Are all animal tests for cosmetic ingredients really phased out?
On 11 March 2009, two bans entered into force. The first ban prohibits any further testing on animals to assess the safety of ingredients, whether or not an alternative method is available, but tests measuring long-term toxic effects are temporarily exempted and will be phased out on 11 March 2013 only.
In brief, it is now illegal to use animals for assessing the skin irritancy, phototoxicity, corrosivity, percutaneous absorption, genotoxicity, ocular irritancy and acute toxicity of cosmetic products. But using animals to perform carcinogenicity, photoallergy, cutaneous sensitivity, toxicokinetics, reprotoxicity, teratogenesis, toxicity – sub chronic and chronic, and photomutagenesis tests remains acceptable until 11 March 2013.
Furthermore, there are grey areas regarding the so-called “multiple purpose ingredients”. Certain ingredients are not only used to make cosmetics but pharmaceuticals, or detergents or whatever else. These ingredients are therefore submitted to other regulations that may require performing animal tests. Scientists from other industry sectors in Europe, such as the pharmaceutical, chemical and food industries, are all legally obliged to use alternative methods where they exist. But where there’s none?
Another limit is REACH. Indeed, the EU regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals requires just about all substances produced or imported into the EU in quantities of more than one tonne, to be tested, even if these substances are part of an object. REACH applies to all substances, regardless of whether they are new or not. The difficulty is that the vast majority of substances will be tested on animals because REACH requires it, not because of their use in cosmetics but because of other uses, and the non-availability of alternatives.
Eventually, there are also grey areas in the second ban that entered into force last week. The ban prohibits the sale of cosmetic products that contain ingredients tested on animals for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the EU Cosmetics Directive, wherever in the world the tests were performed, but what about ingredients that have been tested on animals in a non-EU country for meeting the requirements of this country?
Is the situation clearer regarding the tests concerning finished products?
The use of animals for testing finished cosmetic products has been prohibited since September 2004.
The impact of this initial ban was low as “the European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this,” claims the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) in a release.
However, certain finished products may nevertheless be tested on animals to comply with the regulation of non-EU States. That is the case of cosmetics exported to China. In order to be sold in this country, cosmetics must be tested on animals (the tests are performed by Chinese authorities in accredited laboratories). The situation is similar for Chinese products imported in the European Union. These products are not concerned by the EU bans because they have not been tested on animals to meet the requirements of the European Cosmetics Directive, but those of overseas regulations.
Will the claim “not tested on animals” disappear from cosmetic labels?
Considering the answers to the questions above it is unlikely that these claims disappear. Voluntary certifications, such as the Leaping Bunny Program or the Humane Cosmetics Standard of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), will certainly try to address grey areas and loopholes of the legislation in order to continue to sort “cruelty-free” products from the others.
These certifications may help consumers to sort products complying with their personal convictions, but they may also add to the confusion by implying that in the context of a general ban certain some companies are more ethical than others!
Do cosmetics manufactured in Europe remain safe?
Testing ingredients on animals is now banned irrespective of whether there is an alternative method available. Actually, validated alternatives exist for only four of the seven categories of tests for which the ban is now effective. Companies have no option when it comes to assess the ocular irritancy, skin sensitivity or toxicokinetics, for instance.
Does that mean that new ingredients may be used while some important information about the safety would be lacking? The Cosmetics Directive would not permit it, as its second article, providing that “a cosmetic product put on the market within the Community must not cause damage to human health” is always applicable. However, it is not unlikely that ingredient innovation be partially blocked by the ban as long as additional alternatives are not available.
Difficulties may occur when long-time used cosmetic ingredients become suspicious. In such a case, the Directive provides that “where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation” in order to perform animal tests. However, this option is strictly limited and derogations are only granted in exceptional circumstances.
