Chris Magee writes in the Huffington Post "We all agree" that the European ban on animal testing for cosmetics is "fantastic news" that has been "a long time coming", but that the research community parts company with animal protection campaigns that seek to end animal testing for veterinary and medical uses.

We are celebrating today. After 23 years of campaigning for an end to animal testing for cosmetics, the EU ban on the use of non-human animals in cosmetics testing has now come into full force.

From today, following 20 years of delays to implementation, the European Union finally is enforcing its ban on the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetic products and ingredients. In doing so, the EU becomes the largest cruelty-free cosmetics market, making its shops a no-go area for cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world.

With friends from the RSPCA, The Body Shop and the wider animal welfare movement, Forster is finally celebrating the EU Directive which will ban the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals. While much of Forster's client communications work can be instantly measured, evaluated, refined and adapted, it's important to note that real, enduring change takes time to bring about.

The use and suffering of animals in experiments is a persistent and legitimate public concern. Both the government and the scientific community have recently set up initiatives that attempt to convince a sceptical public that their concerns are understood and taken seriously.

Coalition government is intrinsically difficult, with key party priorities liable to founder on the need to achieve agreement in detail. All the more reason, one might think, for the Government to forge ahead in areas where the parties entirely agree. One such area is a reduction in experiments on animals.

In this document, each experiment is termed a "procedure". Roughly 3.8 million procedures are undertaken each year and some animals can be used for more than one procedure.

It is probably a forlorn hope but wouldn't it be nice if the debate about animal experiments could be based on what is really involved?

An interesting row has arisen around the transposition of an EU Directive into UK law. It has been sparked by a claim that stray or feral animals will be used in animal research, and tells us a great deal about how anti-animal research lobbyists sometimes mislead their supporters by raising phoney "issues".

Those opposed to animal experiments argue strongly against both animal and human experiments. We are consistent in our ethics. Those in support of animal experiments, by contrast, are inconsistent.

Animal research is a tough topic to discuss, a task made harder by breathless but groundless anti-vivisection narratives that mislead the public over various aspects of the issue.