Big Plans

Clean and freshly-greased bearings. Come on, sunshine. I've got big some plans.

College Diet What?

People find it weird that I cook the most during exam time. If anything, they're weird for subjecting themselves to eating junk at such a critical period. I can't stress enough the importance of a good diet, especially when I'm both an athlete and a pescatarian.

 

Quinoa is a great alternative to rice or pasta. It's also an amazing source of protein and iron. Perfect for non-meat eaters.

 

Chop up garlic, add margarine (or butter), microwave!

Ta-da! Fresh garlic butter!!

Entree: Quinoa seasoned with salt, dried thyme leaves, freshly ground black pepper, layered with 3-cheddar-cheese mix and baked to perfection.
Sides: Whole wheat fresh garlic bread.
Mixed greens with vinaigrette (rice vinegar, raspberry balsamic vinegar, sugar, salt, freshly ground black pepper, mayonnaise)

And of course, a nice cup of jasmine tea goes well with everything.

So... who wants to do my dishes?

Super Shake

Avocado: 240 calories, 35% fat
Yoplait Source yogurt, strawberry: 10% calcium, 20% Vit. B12
Banana: 110 calories, 12% dietary fiber, 1% fat
Apple: 110 calories, 20% dietary fiber

May have to rethink eating 2 avocados per day...

Animals in Mascara

Back in November, I wrote this critical review on the topic of animal testing in the cosmetics industry. Tonight, my fishes (Sylvester and Marcel) and I are celebrating the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE)'s victory with the season 4 premiere of Community and some vegan chocolate!


Animals in Mascara: do we really need to conduct tests on animals in cosmetics research?

Animals are widely used as research models because their involvement in science has led to advances in improving human and animal lives through medical, genetic, and animal welfare research, just to name a few. However, there is a branch of research that does not improve the physical health nor the mental state of humans – cosmetic research. Unfortunately, due to the high demand in the cosmetics market, research must continue to ensure the safety of the consumers. The most common methods of testing involve the use of animals. Europe, with more than 10 million animals used annually to test chemical safety (Nature 2005), is currently the leading continent in the cosmetics market, and the European Union’s (EU) actions have a huge impact on the decisions of other countries (Abbott 2009). The development in research of alternate methods to testing cosmetics on animals and the general trend of the public in switching to more natural and earth-friendly products are pushing government policies worldwide to create new legislation that will both ensure consumer safety while maximizing animal welfare.

Most of the tests traditionally performed on animals in the past have not undergone strict validation and many studies have found them inaccurate (Abbott 2005). The test results of a common candidate for cosmetic testing, the Draize rabbit, were found difficult to reproduce and this high variance in results would require an even higher number of experimental subjects to test its accuracy (Abbott 2005). LD₅₀, a traditional and widely-used test that determines the lethal dose of a given chemical, is responsible for a huge number of deaths in animals being tested on (Abbott 2005). This test requires chemicals to be fed to animals in increments until it leads to the death of half the experimental popoulation (Abbott 2005). Body tissue of humans and animals can also react very differently to different chemicals, thus making many results produced by animal research irrelevant to humans (Keville 2002).These are only a few of the issues that have drawn the attention of the public and policy-makers and have caused them to question and reconstruct the regulations in governing animal testing.

Each year, the EU sets aside €35-million, dedicated to the research in developing alternate methods to animal testing in the cosmetics industry (Abbott 2009). This has led to the creation of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), a small lab in Italy formed solely for the purpose of developing alternate models to testing chemicals on (Nature 2008). The United States and Japan have learned from this example and are producing tests that parallel those of the EU’s (Abbott 2009). However, the American version of the ECVAM, The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), lacks the funding that ECVAM has and thus, lacks the results (European Report 2011). Aside from the members of the EU, no other country has existing legislation that governs the laws of animal testing in the cosmetics industry (Abbott 2009). It is apparent, then, that for research in this field to continue there must be an increase in interest, support, and funding.

The path to an absolute replacement of animals in cosmetic testing faces many obstacles. For one, the fourth and fifth largest cosmetics markets, China and Brazil, respectively, have both made animal testing mandatory for all commercially-used chemicals (European Report 2011). Many companies do not feel comfortable with their products until they have been tested on animals, regardless of the validity of these tests, says Michael Balls, the head of ECVAM (Keville 2002). Although in vitro tests are easily reproducible due to their accessibility, the results produced from these experiments are sometimes not relevant (Abbott 2005). These alternative testing methods are also not conclusive enough to validate all types of common cosmetics such as creams and lotions, and are deemed unfavourable to industries (McKim et al. 2011).

Whenever there is an involvement of animals in research, there are always questions of ethics. Utilitarianism is an appropriate approach in viewing this topic as it weighs out the benefits and disadvantages and strives to seek the best solution for both humans and the laboratory animals. It is often argued that is it appropriate for humans to use animals for their benefit because of their rank in evolution and the complexity of their nervous system; however, many studies have shown that animals also respond to stimuli in a similar way that humans do. Their capacity to feel pain and suffering should be a concern and action must be taken to reduce the stress that these animals feel. If biomedical research requires an endpoint to experiments based on the suffering of the animal, why should it be permitted for cosmetic research to poison their research animals to the point of death? Cosmetic research takes the lives of thousands of animals but its outcome may not save a single human life. With a utilitarian perspective in mind, it is clear that the use of animals in cosmetics research is inefficient and unethical.

Cosmetics research around the world should adopt the current protocols current put forward by the EU and help contribute to the movement for better alternatives to cosmetics testing. There have already been many success stories in finding replacements for these in vivo experiments with the use of cell cultures and computer programs (Keville 2002). These methods not only test whether a certain chemical is an irritant, but can also its level of potency (McKim et al. 2011). With lower costs and fewer casualties, it would only make sense to invest in the research for alternative methods (McKim et al. 2011). Although the methods are still in process of being validated, their potential to the cosmetics industry and to general animal welfare is obvious. The aspiration to refining alternative methods will not only lighten the burden of laboratory animals, but also inspire the development of better methods in general. In the future, with the continual advancement in developing alternative methods to animal testing in the cosmetics industry, looking good will not come at a price for both consumers and animals.

References

1) Abbott, A. (2005). More than a cosmetic change. Nature 438(10): 144-146

2) Abbott, A. (2009). The lowdown on animal testing for cosmetics. Nature.

3) European Report (2011). Cosmetics: Animal testing ban on cosmetics likely to be postponed. Europolitics.

4) Keville, K. (2002). Compassionate Cosmetics. Better Nutrition 64(6): 58

5) McKim, J.M., Keller, D.J., Gorsk, J.R. (2012). An in vitro method for detecting chemical sensitization using human constructed skin models and its applicability to cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and medical device safety testing. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology 31(4): 292-365.

6) Nature (2005). A less toxic solution. Nature 438(7065): 129-130

7) Nature Editorial (2008). Animal tests inescapable. Nature 453(7195): 563-564.

Hidden Talent #1

Today I decided to find out if I could draw. I was terrible at it as a child and once in a while, my artistically-gifted brother would remind me how badly I sucked. Before getting on the bus, I purchased a pencil and a sketchbook from the university bookstore. I had no idea there were so many different types of pencils. Anyway, this.is what I drew.

 

For someone who hasn't drawn since elementary school, I'm surprised.

I think I can finally make it on the fridge!