Comment from Skyler Roth

Dear Sir or Madam: I commend the CPSC for encouraging alternatives to animal testing of hazardous substances. However, I believe that there are two areas where the proposed rule could be modified, to make clearer the importance of avoiding animal testing whenever possible. First, the references to the CPSC's new animal testing policy in 1500.3(c)(1)(iii) and 1500.3(c)(2)(iii) are hampered by their vagueness and positioning. They mention the policy, but only refer to its "approved test methods". Since they also come after a long description of animal testing, this might be misinterpreted to suggest that the only alternatives are other animal tests. In contrast, 1500.3(c)(3) is more effective, as it mentions the value of "a weight-of-evidence analysis" prior to in vivo tests (though its reference to the new policy is similarly vague). I recommend that all three paragraphs mention weight-of-evidence analysis, and briefly emphasize the animal testing reduction goals of the new policy by mentioning that the "approved test methods" include non-animal tests. Second, while the Commission's proposed additions to 1500.40 and 1500.41 are excellent, they are not as strong as the addition to 1500.42, which also includes specific guidelines to "avoid or minimize pain and distress". While tests involving the eyes are likely to be particularly harmful, toxic substances and skin irritants can also cause considerable distress to an animal. The report The Ethics of Research Involving Animals by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics states that toxicity testing can cause "external and internal bleeding," among other serious effects. Whenever possible, the pain of such effects should be alleviated. If the specific recommendations for eye irritants are inappropriate to the other tests, I suggest developing more appropriate recommendations or including general language urging the minimization of pain and distress. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Skyler Roth