| Author (Person) | Bower, Helen |
|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning |
| Series Title | In Focus |
| Series Details | 12.6.02 |
| Publication Date | 12/06/2002 |
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus |
|
Members of the European Parliament voted at the plenary session on 11 June 2002 for a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the European Union by December 2004. Under the strict package of animal welfare measures there would be an immediate ban on the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals where other testing methods were possible, to be followed by the end of 2004 by a complete ban on the sale of any new cosmetics tested on animals, even if no other validated method is available. In a controversial move, MEPs also voted to ban the sale of products tested anywhere in the world which threatens to ignite a world trade dispute. The ban on worldwide testing would be introduced in two stages. First, cosmetic companies would have to find an alternative to 11 of the 14 tests currently used within five years of the legislation being adopted. In the second stage the other three tests, which are seen to be more difficult to perform without using animals, would have to be replaced over another five year period. The European Parliament argues that these strict marketing rules are designed to stop European cosmetic companies relocating their testing laboratories to beyond EU borders and therefore shifting the problem elsewhere. The rapporteur on the issue, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German socialist, said,
Although some European governments such as the UK, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany already ban animal testing for cosmetic purposes within their own countries, they fear that such strict marketing rules could breach world trading rules. The European Commission also fears the effects of a worldwide ban. European Commissioner for Enterprise and the Information Society, Erkki Liikanen, told the plenary session that the European Commission and Council preferred to work through international bodies such as the WTO, with the aim of seeking a concerted approach. The issue of a worldwide market ban and the timetable for its implication has been a sticking point in the debate in the European Union about a ban on animal testing which has been dragging on for over a decade. In 1991 the European Parliament proposed an amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive, adopted in 1976, which would prohibit the marketing of cosmetic products containing ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals, as of 1998. This amendment was adopted with the proviso that the date of implementation would be postponed in the absence of sufficient alternative testing methods to guarantee the consumer an equivalent level of protection. This date has had to be postponed twice for safety reasons, and also to avoid a conflict with the EU's international trading partners. In April 2000, the European Commission sought to avoid a further postponement and the risk of a global trade conflict by proposing a new amendment replacing the inapplicable marketing ban with a more pragmatic testing ban. In November 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted a common position supporting a ban on animal testing and on the marketing of cosmetic products whose ingredients have been tested on animals as soon as alternative test methods are found and validated at international level. However, the European Parliament reintroduced a time scale on when alternatives testing methods must be found in its vote on 11 June 2002. There was a general consensus amongst MEPs that pressure needed to be exerted on the cosmetics industry to find new alternatives. The Chair of the Environment Scrutinising Committee, Caroline Jackson, said,
However, the latest move by the European Parliament is expected to once again meet with stiff opposition from the other EU institutions and lead to the 'conciliation' procedure between the Council and the Parliament. The European cosmetic industry, which has sales of some $42 billion a year, is also likely to oppose the European Parliament's amendments. The European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA) has previously stated that it has serious reservations regarding the proposed timing for the development and validation of all of the alternative methods needed to totally eliminate animal testing and favours the Council's common position because it 'achieves the best possible balance of interests between consumer protection, animal welfare and industry development'. But with 38,000 animals used for testing of cosmetics in the EU each year there is likely to be strong support for the European Parliament vote from both the public and animal protection groups. Marlou Heinen, deputy head of RSPCA International, said the Society was happy with the European Parliament's vote and called on the United Kingdom to follow suit, saying,
Even if the UK was to agree, many other EU governments are expected to oppose the Parliament's position, particularly the French who fear the effect on France's cosmetics industry, which is Europe's largest with companies such as L'Oreal and France also carries out the most animal testing. Links: European Parliament:
European Commission:
Finanical Times:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Helen Bower Background and reporting on the week's main stories in the European Union and the wider Europe. |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry |
