• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Insurance firm Nelson Levine de Luca & Horst opens D.C. office | Main | For Three Businessmen Who Pleaded Guilty In A Foreign Bribery Case, A Reprieve »

March 27, 2012


farby fryzjerskie

Why people don't test chemical products on people with death penalty or on pedophile they deserv to give back to people some favour


The potential for chemical reform is quite exciting, but it should be done in a way that doesn’t take the lives of millions of animals (for toxicity testing) in the name of better protection for human health and the environment - and to bring the latest lipstick shade to the market. The revised bill should mandate and create market incentives to use nonanimal methods. We need to ensure that chemical testing is in line with the 21st century and relies on modern, human cell and computer-based methods that provide accurate data on how a chemical acts and what the impact on human health may be.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad