Procter & GambleBy Gordon S. Hassing, Ph.D. The past 15 years have brought many changes in how the consumer products industry thinks about the use of animals in assessing the safety of new chemicals and products. We at Procter & Gamble salute CAAT for its role in helping bring about this change and its ongoing efforts to educate the scientific community as well as the public on this complex issue. How far have we really come and where are we going in reducing animal use for safety assessment? A few examples from my company's experience illustrate our progress and the numerous remaining challenges. Toxicology testing in the early 1980's for most new product upgrades routinely consisted of a variety of standard animal tests. Our alternative efforts at the time were primarily focused on developing refinement tests, seeking regulatory acceptance of these refinements, and developing new in vitro screening tests in the areas of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Today represents a very different picture. We use only one-tenth the number of animals for non-drug consumer product safety assessments that we used in the early 1980's. This dramatic reduction in animal testing has occurred despite the significant global growth of our business and increase in the number of product lines we market. Now over half of our standard nonclinical safety test protocols in use at Procter & Gamble are refinement, reduction or replacement tests. We make extensive use of databases and computer modeling. Our scientists have developed or adapted in vitro screening tests for eye irritation, skin irritation, skin penetration, respiratory allergy, kidney toxicity, teratology, and carcinogenicity. We are also using more human clinical testing than we have in the past, particularly in the area of skin irritation. These changes have been driven not only by a desire to use fewer animals, but also because many of these tests are faster and/or less expensive than animal testing. It has become clear that progress in alternatives requires collaborative efforts and collaboration among scientists. The challenges are too big for any one organization to resolve alone. That is why our policy has always been to share our information on alternatives development with the broad scientific and regulatory community. Procter & Gamble scientists have been actively involved in numerous external efforts to develop, validate, and promote the acceptance of alternative tests internationally. We work through organizations like CAAT and with scientists from universities, other companies, and government research and regulatory organizations. What we have learned as a company and as part of the broader alternatives research community? We no longer assume we must use animals--we use them as a last resort. We constantly seek new areas and approaches for alternatives research--the search has become part of this company's culture. We have learned that alternatives must be based on sound scientific underpinnings if they are to succeed. Continuing research to understand the basic biology of toxicological processes is critical if we are ever to have true replacement methods. We still have a very long way to go, particularly in areas that cannot be modeled by single cells in culture. Our goal must be to recognize when new understandings in basic science can be used to make real progress in the development of alternatives and move these ahead as rapidly as possible. Dr. Hassing is Vice-President, Research and Development, Procter & Gamble Worldwide. | 
