It does some days find us with the posture of Nivea on the claim "cruelty free". In my opinion an act of courage and responsibility, but especially of leadership.

The cosmetic industry European carries already a pair of decades clearly positioned against of the studies in animals and already touches us begin to take out breast for that. And it is that even having a European Regulation (R1223/2009) that explicitly forbids the experimentation with animals for cosmetic ends and a regulation on cosmetic claims (R 655/2013) that indicates clearly that it can not claim that that is a legal requirement, follow seeing advertising alluding to the famous "cruelty free". So, we would have to begin to rentabilizar what carry investing from does years and not to leave us carry by needs cortoplacistas of marketing.

And those that years! As I indicate them to my students of the máster, already in 1993 was speaking to forbid the tests in animals. And by starts of century, in the 2004, began to go in in force the prohibitions of testar in animal prime matters and final product, until arriving to 2013, when it went in in force the called Total Ban in Animal Testing.

I remember some meetings there by 2007 where could not us think that in 2013 went to be all entirely forbidden, because we thought that the state of the art and the technician were not the sufficiently mature. But it arrived the day and yes could it do. It calculates that between 2007 and 2011 they invested more than 280 million euros in investigation of alternative methods. All the sector did a titanic effort to eradicate the animal experimentation for cosmetic ends. And how testamos the cosmetics then? As with technicians in vitro and on healthy human volunteers. They exist a lot of already validated protocols and the ECVAM (European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods) goes publishing those that go validating.

But the European Union has not remained here and goes on doing pressure to delete any relation between the cosmetic and the animal suffering. Now that no longer testa in animals, are entirely dumped in deleting even the use of data generated in the gone through animal models, and substituirlos by what the toxicólogos designate NAM (Non Animal Methods by his acronyms in English) to develop NGSA (New Generation Safety Assessments) that avoid the use of data generated by animal models.

And it is all a challenge, since to arrive to this is necessary a good dose of thought disruptivo and the employment of technicians of computational analysis. The state of the art advances to a vertiginous speed. Already we begin to have publications of workflows to make this type of analysis and of validations of technicians comparing the results between the animal models and the ones of new generation. It is one of these moments for the cosmetic toxicology in that if you blink lose it to you.

In case all this was little, this field is an odd case in which the regulation goes by in front of the technician. Already in 2018, the SCCS in his Notice of Guidance entered the concept of Point of Departure (PoD) like identifier toxicológico main for the evaluation of Security of cosmetic products. That is to say, we happen of a data obtained of animal investigation like the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Efect Level) by a wider concept as it is the PoD, that includes it, but can go much more there; like this if we already have a data obtained by a NAM, can use it in place of the NOAEL and the regulation protects us.

I am it resumiendo in few lines, but is all a new field of knowledge and a new form to tackle the security of the substances, that is being timoneada by the cosmetic industry, but that seems that it does not finish to shine with sufficient intensity through the marketing.

And in my classes always there is some student advanced that it asks me "and the products that sell in China"?. Always doubting if we do us cheat to us same. Sure enough the norm applies to products commercialised in the EU, but applies to the product in yes, no to the country in which testa. That is to say, if the proof in animals makes in any part of the world, already invalidates to the product to be commercialised in Europe.

Obviously this is a problem for the companies that operate in countries out of the EU, as sure enough Chinese where until does very little were compulsory these proofs (and keep on being it for some products). Here, again the European Union has showed his will to delete the tests in animals presionando to the agencies of health so that they accept the alternative methods. Like this, from 2016 Chinese is flexibilizando his requests of tests in animals and from 1 May 2021, the general cosmetics mattered in China will be able to be exentos of proofs in animals. All an attainment.

But, even so, the cosmetic industry keeps on being considered like cruel with the animals and to be able to compete, considers necessary include the "cruelty free" in our labelings. Although it go against the law and although every time they are more the professionals that in all his career do not have not even seen a study made in animals of experimentation for cosmetic ends. It is a penalty.

It will be that we are an easy white, because it considers us frivolous and superficial. It does not happen at all, we can live with this, but just therefore examples like the one of Nivea are so important. We can not be our own enemy.

For resumir, in case somebody has lost between so much acronym and so much data: from 2013 there is not any legally commercialised cosmetic in the EU that have testado in animals, neither the product finished neither the semi-elaborated or prime matters of game. So, sure enough all are "Cruelty free".

We have launched the glove, our commitment is firm, have fulfilled aims and our effort continues any another industry can say the same?.

References

Bertrand, Desprez & Dent, Matthew & Detlef, Keller & Martina, Klaric & Ouedraogo, Gladys & Cubberley, Richard & Hélène, Duplan & Joan, Eilstein & Corie, Ellison & Grégoire, Sébastien & Nicola, J. & Jacques-Jamin, Carine & Daniela, Lange & Amy, Roe & Rothe, Helga & Bas, J. & Schepky, Andreas & Catherine, Mahony. (2018). To strategy for systemic toxicity assessment based on non-animal approaches: The Cosmetics Europe Long Range Science Strategy programme. Toxicology in Vitro. 50. 10.1016/j.tiv.2018.02.017.

Mahony, C., Ashton, R. S., Birk, B., Boobis, To. R., Cull, T., Daston, G. P., ... & Cronin, M. T. (2020). New Ideas for non-animal approaches to predict repeated-dose systemic toxicity: Report from an EPAA Blue Sky Workshop. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 114, 104668.