Animal testing for cosmetics

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4311
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by Tessa K » Sat May 06, 2023 7:23 am

After a long ban the government is to allow cosmetic testing on animals to resume.

Is there a genuine need as cosmetic design changes or is there really no need for new products?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65484552

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by noggins » Sun May 07, 2023 5:50 pm

The link seems to he a stranger story: the govt is going to impose animal testing on cosmetic makers, because the EU says so, even though the makers don’t want to.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4311
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by Tessa K » Sun May 07, 2023 6:14 pm

noggins wrote:
Sun May 07, 2023 5:50 pm
The link seems to he a stranger story: the govt is going to impose animal testing on cosmetic makers, because the EU says so, even though the makers don’t want to.
I bet Jacob Rees Smaug is happy about it

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by noggins » Mon May 08, 2023 10:55 am

Hey thats not fair.

Spoiler:

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7822
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by shpalman » Mon May 08, 2023 12:18 pm

It seems like the requirement would be to test (on animals) some of the components of cosmetics to ensure they are safe for the workers involved in making the cosmetics (who might be exposed to those components much more heavily than anyone just using the final product, and in different ways).

This wouldn't be the same as the cosmetics companies having to test all their final products on animals to ensure their safety for the end users.
Manufacturers can now apply for licenses to undertake animal testing before production begins, to ensure the safety of workers. But they still cannot undertake any animal testing to check the safety of the makeup for consumers.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7822
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by shpalman » Mon May 08, 2023 12:23 pm

noggins wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 10:55 am
Hey thats not fair, Mogg would rather do the tests on the orphaned children of the undeserving poor.
Would you rather do the tests on the workers in the manufacturing plant or on some rats?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by noggins » Tue May 09, 2023 7:09 am

Nah its safety theatre with flopsy bunny paying for the ticket.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 6767
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by dyqik » Tue May 09, 2023 11:47 am

shpalman wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 12:23 pm
noggins wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 10:55 am
Hey thats not fair, Mogg would rather do the tests on the orphaned children of the undeserving poor.
Would you rather repeat the tests already done on rats on the workers in the manufacturing plant, who are already exposed to the ingredients on a daily basis, or on some rats again?
FTFY for the context of the original question.

There are very few novel ingredients used in cosmetics. But there was an effort to require retesting of everything fairly recently.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7822
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by shpalman » Tue May 09, 2023 12:14 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 11:47 am
shpalman wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 12:23 pm
noggins wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 10:55 am
Hey thats not fair, Mogg would rather do the tests on the orphaned children of the undeserving poor.
Would you rather repeat the tests already done on rats on the workers in the manufacturing plant, who are already exposed to the ingredients on a daily basis, or on some rats again?
FTFY for the context of the original question.

There are very few novel ingredients used in cosmetics. But there was an effort to require retesting of everything fairly recently.
Are they new tests of existing ingredients or actual repeats of previous tests? Or is it one of those things of "these 'chemicals' must be bad for you because they're not natural so keep testing until you find something"?

The EU recently banned Lilial (butylphenyl methylpropional) from cosmetics. The industry self-regulation body IFRA is kind of an attempt to say to the EU "will you not ban all the nice smelling things completely if we agree amongst ourselves to not use too much of the ingredients which might cause a few people some problems?" (with the caveat that it might be a bit of a cartel run by the big flavouring companies: they persuade everyone to stop using certain natural extracts and instead buy their patented aromachemical substitute...)

The comments about the Lilial ban seem to vary between "how dare IFRA ban the nice smelling things" (it's not IFRA who banned it) to "so they left this dangerous stuff in there until now? Who do I sue?"
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by Sciolus » Tue May 09, 2023 7:10 pm

noggins wrote:
Sun May 07, 2023 5:50 pm
The link seems to he a stranger story: the govt is going to impose animal testing on cosmetic makers, because the EU says so, even though the makers don’t want to.
That's because the BBC article is a badly-written, misleading load of junk. How you can report on this without even using the word "REACH" beats me.

If anyone actually cares, the judgement is here and kicks off with a summary of it all:
2.

From 1998, government policy was that applications for licences for animal testing of cosmetics, or ingredients which are “wholly or primarily” used in such products, would be refused (“the Policy”). The Policy continued when subsequent EU legislation was enacted, ultimately in the form of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (“the Cosmetics Regulation”), which aims to ensure the safety of cosmetics for the end user but, under Article 18, bans the testing on animals of cosmetics and ingredients for cosmetics, as well as the marketing of cosmetic products or ingredients, which have been tested on animals “in order to meet the requirements of” the Regulation. These bans were introduced over time and they became fully effective in March 2009 in the case of the testing ban, and on 11 March 2013 in the case of the marketing ban. The bans were considered to be consistent with the Policy.
3.

However, there was a question at EU level as to how the bans under Article 18 of the Cosmetics Regulation interacted with the more permissive regime, at least in relation to animal testing, under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (“REACH”). This legislation imposes registration and information requirements on manufacturers and importers of chemical substances which aim to ensure the safety of chemicals from the perspective of human health and the environment. The chemical substances to which REACH applies include, in principle, substances which are or may be used in cosmetics.
4.

On 24 October 2014, the European Chemicals Agency (“EChA”) and the EU Commission therefore issued a Joint Statement on the “Interface between REACH and Cosmetics Regulations” (“the 2014 Joint Statement”). This document emphasised that the marketing and testing bans under the Cosmetics Regulation apply where the testing of the product or ingredient is carried out “in order to meet the requirements of” that Regulation. The 2014 Joint Statement took the position that, although animal testing should only ever be a last resort, registrants under REACH were in principle permitted to carry out testing on animals of substances which had various uses, including in cosmetics, in order to meet the information requirements of REACH in relation to human health. Registrants of substances which were exclusively for use in cosmetics could not use animal testing unless that testing was required in order to assess the risk to workers, involved in the manufacture or production of the substance, of exposure to that substance. Animal testing for the purposes of environmental endpoints was in principle permissible too. This view was more permissive of animal testing than the Policy.
5.

In July 2017 the European Ombudsman rejected a challenge to the 2014 Joint Statement and, on 13 February 2019, the EU Commission reiterated its view in a letter to the Claimant. On 18 August 2020, the Board of Appeal of the EChA then handed down its decisions in two appeals (Case nos A-009-2018 and 010-2018) brought by Symrise AG against requirements imposed by the EChA pursuant to REACH (“Symrise”). These requirements were to carry out specified tests on animals of a substance which is used exclusively in cosmetic products. Symrise’s case was that it would be contrary to the bans under the Cosmetics Regulation to carry out these tests, but this argument was rejected by the Board of Appeal. It held that tests required by REACH were not tests carried out “in order to meet the requirements of [the Cosmetics Regulation]”: they were tests carried out in order to meet the requirements of REACH, and therefore were not subject to the bans under Article 18. The decisions in Symrise are being challenged by way of actions for an annulment in the EU General Court (Cases T-655/20 and T-656/20) and the case was heard in November 2022. Judgment is awaited.
6.

The Claimant, formerly known as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, is an organisation dedicated to the reduction and ending of the use of animals in scientific experiments in the United Kingdom and globally. Amongst its other activities, it campaigns and lobbies on this issue at a political level, including in relation to the law, and it has also conducted litigation which raises issues as to the correct interpretation of existing law on the issue of animal experimentation. The Policy was in part a response to its lobbying activities at the end of the 1990s.
7.

The Claimant was concerned about the position taken by the EU Commission and the EChA in the 2014 Joint Statement and it raised the matter with the Government, including in the context of a claim for judicial review brought against the Defendant and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) in 2015 (“the 2015 judicial review”). This claim sought the determination of certain issues about the interpretation of the Cosmetics Regulation and REACH. The Defendant’s position at that stage, as reflected in a newsletter which the ASRU issued to licence-holders on 29 July 2015, was that whatever the strict position in law, there remained “an absolute ban” on animal testing of cosmetics or substances primarily intended for use in cosmetics. The legal issues raised in the 2015 judicial review therefore did not arise for determination. The claim against the Defendant was withdrawn given that the Policy remained in place.
8.

However, in the light of queries from licence holders and internal concerns about being out of step with EU law, at the end of 2017 the ASRU began to consider whether the Policy should be maintained. At the end of 2018 there were also concerns raised at EU level about the United Kingdom’s position, and it was concluded within the ASRU that government policy should be brought into line with the EU interpretation of the Cosmetics Regulation so that applications for licenses to carry out animal experimentation which was required by REACH would be considered under the ASPA and could in principle be granted. Accordingly, on 14 February 2019 a licence was granted on this basis and other licences have been granted since then.
tldr: UK and EU banned animal testing for cosmetics. EU made animal testing mandatory (if no other suitable testing possible) for some substances. UK policy (but NOT law) was that cosmetics ban was absolute so if REACH requires animal testing then too bad, you can't use it. EU notes that the two laws as written are compatible and if REACH requires animal testing then you can legally test it for cosmetics. UK changes policy to match EU and law, but doesn't make a song and dance about it. Court affirms that this is legal (subject to other ongoing challenges). There have been no changes to the law. Policy (or law) could be changed again if the government wants to.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4311
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Animal testing for cosmetics

Post by Tessa K » Wed May 17, 2023 4:18 pm

The government has rebanned animal testing for cosmetics according to this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65623580

Post Reply