Animal test ban chances remote

Date: 10/10/1996

By Simon Coss

ANIMAL welfare lobbyists are calling on the European Commission to press ahead with plans to ban the use of animals to test cosmetics, amid signs that the practice is likely to continue into the next century.

A directive agreed in 1993 called for a Europe-wide ban on any cosmetic products or ingredients which had been tested on animals - but left it up to the Commission to decide whether to implement it.

The ban is set to come into force in 1 January 1998, but a loophole

in the text allows for a minimum postponement of two years if alternative methods of testing have not been discovered by 1 January 1997.

The Commission has been charged with assessing whether to sanction such a delay and must publish its proposals before the January 1997 deadline.

Steve McIvor, head of campaigns for animal-friendly cosmetics retailer The Body Shop, says the prospects for a total ban are remote.

“As we sit here, there is not one single validated alternative test in Europe,” he said this week.

The campaign for a total ban is being backed by The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

IFAW's European Affairs Director Stanley Johnson said EU-wide action was essential, because if member states acted unilaterally, they could find themselves in breach of single market rules.

But the Commission itself admitted this week that total prohibition of the practice was

very unlikely and that cosmetics manufacturers would probably be allowed to continue testing individual ingredients for products.

“We do not think there will be enough progress for a full ban, but we are hoping for a ban on finished products,” said one Commission official.

Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, socialist MEP and a member of the European Parliament's environment and consumer protection committee, claims the loophole

in the directive is an incentive for inaction on the part of the cosmetics industry.

“If someone knows they will only face a ban if there is a developed alternative, the best thing to do is not to develop that alternative,” she pointed out.

The Commission says it is now carrying out research into finding alternative tests, notably at its establishment in Ispra, northern Italy, but officials admit that the lion's share of the effort must be made by the industry.

The Body Shop claims that in a recent draft report, the Commission admitted it would have to recommend postponing the ban. The document also allegedly contained figures showing that 24,500 animals underwent experiments in France and the UK during 1995.

Later versions of the document apparently omitted both the comments on the ban and the figures.

“I think that you can read a lot into those omissions,” said McIvor.

The Commission refused to comment on the Body Shop claims, saying that it would not discuss documents which had not been approved by the College.

Under current Union law, any new preservatives, colouring agents or sunscreens destined for use in cosmetic products must be tested on animals. As most preparations contain at least one of these ingredients, the law is cited by many as a justification for continued tests.

McIvor contests this logic. He argues that it is perfectly possible for companies to come up with new lines using the 8,000 or so ingredients - all animal-tested at some point - which have already been cleared for use in the Union.

Examples of the sorts of experiments campaigners would like to see banned include testing sunscreens on hairless albino mice, rubbing toothpaste into hamsters' mouth pouches and dripping potential irritants into captive rabbits' eyes.