안녕하세요


PETA의 Science Policy Advisor로 부터 받은 자료를 업합니다.
전문용어 해석을 위해서는 수의대생을 위한 사전이라도 봐야 할듯합니다.

아래 메일만 이해한 바로는 미국, 캐나다에서는 화장품이 출시되기 위해서 특정 실험을
의무적으로 해야할 필요가 없다는 말인듯 합니다.
미국 FDA의 예를 봐도, 화장품의 안전성 여부에 대한 테스트는 반드시 해야하고
사람에게 해가 되는 물질의 포함 여부는 표시하지만
동물 실험을 해서라고 밝혀 내야한다는 것은 아니라는 말인지....^^;.
한국도 입법 과정에서 이러한 틀을 잡아가면 좋겠다고 하는데...
더 나아가 동물 실험은 금지되어야 한다고 규정되었으면 좋겠습니다.
좀더 구체적으로 해석 가능하신 분께서 완역 해주시면 더 좋겠네요  



=======================================================================================
Thank you for your query regarding cosmetics testing on animals.
As PETA's science policy advisor, I'm happy to reply.

First, as you may know, countries such as the United States and Canada do not require companies to perform any specific testing -- let alone animal testing -- in order to market cosmetics. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 뱔rges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct whatever tests are appropriate to establish that their cosmetics are safe?but 밺oes not specifically mandate animal testing for cosmetic safety?Office of Cosmetics and Colors Factsheet, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 3 May 1999). Likewise, household products regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission do not have to be tested on animals. A summary of the CPSC뭩 animal-testing policy, as published in the Federal Register, states that 밿t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA [Federal Hazardous Substances Act] nor the Commission뭩 regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product?49 Federal Register 22522, 30 May 1984). The same is true in Canada, where the Food and Drug Act requires only that finished consumer products and their ingredients be 뱒afe for human use.?Korea should be encouraged to adopt a similar legal framework.

On the scientific side, I am attaching a report by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection entitled "The Way Forward," which provides a good overview of common animal tests, as well as their scientific limitations and alternatives. I am also attaching a non-animal testing strategy that I prepared in relation to Europe's proposed Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) program, which relies on many of the same animal tests as Korea may be envisioning for its cosmetics testing legislation (look mostly at the "justification" sections and associated references from the scientific literature).

I hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance.

With kind regards,

Troy Seidle
Science Policy Advisor
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
TroyS@peta.org | StopAnimalTests.com