nunavut announced a controversial plan to increase hunting quotas for polar bears by as much as 28 percent. The increase—which was based solely on local reports that more bears are being seen near villages—put even more pressure on a species already vulnerable to extinction because of climate change, environmental contaminants, and a long history of being hunted for sport.  While the government has since reduced the quota, trophy hunting of polar bears continues. Wealthy trophy hunters pay native guides $25,000 to $40,000 for the chance to kill the bears. The high demand for polar bear hunting permits is one reason scientists are skeptical of local polar bear population increase reports, especially given that these reports have been known to be unjustifiably inflated when the demand for trophies is high. Furthermore, Canadian polar bear researchers explain that seeing more polar bears near villages is not necessarily evidence of a population increase. They note that the increased sightings are more likely the result of melting ice (due to global climate change), which is forcing polar bears inland.

Studies have shown that polar bears rely on high adult survival to maintain population numbers, suggesting that the bears have not evolved to withstand high losses to their adult population. This means that trophy hunting can pose a significant conservation threat, in that the hunters are specifically targeting adults.

An uncertain future

The World Conservation Union (IUCN), the internationally respected authority on endangered species, recognizes the polar bear as a vulnerable species, meaning they are in danger of becoming extinct. In May of 2008, the United States government added polar bears to their endangered species list and imposed a ban on imports of polar bear parts. Since most hunters targeting polar bears in Canada have come from the United States, this ban deals a serious blow to the polar bear trophy hunting industry and has eased some of the pressure imposed on these bears. However, the real power to save polar bears lies with the Canadian government who has, up to now, shown a complete disregard for the welfare of these bears. In 2002, Canada’s expert committee on endangered species recommended for the third time that polar bears be added to Canada’s species at-risk list—but Canadian politicians ignored their advice. In 2008, this expert committee again reiterated its recommendation, but the Canadian government again failed to offer protection to these majestic, yet vulnerable creatures. It is time for the Canadian government to start paying attention to scientific evidence and take serious steps toward protecting polar bears and their habitat before it is too late.

Humane Society International (HSI) Europe is actively working to put an end to animal testing—permanently.

In partnership with affiliates The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Humane Society Legislative Fund, HSI is campaigning globally to promote greater reliance on proven non-animal testing methods. HSI is actively working to implement a landmark vision of “21st century toxicology” that would see animal tests that are decades old, costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and human-relevant non-animal methods.

This vision was articulated in July 2007 by an expert panel of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), which included a HSUS/HSI representative as one of its key members. The cornerstone of the NRC vision is a “systems biology” approach to testing, which would combine robot-automated human cell and gene tests with sophisticated computer models to develop an understanding of how chemicals affect fundamental biological pathways in the human body that can lead to adverse health effects.

Key advantages of the proposed new approach include the capacity to examine a much greater number of chemicals, mixtures and health effects than can be tested on animals, and at more realistic exposure levels; a substantial reduction in testing costs, time and animal use; and the grounding of regulatory decisions on human rather than rodent biology.

In February 2008, the U.S. federal government took its first step toward implementing the NRC vision with the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the National Toxicology Program, the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The MOU [PDF] outlines a strategy for interagency co-operation in “the research, development, validation, and translation of new and innovative test methods that characterize key steps in toxicity pathways.”

Shortly thereafter, EU regulators and industry—under the auspices of the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA)—convened a meeting of eminent scientists to discuss and provide recommendations regarding “new perspectives on safety.”

The HSUS/HSI welcomes these various initiatives, but recognises that in order for the NRC vision to make a significant impact on regulatory toxicology in the foreseeable future, a much larger and internationally co-ordinated research effort will be needed. HSUS/HSI is therefore calling on the EU, U.S. and other world governments and corporations to commit to a “big biology” initiative—akin to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s—backed by at least 100 million Euros in public and corporate funding per year for the next decade. 

In many developing countries, working equines serve important roles as transportation and labor. In some areas, they form the basis of the rural economy. The poorly maintained routes over which they travel, the heavy burdens they are forced to bear or pull, the often makeshift harnesses and carriages—combined with frequently inadequate nourishment and lack of proper veterinary and farrier care—contribute to a life of misery for many thousands of horses and donkeys around the world. They suffer from internal and external parasites, debilitating pressure sores, and serious leg, foot, and hoof injuries.

The HSI Working Equine Welfare program helps to address these problems, bringing veterinary care, training for local veterinarians and veterinary students, and education for horse owners to remote communities. We promote the economic benefits of better care, engaging the community on many levels. Even children (future horse owners) are included through interactive humane education classes in the local schools conducted by an HSI staff member.

Our partner in this initiative is The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA), an organization for veterinary professionals who want to engage in direct care programs for animals in need and educate the public and others in the profession about animal welfare issues.

Alternatives to the use of animals in product testing include the elimination of redundant or needless study requirements, the replacement of animal tests with non-animal methods, and the modification of animal-based tests to both reduce the number of animals used and to minimise pain and distress.

Humane Society International (HSI) works closely with government regulators in the EU, the U.S., and internationally through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) and the Veterinary International Cooperation on Harmonisation (VICH) to reduce reliance on animal testing and to encourage involvement in the development and use of sophisticated new non-animal test methods.

To this end, HSI Europe is actively supporting the vision of “twenty-first century toxicology” articulated by the U.S. National Research Council, which would see animal tests that are decades old, costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and human-relevant non-animal methods. HSI is calling for a “big biology” project to meet this challenge, akin to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s, and are forging an international, multi-stakeholder consortium make this landmark vision a reality as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, HSI is working toward the abolition of unnecessary testing requirements from international regulatory frameworks, including the deletion of 1-year dog studies from pesticide regulations and acute lethality studies from ICH test guidelines. Other opportunities under discussion at OECD include limiting cancer tests to a single species (currently both rat and mouse studies are required), and evaluating reproductive toxicity using only one generation of offspring instead of two (which would save 1,200 animals per test).

To date, more than two-dozen alternative methods have been declared scientifically valid by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and/or its counterparts worldwide. Examples include the following:

Replacement methods

• EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic tests for skin irritation
  
  
  
• EPISKIN, EpiDerm, SkinEthic and Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance tests for skin corrosion
  
  
  
• 3T3 neutral red uptake (3T3 NRU) test for sunlight-induced “photo”-toxicity
  
  
  
• In vitro micronucleus test for genetic mutations
  
  
  
• Colony forming unit granulocyte macrophage (CFU-GM) test for toxicity to the blood
  
  
  
• 5 human blood-based tests for fever-inducing “pyrogens” in intravenous drugs
  
  
  
• “ELISA” chemical tests to measure the potency of human tetanus and erysipelas vaccines
  
  
  
• Toxin binding inhibition (ToBI) test for vaccine potency

Reduction and/or refinement methods

• Upper threshold concentration step-down procedure for acute aquatic toxicity testing (up to 70 percent reduction in fish use)
  
  
  
• Reduced local lymph node assay for skin allergy testing (reduction of 50 percent or more relative to conventional animal tests)
  
  
  
• Cellular tests using human and mouse cell lines to set starting doses for acute lethality studies (up to 40 percent reduction)
  
  
  
• BCOP and ICE tests using the eyes of slaughtered cattle and chickens, respectively, for classifying severe eye irritants and corrosives
  
  
  
• Fixed dose, Acute toxic class, and Up-and-down procedures for acute mammalian toxicity (50 percent reduction relative to classical acute lethality tests)
  
  
  
• Mouse embryonic stem cell and whole embryo culture tests for embryotoxicity (a critical element in birth defects testing)

Update: On 19 February 2009, HSI Europe celebrated a major milestone in this campaign following a move by the European Commission and Member States to accept 21st century cell-based methods as full and complete replacements for cruel and outdated skin irritation tests using rabbits and other animals.

Humane Society International (HSI) Europe is leading the call for an immediate end to skin irritation testing on animals now that EU validation authorities have confirmed the validity of several high-tech human skin models as complete non-animal replacements.

For more than 60 years, rabbits have suffered and died to test and label cosmetics, consumer products, agricultural pesticides, biocides and other chemicals for their potential to irritate the skin. But this may soon be a thing of the past thanks to EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic models—three-dimensional reconstructions of human skin using cells grown in culture, which have been shown to readily distinguish between skin irritants and non-irritants at a fraction of the time and cost of animal testing.

How human skin models work

Several dilutions of a test substance are applied to a reconstructed skin model for periods of three minutes, one hour and four hours. Irritants are identified by their ability to reduce the viability of cells in culture below 50 percent and/or trigger the release of an inflammation-inducing chemical from damaged cells.

EU authorities confirm validity

The accuracy and reliability of two of the skin models were formally evaluated against dozens of chemicals of many different classes in an international validation study [PDF] organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). This study, together with subsequent ‘catch-up’ validation work [PDF], confirmed that all three skin models are able to identify irritant substances with a high degree of sensitivity and reproducibility, and can act as full replacements for skin irritation tests on animals.

Limitations of animal skin tests

Despite more than six decades of regulatory use, animal skin irritation tests have never been properly validated according to modern standards (OECD, 2005). Documented limitations include excessively inter-laboratory variability in test results (up to 117 percent; Weil & Scala, 1971) [1], as well as dubious accuracy in predicting real-world human skin reactions. For example, Robinson and colleagues (2001) [2] compared skin irritancy classifications based on the results of rabbit tests against the results of skin-patch tests in human volunteers for 65 consumer products and found that classifications based on animal data incorrectly predicted human responses in 45 percent of cases. Similar reports have appeared in the peer reviewed scientific literature for decades. For example:

• Nixon et al. (1975) [3] documented “greatly different reactions” in rabbits, guinea pigs and humans to 24 household products.
  
  
  
• Davies et al. (1972) [4] concluded, on the basis of replicate skin irritation tests in 7 different species that no single animal species is a suitable model for predicting irritancy potential to human skin.
  
  
  
• Phillips et al. (1972) [5] found that animal tests were unable to distinguish between mild and moderate irritant effects in humans for 12 substances examined.
  
  
  
• Carter & Griffith (1965) [6] reported poor agreement between rabbit and human patch test results.
  
• Complete replacement for animal testing
  
  
  
• Made from tissue from the relevant species (humans)
  
  
  
• High sensitivity in detecting skin irritants
  
  
  
• Low variability in test results within and between laboratories
  
  
  
• Half the cost of animal testing ($850 vs. $1,800/test)
  
  
  
• More rapid than animal testing (2 days vs. 14 days)

Campaign goals

HSI-Europe is committed to seeing animal skin irritation tests relegated to the history books, both in Europe and internationally. Critical steps toward this goal include the following:

• Creation of a new test guideline for human skin models for irritation
  
  
  
• Inclusion of this new test guideline in the EU Test Methods Regulation and deletion of the existing animal test (Method B.4 [PDF])
  
• EU-wide ban on animal testing for skin irritation (per Directive 86/609/EEC), including updating of applicable data requirements and guidance for agricultural pesticides, biocides, chemicals, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals (the UK has already committed to “replace the test used to assess the potential of chemical substances to cause irritation to human skin with the non-animal EPISKIN-SIT test—or any other suitable and validated non-animal model—where scientifically justified and amend existing licences, as necessary, once the agreed protocols for regulatory testing are agreed and published”)
  
  
  
• Reciprocal endorsement of human skin models for irritation as full replacements by validation authorities in the US, Japan and elsewhere
  
  
  
• Adoption as a new OECD Test Guideline, and deletion of the existing animal test (OECD TG 404)
  
  
  
• Revision of applicable data requirements, test guidelines and guidance documents in the United States and other developed countries to prevent future animal testing.

---

¹ Weil CS & Scala RA. Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 19, 276-360 (1971).

² Robinson MK, McFadden JP & Basketter DA. Validity and ethics of the human 4-h patch test as an alternative method to assess acute skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis 45, 1-12 (2001).

³ Nixon GA, Tyson CA & Wertz WC. Interspecies comparisons of skin irritancy. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 31, 481-90 (1975).

⁴ Davies RE, Harper KH & Kyonch SR. Inter-species variation in dermal reactivity. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists 23, 371-83 (1972).

⁵ Phillips L, Steinberg M, Maibach HI & Akers WA. A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 21, 369-82 (1972).

⁶ Carter RO & Griffith JF. Experimental bases for the realistic assessment of safety of topical agents. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 7(Suppl 2), 60-73 (1965).

Other Literature Cited:

Derelanko MJ & Hollinger MA (Eds.). Handbook of Toxicology, Second Ed. Washington, DC: CRC Press (2002).

Draize JH, Woodard G & Calvery HO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 82, 377-90 (1944).

ECVAM. Statement on the Validity of In Vitro Tests for Skin Irritation. Ispra, Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre. 27 April 2007. Website.

Institute for In Vitro Sciences. IIVS Price List. Gaithersburg, MD: IIVS (2007).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals 404 – Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion. Paris: OECD (2002).

OECD. Guidance Document Number 34 on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment. 18 August 2005. Website http://appli1.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/linkto/env-jm-mono(2005)14.

 Spielmann H, Hoffmann S, Liebsch M, et al., The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: Report on the validity of EPISKIN and EpiDerm assays and on the Skin Integrity Function Test. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35, 559-601 (2007).