 Get involved in raising |
Compassionate Shopping Guide
European Legislation and Cosmetics Animal Testing
In turning the covers of most magazines, you can’t help noticing adverts promising “visibly younger skin”, “softer, silkier hair”. Yet this quest for “new and improved” cosmetic, involves the testing of thousands of animals each year in Europe alone.
Though the U.K. adopted a voluntary bans on animal testing of cosmetics in 1998, this is not necessarily the case throughout Europe. Subsequently, the shelves of our stores and supermarkets are still packed full of items, which have been tested on animals.
EU legislation does not require the testing of existing substances, however the “EU Directive on Dangerous Preparations” (Dangerous Substances Directive) , requires the testing of new substances. Research and development in the cosmetics sectors continues at an unrelenting pace, driven by a handful of multi-national companies in their quest for innovative products and a larger market share.
Here are just a few facts and figures:
-
In 2002 L’Oreal submitted 501 patents for newly developed formulations, with 1400 new formulations being registered in the last three years.
-
Every year 3% of L’Oreal Group consolidated sales is invested in Research and Development, in 2002 this equated to E469 million Euros
-
In comparison, the entire cosmetics sector in Europe have spent E500 million Euros on the use, development and promotion of alternatives to animal testing to date.
The real cost of innovation
Mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats and fish continue to be used in tests evaluating newly developed substances for use in cosmetics. These tests include:
| Acute toxicity | (Fixed Dose Test, Up and Down method have replaced LD50, though still no alternative) |
| Chronic systemic toxicity | |
| Skin irritation | rabbits |
| Eye irritation (Draize test) | rabbits |
| Sensitisation | mice |
| Mutagenicity | |
| and in some cases carcinogenicity, reprotoxicity, teratology. | |
Only 3 alternative tests have been validated (skin corrosion test, phyto-toxicity tests)
Hope on the horizon...
Successive attempts to ban cosmetics testing on animals have foundered under pressure and lobbying by the cosmetic industry. Indeed the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive, which could ban animal cosmetics tests throughout Europe, has been met by fierce opposition from some sectors of the cosmetics industry: a legal challenge from a consortium of European cosmetics ingredients companies has been presented to the European Court of Justice.
To outline the key strengths of the European Cosmetics Directive 7th Amendment, these include:
-
A total ban on animal testing of cosmetics to come into effect from 2009, and 2013 for those tests for which alternatives have not yet been found.
-
The 7th amendment clearly states, that it is the responsibility of the company to monitor the supply chain and ensure, no ingredients are used, which have been tested on animals.
-
One of the excuses non-endorsed companies cite in not committing to a FCOD, is their inability to monitor the SUPPLY CHAIN. This is hard to believe as many of these companies have huge profit margins, and could monitor suppliers if only they had the will to do so.
-
Marketing ban - hopefully the European Cosmetics Directive 7th Amendment will influence countries outside the EU who still test on animals will not be able to import
It is vital the European Cosmetics Directive 7th Amendment is not rendered ineffective - previous initiatives* have been diluted by the inclusion of a clause, which states the ban on cosmetics testing on animals will come into effect “only if alternatives have been developed” . In effect this means the cosmetic companies themselves hold the key to whether or not the legislation is enforceable, as it is they who fund research into these alternatives.
It is a clear indication of the contempt with which the legislation is held by some cosmetics companies when a consortium of some 70 cosmetics ingredients suppliers have launched a legal challenge in September 2003. The ruling on this challenge is still to be announced.
How you can help
It is difficult to understand why we need even more skin creams for “younger looking skin”, yet the Cosmetic sector defends the continuing introduction of new products saying “In essence these products are a response to consumer demand.”
There is a simple solution to this – boycott companies whom have not yet adopted fixed cut off date policies.
Though the European Cosmetics Directive 7th Amendment offers hope, there is still a minimum of five years until the ban comes into effect, and even then it could be delayed further, as has happened in the case of other legislative moves to ban cosmetics animal testing, in the interim, there are things you can do to ensure the hope the legislation presents turns into a reality.
