Kind Science : InVitro’s Alternative to Tests on Animals Attracts Major Clients

You might expect Virginia Gordon, the doctor who co-founded InVitro International, to be one of those avid animal lovers with seven cats and four dogs at home--all of which she rescued from the local pound.

“No, no pets,” she said. “Well, two birds, but they’re really my son’s.”

You also might expect Gordon to project an aura of self-righteousness about her quest to liberate animals from the horrors of the laboratory. Instead, she will sidestep the opportunity to pontificate on the plight of innocent rabbits, cats and dogs.

Why, you’re left to ask, has this petite, no-nonsense woman made it her career goal to create product-safety tests that spare animals from pain and suffering?

“It’s basic, good science,” Gordon answered. “In-vitro tests (done outside a living organism) are more reliable.”

InVitro International--until recently named Ropak Laboratories--makes vegetable-based formulas to test for eye and skin irritability. The patented solutions react to irritants much the way an animal’s eye would--by clouding up.

And in the three years that the company moved from research and development into manufacturing and marketing, InVitro has collected dozens of major clients--among them, Avon Products, Revlon Inc. and Swiss pharmaceutical giant Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

Gordon, who has a Ph.D. in biophysical chemistry from UCLA, began researching alternatives to in-vivo (live animal) testing in 1982. “It was a time of growing public awareness about animal testing,” she said. “Cosmetic companies were being picketed by animal rights activists.”

In 1985, she and toxicologist Christopher Kelly started a five-person research and development company, Preventive Diagnostics Corp., to study the technologies Gordon had devised. The Palm Springs lab was privately funded by Kelly and other small investors.

When they felt ready to sell their goods fours year later, Gordon and Kelly opened Ropak Laboratories in Irvine. Ropak Corp., a Fullerton packaging company, helped the new firm get off the ground by heavily investing in it. Kelly is now chief executive officer of InVitro, while Gordon is vice president.

Orange County, Gordon said, offered a good employment base from which to build the company’s research and marketing staffs. “We wanted to be close to the universities here,” she said.

Their nascent firm’s first big break came that same year when Avon came calling. The cosmetics giant conducted extensive testing of its products using Ropak’s formulas, and concluded that the solutions were a viable substitute for laboratory animals.

“On June 2, 1989, Avon announced a permanent end to all animal testing,” said Kevin Renskers, manager of toxicology for Avon. The New York-based company purchases InVitro’s kits--Eytex and Skintex)--and tests products in its in-house labs.

“Cosmetics companies have to release new products constantly to stay competitive,” Renskers said. “Every spring and fall there are new eye shadow colors. Perfume scents go in and out of style. Musk was really big in the ‘60s, and now you couldn’t sell it to save your life. All of those new products must be tested.”

Avon advertises in its brochures that it has eliminated animal testing. However, Renskers said, there’s little evidence that the promotion has boosted patronage.

“The small, highly vocal group of people who said they boycotted our product because we did animal testing probably didn’t use our product in the first place,” he said. “The main reason we stopped animal testing is that we thought it was the right thing to do.”

After Avon adopted Ropak’s technology as its main method of product testing, other large corporations soon joined the biotech firm’s list of clients. Within a couple of years, Ropak grew from five to 65 employees and opened sales offices in Tokyo and Paris.

Basking in its fast success, Ropak went public last year. The company funneled much of the $8.8 million raised through its initial public offering of 1.9 million shares into state-of-the-art laboratory equipment.

In its first annual report, the company posted a loss of $3.4 million against revenue of $530,000 for the seven months ended Sept. 30. About one-third of the company’s revenue is generated in Europe, where some countries have banned animal testing for certain products.

No one expected profits for at least two years, said President William Fisher. “Profitability will come in the future,” he said. “Biotech firms have an advantage (on Wall Street): People understand it takes time to develop and market scientific products.”

Last month, Ropak announced its name change. “We felt that InVitro International better describes what we do,” Gordon said. “I’m still getting used to the new name. I was speaking at a conference last week, and I accidentally called our company Ropak. “

Clients have the option of either buying the skin- and eye-sensitivity kits to conduct their own tests, or they can send their products to InVitro’s labs at an extra charge. Kits, which include the ingredients for 10 tests, cost $600 to $800.

The components of a product--be it shampoo, lotion, insecticide or floor wax--are mixed in small test tubes with synthetic proteins. When exposed to potentially toxic or irritating substances, the protein solution becomes opaque--mimicking the reaction of animal cells.

Since 1944, the most common method for evaluating eye irritation levels has been the Draize test, which relies on live rabbits. However, Gordon said, such tests are not as consistently reproducible as in-vitro tests--that is, the exact results gleaned from one test often are hard to duplicate in a second test when using animals.

Different rabbits, after all, might respond in different ways. But different test tubes containing identical solutions offer better controlled evaluations.

“Animal testing is in the dark ages,” Fisher said. “We are on the cutting edge of science.”

Some InVitro customers employ a variety of commercial laboratories--including Advanced Tissue Sciences Inc. in La Jolla and Organogenesis in Cambridge, Mass., both of which use human cells rather than live animals for evaluations. Karl Habermas, an analyst with Gerard Klauer Mattison in New York, said that the budding market for non-animal tests is still quite small. The scope of the industry is hard to track because much of the non-animal testing is done internally by the product manufacturers and in private laboratories.

But the industry most likely will grow over time, Habermas said, and InVitro is the “most serious contender for taking the bulk of the market.”

“It by far has the largest database behind it, having tested well over 10,000 components with its products,” he said. “And its tests are cheaper and easier to conduct” than other non-animal tests on the market.

A handful of InVitro clients have ceased animal testing altogether: Avon, Revlon, Estee Lauder, Yves Roche, Christian Dior. But others still resort to animals in the final stages of product testing. Many, in fact, have no choice.

While the cosmetics industry is more or less self-regulated, chemical and pharmaceutical companies fall under the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. And Uncle Sam has been slow to embrace non-animal testing.

“There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency on the part of government regulators to move away from animal testing,” said Martin Stephens, vice president of the Humane Society of the U.S., based in Washington.

“Many companies have satisfied themselves that non-animal testing works on their own products,” said Stephens, who is in charge of overseeing the treatment of laboratory animals. “But the federal government has not evaluated these tests to see if they’re valid universally.”

Therefore, he said, pharmaceutical and oil companies must eventually test most of their products on animals to meet government regulations. Still, using non-animal tests in the initial stages at least reduces the number of animals subjected to the tests.

It’s likely that some products will always require animal testing to insure consumer safety--even in a more ideal world. “For instance, a test for general poisoning would be difficult to replace with non-animal tests,” Stephens said.

Despite the “governmental hurdles” InVitro must battle, the company has won respect from animal rights organizations as well as its clients, Stephens said, adding, “Its future looks bright.”

Mobil Corp. is one government-regulated company that uses InVitro’s technology on a limited basis.

“It cuts down enormously on the animal work,” said Tim Roy, a senior research associate with Mobil, based in Fairfax, Va. “We may have to do only one animal study instead of dozens in the process of testing a product. Using (InVitro) tests is both more cost-effective and more humane.”

Of course, Mobil’s products are not meant to be applied directly to the skin as are cosmetics--so irritancy is allowable. The company tests industrial fluids for their degree of irritancy.

“We need to know how to label our products so that workers in a tool and dye or automobile plant can make sure they’re wearing the proper protective gear,” Roy said.

Unlike cosmetic companies, oil companies have not come under much public pressure to eschew animal testing. “We’re not faced with people marching around in rabbit suits outside our buildings,” Roy said. “But none of us like to see unnecessary animal testing.”

InVitro president Fisher stated the same sentiment more bluntly: “Nobody enjoys hearing a rabbit scream.”

When prodded, even Gordon--the matter-of-fact scientist--admits she finds animal testing distasteful.

“Some people are more comfortable with it than I,” she said. “I would never choose to work with animals. I’ve just never cared for it.”

Not Putting Animals to the Test

Several companies use InVitro International’s tests and have eliminated animal testing altogether; others are still evaluating its vegetable-based testing process. Some petroleum, chemical and pharmaceutical companies use InVitro as much as they are permitted by government regulations, which require that animals be used for final tests. An InVitro client list:

No Animal Testing

Amway

Avon

Binney & Smith (Crayola)

Chanel

Christian Dior

Estee Lauder

Revlon

Shaklee

The Body Shop

Yves Rocher

Moratorium on Animal Testing While Evaluating InVitro

Mary Kay Cosmetics

InVitro and Government-Required Animal Testing

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Dow Chemical*

Eastman Kodak*

Hoffmann-La Roche

Mobil Oil

Rhone-Poulanc*

Sherex Chemical*

Sterling Pharmaceutical*

Unocal

Animal Testing While Evaluating InVitro

Almay

Avita

Clairol

Cosmair

H.B. Fuller

Helene Curtis

L’Oreal

Neutrogena (phasing out animals)

S.C. Johnson

Shisheido

Unilever

U.S. Army

*These companies use some of InVitro’s testing agents, but are still in the process of evaluating their applications.

Source: InVitro International

Researched by DALLAS M. JACKSON / Los Angeles Times