Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Alistair Currie

GET UPDATES FROM Alistair Currie
 

Animal Tested Cosmetics: Is the End in Sight?

Posted: 27/04/2012 01:00

During World Week for Animals in Laboratories 2012, no one should need to write about cosmetics testing on animals. Sadly, what many people in this country consider to be a done deal is actually a fight that continues - not least because our own government is standing by while the progress made in ending animal tests for cosmetics is under threat of being rolled back.

Back in 1998, cosmetics tests on animals were ended in the UK in a long-overdue recognition of what the British public had understood for years: killing animals in tests for vanity products is morally reprehensible. The UK ban sidestepped years of dithering and delays in the European Union, where good intentions had constantly been thwarted by compromises and reversals.

Finally, in 2003, the European Parliament voted to ban all testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals by 2009 and - crucially - to end the sales of all cosmetics and toiletries containing ingredients tested on animals by March 2013.

That sales ban was a remarkable achievement for the campaigners and parliamentarians who had laboured for so long. It established that not just testing cosmetics on animals but profiting from that testing is wrong, and cosmetics companies worldwide knew that if they wanted to sell to the EU's 500 million consumers, they needed to take a hard look at their policies. The result was a boom in investment in non-animal testing methods and the acknowledgement that there are thousands of safe cosmetics ingredients that don't require testing. We've since seen major high street companies such as Marks & Spencer turn their backs completely on animal-tested ingredients for their cosmetics and toiletries and, even more excitingly, we've seen the complete replacement of some animal tests worldwide with superior, cheaper and more effective non-animal methods.

But now this good news story for science, animals and consumers has taken a dark twist. Under pressure from influential players in the cosmetics industry, the European Commission is considering postponing the 2013 deadline, perhaps indefinitely. Companies whose marketing relies on novel ingredients promising miracle results worry that without being able to use the animal tests that some regulators still expect for new ingredients, those ingredients will stay in the labs and their profits may suffer. Scandalously, their concerns have found sympathy in the corridors of Brussels, where alarmist rhetoric about the impact on business is swallowed rather more enthusiastically than are the shampoo ingredients being force-fed to pregnant rabbits in laboratories.

European Commissioner John Dalli is expected to announce his decision in the summer, but the deadline cannot be postponed unless the European Parliament and the individual countries of the EU agree. A number of EU countries have already declared support for the ban, but shockingly, the UK has refused to take a position.

Everyone knows that cosmetics testing on animals is wrong, and Europe's precedent-setting policy against it should be a point of pride for all of us. But in 2012, companies are still profiting from the blood of animals used in cosmetics tests, and it shouldn't take campaigners or the public to tell our politicians that the 2013 deadline to end that must not be postponed by a single day. Sadly though, until Commissioner Dalli and Vince Cable and his team at the Department of Business stand up for what is right, it looks like that's what we'll need to do.

See PETA'S action alert here

 
FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:14 PM on 04/29/2012
The UK government’s position is nothing short of disgraceful. The scientific evidence on this issue is quite clear. Animal experiments are not sufficiently predictive of human responses to provide reliable predictions of human toxicity. This statement is not scientifically controversial. The evidence backing it is overwhelming, and is described in more detail in my recent book ‘The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments’ (www.andrewknight.info/publications/book/book.html) and elsewhere (www.animalexperiments.info).

The suffering experienced by animals used in toxicity studies is often severe. The UK government should fairly represent the overwhelming majority of UK voters on this issue, and take a clear position opposing the sale of animal-tested cosmetics within the EU.

Andrew Knight PhD, CertAW, MRCVS, FOCAE, DipECAWBM-AWSEL
- Fellow, Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics
- Diplomate, European College of Animal Welfare and Behavioural Medicine – Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law (a veterinary specialist college)
- Author: 'The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments', Palgrave Macmillan 2011
10:26 PM on 04/27/2012
Take any decision this TORY/lib.govt. makes and you know it is going 180 degrees the wrong way. I am not suprised the tories do not care about animal cruelty, their whole history is built on helping the rich by exploiting the poor, so animals are off their radar.. You only have to see how they do everything for the rich yet are happy to cut funding to the elderly;closing Remploy; making people homeless;breaking up OUR NHS etc.etc. They do not care about hurting people,so why should they care about animals ? Compassion is compassion ! They are cold and heartless, what do they care. I am most suprised by Vince Cable, he used to act morally,I hope he regains his former decency and think of all the suffering he could prevent.A truly attractive woman does not need a load of slap on her body. If they feel they look better with makeup, fine but please use cosmetics that have not caused suffering.
05:59 PM on 04/27/2012
Cosmetics testing on animals is tragic. It's an industry in which evaluating a new formulation of a skin cream is more important than the suffering of hundreds of animals and in which painful and archaic tests claim the lives of thousands for little more reason than improving a product's market share.
12:49 PM on 04/27/2012
A great piece making people away of the suffering European shoppers are paying for when they buy imported cosmetics. With safe, reliable testing methods available, how can anyone ever justify inflicting such horrific suffering on another living being, and for what? a new shade of lipstick, some differently scented shampoo? I am disgusted that the UK government are refusing to take a stand on this issue, as a supposedly "animal loving" country, we should be leading the way on ending animal abuse.
12:11 PM on 04/27/2012
It is crazy to think we are still not at the stage where cosmetic testing is behind us as an ugly practice of the past.

It takes 2 mins in pretty much all shops now to find a cruelty-free product, many companies no longer test on animals, so there is no excuse for all others not to follow.

Our treatment of animals for cosmetic testing will be a shameful legacy for future generations to view humanity's disgraceful vanity. An excellent article which I hope will make many people think twice next time they are shopping for shampoo.
11:16 AM on 04/27/2012
There's no justifiable reason for cosmetics testing on animals. No excuse for killing animals in the name of vanity!

You can label me a "dirty hippy tree-hugger" for thinking so, there's a reason the UK banned it long ago, it's archaic and outmoded. Lush put it best:

"When we are forced to recognise that this aspirational industry depends upon the needless suffering and death of millions of innocent animals – animals that could have been our dog, our children’s guinea pigs, our neighbours’ rabbits – animals that we humanely love – we are shocked and we recoil."
10:24 AM on 04/27/2012
It's madness that we still torture animals for the sake of vanity.