An animal welfare charity stated that ministers have opened the door to extend animal testing to ingredients used in cosmetics for the first time in 23 years.
Cruelty Free International (CFI) stated that after being informed by the Home Office that the government has “reconsidered its policy”, it may be necessary to conduct animal testing on ingredients specifically used in cosmetics-which was banned in the UK in 1998.
The government stated in a letter that it is in line with the decision made by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Appeals Board last year, which stated that certain ingredients used only in cosmetics need to be tested on animals to ensure they are safe. of.
The Home Office insisted that the UK’s laws on animal testing have not changed, but activists have warned that accepting the ECHA’s ruling may lead to wider use of animal testing.
ECHA ruled that the German chemical company Symrise must conduct animal testing on two ingredients only used in cosmetics to meet chemical regulations and overturn the EU’s restrictions on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients. These ingredients are widely used in various cosmetics.
In a letter sent to the CFI and seen by the Guardian, the Home Office stated that its goal was “Now through the official release of updated policies and regulatory guidelines, publicly clarify its position.”
CFI warned that by aligning with ECHA’s decision, the United Kingdom will “blow a hole” in its leadership in animal testing.
In response, a government spokesperson said that the legislation has not changed, and the ban on the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products is still in effect.
“According to the UK’s environmental protection and worker safety regulations, animal testing of single or multi-purpose ingredients can be allowed under the requirements of the UK regulatory agency. However, this type of testing can only be done without non-animal substitutes. “they said.
Dr. Katy Taylor, CFI’s head of scientific and regulatory affairs, said: “The government has stated that even ingredients that are only used in cosmetics and have a history of safe use can be tested on animals in the UK.”
“This decision broke the UK’s long-standing leadership in not conducting animal testing on cosmetics, and ridiculed the country’s quest to be at the forefront of research and innovation, again relying on cruel and unreasonable testing that can be traced back to more than half a century. .”
In 1998, the then Labor government used its own legislation as an example to try to ban animal testing of cosmetics within the European Union. The European Union introduced a ban on the testing of finished cosmetics in 2004 and banned such testing of cosmetic ingredients in 2009.
Kerry Postlewhite, CFI’s director of public affairs, said the letter indicated that the UK will not adhere to the ban on animal testing after Brexit.
Unilever is one of the world’s largest cosmetics manufacturers. Dr. Julia Fentham, head of its Safety and Environmental Assurance Center, said that there is always uncertainty about how to comply with EU chemical and cosmetic regulations. She said that the UK’s decision to align with Symrise’s plan was a “step backwards.”
According to Fentem, there are about 100 cosmetic ingredients that may need to be tested on animals according to chemical regulations.
Before the animal testing ban was enforced, most of these ingredients had undergone some form of animal testing to evaluate factors such as skin and eye irritation. But Taylor said that at least in the Symrise case, the chemical legislation requires additional animal testing, including investigating the effect of the ingredient on the developing fetus.
She said that many chemicals used only in cosmetics have existed for decades and have not caused problems, but new chemical legislation may require companies to conduct these extensive animal tests, “just to check the box.”
A sort of 2020 survey A survey from the British charity Frame found that 84% of respondents would not buy a cosmetic product or one of its ingredients if they knew that they had been tested on animals.
Symrise challenged the European Court of Justice’s ruling on scientific grounds.
Fentem said there are already sophisticated methods that can ensure the safety of cosmetics without using animals. “Then you will get these rules that don’t match the science we have.”
She said that the British move marked a complete reversal of the leading position in cosmetics that did not conduct animal testing. “This is a signal to consumers. They are considering putting a sustainability logo on the packaging, no animal testing, veganism, etc…. Basically, it is a house of cards, centered on cruelty-free products. Everything will fall apart.”
