News Archive
 EU
Can't Sell Your Cosmetics 'Ere - Animal Tested Cosmetics Rejected by Euro
MPs
The European Union (EU) appears finally to be heading towards a ban on
not only animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients, but also
a ban on the marketing on animal-tested products (including products with
animal-tested ingredients) within the EU.
Preparation
About 38,000 animals are tortured and killed in European cosmetic tests
every year. In November 1998 the UK Government announced no new licenses
would be granted for animal tests for cosmetics. The term 'cosmetics'
includes finished products and ingredients, and covers all 'personal care'
products like make-up, deodorant, shampoo and toothpaste.
However, it only affected 1,300 animals out of over 2.5 million vivisected
and killed every year in the UK. Only the Netherlands introduced similar
measures. Other countries have either introduced a partial ban, such as
Austria and Germany or, like Denmark, have simply not conducted cosmetics
tests on animals for some years (though no legislation exists to prevent
them from doing so).
Because there is no world-wide ban, the vast majority of cosmetics products
and/or their ingredients sold in the UK will almost certainly have been
tested on animals - but the test will have taken place in another country.
This demonstrates the need for coherent and co-ordinated legislation on
animal experiments across Europe and the rest of the world.
The testing of cosmetics products in the rest of the world continues
unabated. In the United States for example, where many well-known cosmetics
manufacturers are based (eg. Procter & Gamble), there is not even
legislation in place to ensure that laboratories collate accurate statistics
on the number of animals they use in cosmetics research. In Japan there
is almost no legislative protection for laboratory animals.
Half Baked
A marketing and ingredients testing ban was initially put forward 8 years
ago, but has suffered incessant postponement and disruption following
intense pressure and self-interested manoeuvering from the cosmetics industry.
When it finally seemed that the legislation (Council Directive 76/768/EEC)
would be introduced, the Commission smothered it by extra-ordinary behind-the-scenes
manoeuvring of its own. Late on Wednesday 5th April 2000, EU Commissioner
Erkki Liikanen bypassed the European Parliament, and forced through a
much weakened proposal, of a test ban on finished products and a ban on
ingredients after three years (which can be postponed should "validated
alternative methods" not be available) - but no marketing ban.
The EC appears to have been unwilling to make a stand in the face of
the 'free-trade' behemoths of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the
United States, and huge multinational cosmetic companies. The EU had recently
emerged from costly trade wars over Caribbean bananas from US-backed competition,
and 'hormone-enhanced' beef from the US.
In a statement, Liikanen said:
"In its current wording, the Cosmetics Directive... would
appear to raise certain difficulties in relation to the WTO... the Commission
therefore proposes to modify the ban in order to ensure its WTO-compatability
and to make it legally and practically enforceable."
The UK Labour Government said in response to Parliamentary Questions
that it voted against a marketing ban for cosmetics because it "would
risk challenge under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules." However,
it does not follow that a "risk" automatically would become
a successful WTO challenge - especially if the Government or the EU had
the will to defend its position.
Mr. Watts, Labour MEP and party spokesman on animal welfare, described
the amendments as "half baked" and "meaningless."
Originally, mandatory labelling for animal-tested products (until the
final sale ban) was also proposed. However, the European Commission proposed
an amendment that had the potential to destroy cruelty-free labelling.
The proposal stated that cruelty-free labelling may only appear on a product,
provided "'neither the finished product, nor its prototype, nor any
of the ingredients contained in it have ever been the subject of such
[animal] tests..." This would make cruelty-free labelling impossible
because just about every cosmetic contains an ingredient - even water!
- that will have been tested on animals at some time in the past
Well Done
However, on 3rd April 2001 these amendments - made by the unelected European
Commission - were overturned in a vote in the democratically elected European
Parliament. This followed lobbying led by the British Union for the Abolition
of Vivisection (BUAV). Parliament voted not only for the proposed testing
ban (for cosmetic products and ingredients), but also to preserve the
ban on marketing. The ban should come into force immediately for ingredients
where other validated testing methods exist, and in five years after the
adoption of the directive. To ensure WTO compliance, producers in third
countries would have to be treated in a way equivalent to Community producers,
with no discriminatory treatment.
Another amendment asks for manufacturers who have carried out animal
tests after the date of implementation to label the packaging with "Tested
on animals" in easily legible lettering covering at least 20 % of
the total surface area.
Parliament calls for funding from the Sixth Framework Research Programme
for the development of new non-animal testing methods. It also wants the
ingredients of cosmetic products to be listed in full. In line with the
opinion of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food
Products, Parliament also adopted an amendment calling for fragrance allergens
to be labelled with their name. An amendment calling for the insertion
of the phrase 'can cause an allergic reaction in the case of susceptible
or sensitive skins' was defeated.
In the debate the MEP Ms Roth-Behrendt rejected accusations that this
directive would represent a violation of WTO regulations. She referred
to the recently adopted US 'dog and cat fur act,' a law prohibiting the
production and the importing of fur products from cats and dogs. The justification
given for the act is that such products are detrimental to public moral
standards and to animal protection. The same moral standards, she argued,
should apply to testing on animals.
[Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT (PES, D) Report on the proposal for a European Parliament
and Council directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive
76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to cosmetic products (COM(2000) 189 - C5-0244/2000 - 2000/0077(COD))]
Bring to the Boil
It is vital that the European Parliament and EU governments adopt a complete
sales ban on new cosmetics tested on animals after a fixed date, in addition
to a test ban. There is still a long way to go before the Cosmetics Directive
is finalised, and the animal testing cosmetics industry will oppose it
all the way.
A sales ban is necessary to provide the incentive for the cosmetic industry
and governments to urgently develop and accept alternative test methods
that don't use live animals.
The EU can and should defend a sales ban under WTO rules if challenged.
It is unacceptable that the Commission and our own government are happy
to reverse existing legislation on the assumption that there may be a
problem.
The only way to progress animal welfare, environmental and human rights
trade legislation is to challenge the spectre of the WTO. The European
Parliament has itself favoured this approach.
The BUAV, who have led the campaign on this issue and suggest the following
people to write to:
- Write to your MEP asking them to back a sale ban on animal tested
cosmetics within the EU. You can find out your MEP at the European Parliament
website www.europarl.eu.int.
- Write to Caroline Jackson MEP Chair of the Environment Committee and
urge her to support a ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.
Write to Caroline Jackson MEP Euro Office, 14 Bath Road, Swindon SN1
4BA.
Express your objection to the European Commission's proposals on "cruelty
free" labelling.
- Write to the Department of Trade and Industry and ask it to support
the BUAV's "Save cruelty-free labelling" campaigning by withdrawing
support for European Commission proposals within the 7th amendment to
the Cosmetics Directive that directly threaten the future of EU-wide
cruelty-free labelling.
- Write to Dr Kim Howells MP, Minister for Consumer & Corporate
Affairs, Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London
SW1H 0ET, Fax: 020 7222 2629.
- Write to Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission and demand
that the Commission withdraws its disastrous proposals on "cruelty
free" labelling.
- Write to Professor Romano Prodi President of the European Commission,
200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Bruxelles, Belgium.
For more information contact the BUAV: 16a Crane Grove, London N7 8LB;
Tel: 0207 700 4888; Website: www.buav.org;
email: info@buav.org.
Uncaged Campaigns 08.05.01
|
