Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 11 March 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.147
News: Briefing
The lowdown on animal testing for cosmetics
European Union continues phasing out animal experiments.
An amendment to the European Union's Cosmetics Directive today phases out the use of animals in testing for any acute toxic effects of beauty products and toiletries — effects such as eye and skin irritation that might be seen shortly after exposure. Nature News finds out what this entails.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
One point not addressed here is the effect of the REACH regulation in all this. REACH requires human health and environmental hazard data for tens of thousands of ingredients, many of them used in cosmetics. Much of the data will be come from animal studies; if the data doesn't exist then the manufacturers, suppliers or end-users will have to commission and pay for the experiments. This is happening quietly and out of the public eye, with most people already under the impression that animal testing for cosmetics is a thing of the past. So the EU are behaving like Jekyll and Hyde ? on the one hand telling us that we must not, under any circumstances, test cosmetic ingredients on animals, while on the other hand requiring new animal tests for these same ingredients. Any gains won by the amendment to the Cosmetics Directive are completely undermined by REACH. For those who are against animal testing this is not a day for celebration, rather it marks the start of another long battle in the fight against animal experimentation. Andrew Butler, Campaigns Manager, Lush Cosmetics
Further to Andrew Butler's comments - there are additional problems. Firstly, the Commission has been ambiguous about which animal tests will be prohibited this year and then 2013. They have given the impression that more tests will be banned from now than this article states. But this needs clarification. Another 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 animal testing companies like Procter & Gamble (they make Herbal Essences, among other cosmetics) who produce these different types of products in addition to cosmetics. Secondly, our investigation reveals that there are potentially serious weaknesses in the way the UK Government is implementing the EU law. They are blocking the release of animal testing information relating to cosmetics products on sale in the UK. Moreover, they require local councils? Trading Standards Departments (TSDs) to implement the law, which is problematic. 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 only investigate if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it is impossible to obtain evidence as it is deemed confidential. Dr Dan Lyons, Uncaged