 |  |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CASE NUMBER: 328
CASE MNEMONIC: COSMETIC
CASE NAME: EU Animal Cosmetic Testing
| | |
|
|
|
|
I. IDENTIFICATION In the past few years animal rights/welfare groups have become increasingly vocal in their calls for increased animal welfare legislation. This was seen in movements against the repeal of an environmental directive leaving certain non-endangered seals open for hunting. The law was subsequently unaltered. The fur industry was directly affected in this manner. This animal testing case affects commerce, and especially some major industries.
The cosmetics industry will be directly affected. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries may be indirectly affected now, or more directly affected in the future. The "use or abuse" of animals isthe central issue, with many industrial groups allied against acoterie of animal welfare organizations. Within the EU, theEuropean Parliament (EP) has taken the hard-line against testing, with the Commission and Council holding a more compromising attitude. Amendments to directives have been proposed and somehave been passed albeit in less strict language than the EP would desire.
Concern has emerged in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries over animal testing and the potential public backlash that accompanies such testing. Aside from the overt political threat of public reprisals, business interests have jumped aboard the "Green" band wagon. Marketing practices have changed to label products as friendly toward animals or claim that certain products have not been tested on animals. The Body Shop, a British based store for natural items, has ridden on the success of "green andnot mean" cosmetics. But even if a cosmetics firm has not testeda product or ingredient on animals, its suppliers-- or itssuppliers" suppliers-- could have done so. Such problems convinced the Body Shop in early 1990 to change its labeling from "Not tested on animals" to "Against animal testing." In 1976, the EC composed and passed a list of ingredients with a history of safety.
Beauty Without Cruelty, another British store chain, does not use ingredients that were tested on animals after 1976. Animal-welfare proponents really desire a total ban on all animal testing undertaken by cosmetics firms. To date, only Germany has comeclose, but the German law applies only to cosmetics, not soaps and shampoos.
Deforestation
Key Words
(1): Domain = Europe
(2): Bio geography = Temperate
(3): Environmental Problem = Moral
76/768/EEC (4)- approx. of Community laws on cosmetic products Council Directive 93/35/EEC- seeks amendment to above directive Directive 86/609/EEC (5)- relates to the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes Germany has very stringent codes on animal testing in cosmetic production.
European Union and region The new Article 1, as amended by the EP, will ban "ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after1-1-98 in orderto assess their safety or efficacy for use in cosmetic products." However, "depending on the progress made in developing satisfactory methods to replace animal testing, the Commission may present tothe Council, pursuant to Article 100A of the EEC Treaty, a proposal to postpone the entry into force of this provision." The amendment goes on to say that "the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament an annual report on progress made ion developing, validating and approving alternatives to tests on animals. Thereport shall contain details of the number and type of experiments on animals relating to cosmetic products conducted within the EC, Member States shall be required to compile this information in addition to their obligation to compile statistical [data.]"
a. Geographic Domain : North America
b. Geographic Site : Central America
c. Geographic Impact : Costa Rica
Sub-National Factors: NO
Type of Habitat: TROPICAL
d. TRADE Filters
Import Standard This issue deals with the process of animal experimentations so that any state that deals in such cases will probably be affected. The regulations directly affect national cosmetics producers and potentially certain chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. France is the largest European producer of cosmetics. Some countries, likethe US and Japan, prohibit the import of cosmetics which have not been tested several times on animals. The Community directive concerns all marketed products on EC territory, including US and Japanese goods.
The ban is directly related to marketed products that use animal-tested end products or component ingredients from 1 January 1998. The ban discriminates upon the procedure used.
a. Directly Related : YES Pharmaceuticals
b. Indirectly Related : YES
c. Not Related : NO
d. Process Related : YES Moral
Marketing costs and management decisions must consider new labeling requirements dealing with animal-testing guidelines. Also theremay be increased costs involved with finding or using alternative testing methods.
E. ENVIRONMENT Filters
In France, the largest European producer of cosmetics, 3.5 millionanimals are used for industrial testing yearly, of which, 27,000,mainly mice and rabbits, are used in the cosmetics industry. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection stated that the number of animals used in cosmetics testing in 1991 was 3,000compared to 18,000 three years before.
Name:
Type:
Diversity:
Synthetic products Strides have been in new synthetic technologies that simulate skin and even eye properties. TestSkin is virtually identical to human skin in basic structure and functionally has similar responses. Other in vitro technologies also show promise. The European Commission is giving its backing to alternative testing research projects and its Directorate-General for Research will allow 4 million Ecus yearly for universities to conduct related basic research. The Commission may also propose a European center to develop alternatives to animal experiments with 2 million Ecus entered into the EECūs 1991 to do so.
VI. OTHER Factors
"Animal Testing: Bunny Love." Economist. 9 February 1991. Vol.318: 74.
Phillips, Anthony C. "Organ-equivalent technology in producttesting." Drug and Cosmetic Industry. January 1991. Vol. 148:25, 28.
Lord, Shirley. "Beauty's New Nature." Vogue. October 1990. Vol.180: 394-9.
"Kindly Cosmetics." American Health. December 1990. Vol. 9: 12.
"Cosmetics Firms drop Draize Test." Science. 14 July 1989. Vol.245:125.
"Producers lift the burden from Animals." Chemical Week. 15November 1989. Vol. 145: 48.
Balls, Michael, James Bridges, and Jacqueline Southee. Animals andAlternatives in Toxicology. New York: VCH Publishing. 1991.
Carvel, John. "EC Ministers Set 1998 Deadline to End CosmeticAnimal Tests." Guardian. 4 November 1992. 1, 9:1.
Bynum, Chris. "Companies explore new ways to deliver safe cosmetics." Times-Picayune. 15 February 1989. E, 1:6.
"Hundreds Volunteer to Protect Animals from Use in Tests." Guardian. 5 August 1989. 7:1.
Holden, Constance. "Compromise in Sight on Animal Regulations." Science. 14 July 1989. Vol. 245: 124-125.
"Cosmetics: Improved Labeling and Restricted Animal Experiments." Europe Environment. 19 February 1991.
"Animal Welfare: New Appeal from European Parliament on AnimalRights." Europe Environment. 18 February 1992. Section: No. 381.
"Cosmetics Industry: Alternatives to Animal Testing." EuropeEnvironment. 17 March 1992.
"Cosmetics: European Parliament Allows Leeway For Animal Testing." Europe Environment. 19 June 1992. Section: No. 389.
"Cosmetics: Consumer Affairs Ministers Agree On Animal Test Ban." Europe Environment. 5 November 1992. Section No. 0397.
Love, Brian. "Beauty Business Takes Tips from Tortured Rabbits." Reuters, Limited. 13 November 1992. Friday, BC Cycle.
"An EC Environment Policy for the 90's." Press AssociationNewsfile. 15 April 1993, Thursday.
"Cosmetics: European Parliament Seeks Greater Control Over ECDirective." Europe Environment. 4 May 1993.
Council. 93/35/EEC: Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993amending for the sixth time Directive 76/768/EEC on theapproximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmeticproducts. Commission of the European Communities.
"Better Protection and Information on Cosmetic Products forConsumers." RAPID. 14 June 1993. Section: Press Release; No.93-468.
"Cosmetics: MEPs Unhappy About Council Decision on Animal Tests." Europe Environment. 6 July 1993.
Walker, Marjorie. "Attention on Ethics." Chemical MarketingReporter. 22 July 1991. Vol. 240: SR26+.
Underwood, Nora. "A Burdensome Battle." Macleans. 30 July 1990. Vol. 103: 39.
"What does it really mean when a company says it doesn't testproducts on animals?" Glamour. December 1992. Vol. 90: 92.
Go to All Cases
Go to TED Categories