VeggieBoards banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
EU Bans 'Cruel Beauty' Cosmetics Tested on Animals<br><br>
Wed Jan 15, 7:58 AM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo!<br><br><br><br><br><br>
By Robin Pomeroy<br><br><br><br>
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - The European Parliament passed a law Wednesday which bans most testing of cosmetics on animals within the EU by 2009, and bans the sale in the EU of cosmetics which have been tested on animals anywhere.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
The law, a compromise reached with EU governments in November which requires the formality of approval by EU ministers, will allow three types of toxicity tests to continue until 2013 to allow time for alternatives to be developed.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"This parliament, by a huge cross party majority, has made clear that it will no longer accept that animals should be made to suffer for yet another product intended to flatter human vanity," British Liberal deputy Chris Davies told the assembly.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
All cosmetics, from hand creams to lipstick and perfumes, are tested for side effects such as cancer and effects on fertility. But animal welfare groups say 38,000 animals die needlessly in the EU every year in tests for new products.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Many EU governments initially resisted parliament's push for a product ban, saying it could put the European bloc at risk of a trade dispute from exporter countries. But the European Commission (news - web sites), the EU's executive arm, said the law was sound.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"The solution found offers a genuine benefit for animal welfare while safeguarding consumer health protection and our international commitments," European Enterprise Commissioner Erkki Liikanen told the parliament.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
The cosmetics industry was less sure. "We don't know what the reaction of the Americans and Japanese will be," said Annick Colman of Colipa, the European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Industry would find it "extremely challenging" to find alternative testing methods by 2009, she added. "If we don't find alternatives, we will have less ingredients to work with."<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Britain, Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands have already banned cosmetics tests on animals, but unlike the EU law, such bans did nothing to stop products tested on animals being imported from abroad.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Animal welfare groups were unhappy with the compromise, saying a loophole could allow some tests beyond 2013.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
The law, which will not ban existing products that have been tested on animals in the past, will force cosmetics makers to switch to alternatives to animal testing such as test-tube methods if those are shown to be effective.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Most types of tests will be banned from 2009, but three tests for toxic effects on humans -- for which scientists say it is difficult to find alternatives -- will be allowed to continue until at least 2013, longer if deemed necessary.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"The 'get out clause' potentially allows industry to side-step a total sales ban by claiming that insufficient non-animal tests are available," said Wendy Higgins of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"The cosmetics industry has lobbied aggressively to water down these proposals already, and I doubt we've heard the last of them on this issue."<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Repeated attempts by the European Parliament to ban animal testing for cosmetics through the 1980s and 1990s were thwarted due to the lack of alternative test methods.

0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
EU Animal-Testing Ban Could Spark US Cosmetics Trade Row<br><br>
Wed Jan 15, 2:38 PM ET<br><br><br><br>
By Matthew Newman, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES<br><br><br><br>
BRUSSELS -(Dow Jones)- By voting Wednesday to ban imports of beauty products tested on animals, the European Union (news - web sites) Parliament opened the possibility of a bruising trade dispute with the U.S. - and could reduce choice to European consumers.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Under the new rules, E.U. cosmetics companies will be barred from using most animal tests to develop cosmetic products by 2009. The legislation follows years of emotional campaigns against animal testing.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
But trade problems could loom. Big partners like the U.S. and Japan will continue to use animal testing. The U.S. could challenge the new rules at the World Trade Organization (news - web sites) if its exports of antidandruff powder, antideodorant and sunscreen are barred.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"There could be a serious trade dispute if we can't find alternative testing methods," said Louis Santucci, an official at Washington, D.C.-based Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
The economic stakes are high. U.S. companies exported $924 million in personal-care products in 2001 to the E.U.'s EUR33 billion cosmetics market. Under U.S. law, no cosmetic can be sold without being first tested on animals.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Cosmetics companies worry that they won't be able to come up with alternatives in the six years before the ban goes into effect.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"We are concerned about whether the timetable is adequate to allow the development of alternative testing," said a U.S. official.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
The ban also presents problems for E.U. consumers. U.S. and Japanese companies will continue to test new products. Their European counterparts could be stuck using old ingredients.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
"The rules diminish consumer choice and could create a black market for products that are made in the U.S., Japan or China," said Annick Colman of the European Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
E.U. officials say fears about trade problems are exaggerated. The E.U. will work with the U.S. to develop alternative testing methods that will be accepted on an international level, said Per Haugaard, an E.U. Commission official.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
-By Matthew Newman, Dow Jones Newswires; 322-285-0133; [email protected]

346 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"> Joy!!! I heard, there was a wee blip in the Oregonian about it! great, eh? Phasing out, which is slow, but that how change goes...otherwise it would not work. NICE.
1 - 3 of 3 Posts