Cosmetics test ban – help close loopholes

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2009/cosmetics.htm




Cruel Cosmetics?


Concern over loopholes in European ban on animal-tested cosmetics


March 11th 2009 should mark a momentous day in the history of the
anti-vivisection movement, but legal loopholes and Government indifference
threaten to perpetuate the most gratuitous and extreme forms of animal
cruelty. After a decades-long fight, two key Europe-wide measures to tackle
animal testing are due to come into force as part of the EU's 'Cosmetics
Directive':

1. a ban on animal testing of cosmetics ingredients ('Cosmetics' has a
wide legal definition here and includes toiletries)
2. a ban on the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on
animals anywhere in the world for all but three test areas, regardless of
the availability of alternative non-animal tests

The complete sales ban where no animal tests are allowed at all for
cosmetics sold in the EU is due to kick in during 2013. It is widely
believed that the bans, supposed to enforced irrespective of the
availability of validated 'alternatives', has provided a serious incentive
for companies to invest in non-animal, advanced testing methods.
The latest annual EU figures suggest that over 5,500 animals could be saved
from poisoning tests for cosmetics in the EU alone, never mind the global
impact as companies stop animal testing in order to continue access to
European markets. However, the European Commission acknowledges more animals
could have been used if tests are already being commissioned 'for other
purposes'. This admission flags up one of the major loopholes that companies
like Procter & Gamble are likely to try to exploit.
The worry is that companies will continue to use ingredients tested on
animals in cosmetics by pretending the test was for another purpose such as
'household products' or 'pharmaceutical'. This would be particularly easy
for companies who produce different types of products in addition to
cosmetics, such as household cleaners and pharmaceuticals. Indeed, in a
ls-plan-to-sidestep-eu-animal-testing-ban-608577.html> leaked internal memo,
P&G discuss how they can get round the EU law.
But it's not just companies that are sticking two fingers up to the rule of
law - meet the UK Government. An ongoing Uncaged investigation reveals that
there are potentially serious weaknesses in the way the UK Government is
implementing the EU law:

* They are deceiving MPs and the public, and blocking the release of
animal testing information relating to products on sale in the UK.
* They require local councils' Trading Standards Departments (TSDs) to
implement the law. But TSDs aren't and can't enforce this as they don't have
sufficient resources and expertise. So we have a catch 22 situation where
TSDs will investigate if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it is
impossible to obtain evidence as it is deemed confidential.


OFFICIAL SECRECY


Under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 - the UK law which
implements the EU law - cosmetics products manufacturers are obliged to
collate information on animal testing in Product Information Packs (PIPs).
These are to be made available to the Department for Business, Enterprise &
Regulatory Reform (BERR), and local TSDs.
Initially, the Government gave the impression that animal testing
information could be obtained by the public. On 25 May 2008, Gareth Thomas
MP, Minister for State at BERR told Linda Gilroy MP:
'Anybody who is concerned that a product or its ingredients have been tested
illegally on animals should speak to their local Trading Standards
Department.'
Again, in October, minister Claire Ward told MPs that the PIPs:
'will contain information on any animal testing that has been carried out in
the past. If hon. Members are contacted by constituents with concerns about
such matters, they can refer them to their local trading standards
department.'
After we'd pointed out to MPs that TSDs couldn't give that information, BERR
Minister Gareth Thomas MP admitted:
'Although this information ["whether certain cosmetics products have at any
stage been tested on animals"] may form part of the product information
packages which all cosmetic suppliers must maintain and provide to Trading
Standards Officers when requested to do so, the information provided is
commercially sensitive and is not to be passed on to anyone outside the
enforcement service. Anyone who wishes to find out the animal testing
policies of a particular company should contact the company direct.'
Information about animal testing can easily be edited to remove any genuine
commercial secrets, so the Government's decision to keep that information
secret is perverse and contrary to the public interest. Moreover, as we are
all well aware, Thomas' suggestion that people write to the companies is
ludicrous as there is no obligation for companies to give truthful
information about their animal testing and in fact companies who test on
animals go out of their way to mislead consumers. Meanwhile, our survey of
TSDs reveals their confusion and inability to enforce animal testing
regulations.


ACTION


Mike Hancock MP has tabled EDM 137 for us, which calls on the Government to
implement the Cosmetics Directive and disclose the animal testing data.
Please ask your MP to sign it by
clicking here.