EnviroLink Forum

Interesting to see the number of "only test on animals where required" caveats, which would really be expected for international sales. The really interesting aspect is when the parent company statement uses the caveat, and the division does not ... knowing both have international sales, would use at least some of the same suppliers, and should have the same requirements. Then again the goal was marketing. Some creative writing went into these replies.

L’Oréal has not used animals to test its finished products since 1989, except in the case where national legislation requires it. This is the case in certain countries where L’Oréal operates and in those locations regulations require testing using animals before substances can be registered for commercial use

The Body Shop has always believed passionately that animals should not be used for cosmetic testing. We have never tested our products on animals. Similarly, we insist that all our suppliers have not tested their ingredients on animals for cosmetic purposes. We comply with the strict requirements of the Humane Cosmetics Standard created by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Our policy and standards in this area were praised by the BUAV in 2008. In the same year we won the RSPCA Good Business Award for a second time, for our commitment to animal welfare (Do not sell in the same countries as their parent company?)

P&G will only conduct research involving animals in the development and evaluation of our products as a last resort, when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. In those situations where such research is necessary (e.g., when required by law), we will ensure the humane treatment of all animals and will meet or exceed all legal requirements regarding animal welfare.

We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law. We evaluate our finished products in clinical tests on volunteer panels

Avon will conduct animal testing when required by law, at the request of government health or medical authorities, and only after having first attempted to persuade the requesting authority to accept non-animal test data.

No animal testing of any kind is undertaken or commissioned by Boots or its subsidiary businesses. We recognise that until satisfactory replacements are available, some animal tests will be carried out by others to meet regulatory requirements and protect public health. These safety tests sometimes involve ingredients used in products manufactured and sold by subsidiary businesses. We would like to see an end to all animal tests and we give financial and technical support to the development and introduction of alternative forms of safety testing

Using nonanimal product safety evaluations is the norm at Clorox and animal testing is the exception — the vast majority of our products reach the market without testing on animals… We do not conduct or cause third-parties to conduct any animal testing on products, raw materials or components of finished products unless required by federal or local regulators… We will not license our name or the name of any of our brands to formulations of products that have been tested on animals… We will not acquire or purchase product formulations or other products for use in our consumer products that have been tested on animals (except when such testing was done to meet the requirements of federal, state, local or other applicable regulations).

We have always been against animal testing. Recently, the global regulatory climate has become more stringent and cosmetic companies are being asked to further validate the human and environmental safety of their ingredients and products. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety. Given these increased requirements for ensuring the safety of cosmetic ingredients, animal testing may be legally necessary under certain circumstances when no non-animal alternative is available or acceptable to governmental/health authorities. Be assured that we will make every effort to avoid having ingredients tested on animals, and will take all practical and available steps to see that existing or non-animal test data is used instead. However, if ultimately this is required in order for the company to sell its products, we will, of course, comply with the law

The Elizabeth Arden Company shares your concern about the use of animals in safety testing and is committed to eliminating the need. Contrary to what you may have read or been told, we do not sponsor or perform any animal studies on our product formulations. This has been our policy since 1988. To avoid the use of tests on animals, our product development work involves materials with well-established safety records and the use of extensive ingredient databases. Our product safety testing also includes the use of non-animal studies, computer modeling and studies with human volunteers. As a result, we can take great pride in our product safety record. Further, our ultimate goal is to eliminate the necessity for animal testing through our active support of our industry's sharing of scientific data and sponsorship of research programs to develop and validate non-animal alternatives for product testing.

If all alternative methods to animal testing were completed to confirm the safety of cosmetic ingredients, no animal testing would be required. However, at the current scientific level, not all alternative methods have been established or authorized, and in order to guarantee customer safety and security, there are now cases in which safety tests involving animal testing are necessary according to either the law or product safety assurances

We can confirm that we test no product or raw materials on animals. To the best of our knowledge this is also the position of all of our industrial suppliers

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Well you would expect a company to abide by US law, would you not? But we are not talking about the USA are we?

But the claim was there was no testing on products or ingredients for products sold in the UK and/or EU was it not? The fact there is animal testing elsewhere, which can give important safety data that allows the sale of products in the EU, would seem to just be a creative denial approach to the whole situation in the EU.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes that is correct, there is a ban on products and ingredients tested on animals in the EU and UK. The fact that animal testing happens elsewhere has nothing to do with EU law, if that company sues data or ingredient for products sold in the UK the law is then broken

Sort of raps it up.

Then why the need for the marketing ban, which is not in effect, to allow the sale of products and ingredients which require toxicity testing? Toxicity testing is currently performed on animals is it not?

Of course, the reality of the statement would be that there is a ban forbidding testing products and ingredients on animals within the EU, but the products and ingredients tested on animals elsewhere may still be marketed in the EU (including the UK). The difference is somewhat subtle but very significant. It is probable that any product or ingredient with an animal based test prior to the final implimentation of the marketing ban, will be accepted for sale within the EU in practical application of the legislation. Of course, that will be dependent on when the ban actually takes effect. The problem will then be whether the global market requiring adequate testing is larger than the market in the EU which will determine how the industry operates. Given the competive nature of the market, the new products developed for the rest of the world will continue to drive the industry leaving the EU portion of the market as a backwater with a growing black market for new cosmetics from outside the EU until the law is changed ... providing, of course the law is ever enacted before there are acceptable alternatives.



So once any product or ingredient is ever tested on animals anywhere it will never be legal to sell it in the EU under these laws because that data goes with the product? The UK does not license testing inside the UK specifically for cosmetic purposes, which does not touch upon testing elsewhere or for other purposes affecting data or ingredients used in the UK so there is really no law to break in that case.



Not really as it seems to be based on something other than actual knowledge of the way information and the laws work. For example, you are telling us all of the ingredients, which are required to be tested as drugs, etc., in other regions are not going to be used in products in the EU at all? The products are to be reformulated or just not sold in the EU if and when the ban actually takes effect?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No not within the UK and EU, products produced outside the UK and EU certain restrictions apply until the total ban is set in place in 2013.



Yes products produced outside the UK and EU are still sold but there are still restrictions until the total ban in 2013



There is a partial marketing ban and restrictions apply from outside the UK and EU, until the total ban in 2013



That is correct, the ban is in place for inside the UK and EU with restrictions place on products and ingredients tested outside the UK and EU, there is also a partial marketing ban.

Helps if you know what you are talking about.

So to recap, laws change and things are getting better. Do you want me to quote the change in the laws already implemented?

Which would mean your statement, "Yes that is correct, there is a ban on products and ingredients tested on animals in the EU and UK." was incorrect as I thought. The products and ingredients tested for toxicity on animals may be legally sold in both locations. A ban on testing within the area is very different from a ban on tested products and ingredients within the area.



Assuming there is a ban in 2013, which is still to be seen.



Which in no way touches on the question posed, the law you reference is testing for cosmetic purposes and the question was concerning how the testing is to be defined under this new law. You claim it helps if you know what you are talking about, yet you seem to know very little outside of your belief.



No, there is no ban on testing ingredients for other uses in the UK or EU, nor is there any indication of a prohibition of using ingredients which have been tested for the toxicity for other than cosmetic purposes even within the EU.



It does. It also helps to not assume totality where it does not exist.



No, it does not help to have you repeating the mantra. As long as you believe things are "better" you are happier. The rest of us will try to find if it is actually the case.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Just to point out EU law requires proper toxicity testing, as does all other industrialized nations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

"Cosmetic products (until 2013)"

National laws applicable to cosmetic products are harmonised at European level in order to facilitate the free movement of these products within the European Union’s (EU) internal market. This Directive lays down rules on the composition, labelling and packaging of cosmetic products. It also introduces a ban on animal testing and on the marketing of products that have been tested on animals."

"ACT

Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (Cosmetics Directive) [See amending act(s)].
SUMMARY

The free movement of cosmetic products within the European market cannot be restricted or prohibited by Member States if these products are not dangerous to human health under normal or foreseeable conditions of use.

However, if a cosmetic product conforming to this Directive constitutes a danger to human health, the Member State of the territory on which the product is marketed may take restrictive or prohibitive measures. In this instance, it informs the other Member States and the Commission so that appropriate measures can be taken throughout the European Union (EU).

Ingredients and composition

The Directive determines the list of substances which are prohibited in the composition of cosmetic products (Annex II) and the substances which are subject to restrictions or specific conditions of use (Annex III).

The Directive also contains lists of authorised colourings (Annex IV), preservatives (Annex VI) and UV filters (Annex VII).

Labelling

Containers and/or packaging must specifically mention, in indelible, easily legible and visible characters:

the name and address of the manufacturer or of the person responsible for marketing the product;
the nominal contents at the time of packaging, by weight or by volume;
the date of minimum durability indicated for products with a minimum durability of less than 30 months;
the period of time after opening for which the product can be used for products with a minimum durability of more than 30 months (indicated with the symbol representing an open pot of cream);
the function of the product and particular precautions for use;
the batch number.

This information must be in the official language(s) of the respective Member State.

Moreover, the labelling must contain a list of ingredients. Perfume and aromatic compositions are designated by the words "perfume" or "aroma", except where these have been identified as a significant cause of allergic reactions.

Market surveillance

Member States are responsible for monitoring their market. To this end, they check the safety of products manufactured or imported in the EU. Furthermore, they also ensure that the characteristics attributed to cosmetic products are not deceptive.

The manufacturer, the importer or the person responsible for marketing the product must inform the national competent authorities when a product is imported into the EU for the first time.

Animal testing

The Directive puts an end to animal testing by imposing bans on:

testing finished cosmetic products and ingredients on animals (testing ban);
marketing finished cosmetic products which have been tested on animals or which contain ingredients that have been tested on animals (marketing ban).

With regard to repeated-dose toxicity tests, reproductive toxicity tests, and toxicokinetics, the marketing prohibition applies from 11 March 2013. This prohibition is applicable regardless of the availability of alternative test methods."

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... 191_en.htm

I do believe I've already linked this..

It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Prove it.

No it doesn't because the list of ingredients allowed are already validated Any new ingredient would have to be tested with an alternative method or not used at all

Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not?

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/comm ... _o_03j.pdf

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated or
generally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. There
have been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,
but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated
[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies are
required when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amounts
exceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].

In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biological
properties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,
the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element in
evaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked and
possibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive
[67/548/EEC].

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-term
experiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.
It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at the
expense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the Cosmetic
Directive 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validated
alternative tests for repeated exposure.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Then why is the toxicity testing still allowed if there is no need for it in your opinion? Could it be you are assuming something which is not correct?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein