This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Animal and Human Tests Compared

E. F. TRAUB, M.D.; T. W. TUSING, M.D.; H. J. SPOOR, Ph.D., M.D.

AMA Arch Derm Syphilol. 1954;69(4):399-409.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

DURING the past few years there has been a growing demand for more effective or more extensive pretesting of cosmetics and dermal pharmaceutical products, not only because of the increased use of newer ingredients, but also because in several recent instances, products apparently adequately tested by present prophetic methods have been found to be dermal sensitizers under use conditions. The publicity given these untoward reactions has resulted in Congressional Committee investigation, the recommendations from which have been for further extension of federal regulatory legislation. Such mandatory requirements for complete pretesting of cosmetic materials would be entirely in order if it were assured that the testing methods were reliable. That this has not been the case is illustrated by the beforementioned method failures, namely, products such as the nail polish undercoat and quaternary shampoos which showed themselves to be dangerous under use conditions. Arbitrary proposals to extend and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK; VIENNA, VA.; NEW YORK

From New York Medical College, Department of Dermatology (Drs. Traub and Spoor); Hazleton Laboratories, Falls Church, Va. (Dr. Tusing).

Footnotes
Read at the meeting of the American Dermatological Association, Lake Placid, N. Y., June 12, 1953.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?