| Author (Person) | Thomson, Ian |
|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning |
| Series Title | In Focus |
| Series Details | 7.4.01 |
| Publication Date | 09/04/2001 |
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus |
|
The European Parliament held its first reading debate, 2 April 2001, and vote, 3 April 2001, on the European Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Based on recommendations from the European Parliament's Rapporteur on the proposal, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, MEP, the European Parliament voted to ban the performance of tests on animals and also the marketing of products which have been tested on animals. This goes against the proposal as outlined by the European Commission. Others are concerned that the lack of alternative testing methods will pose difficulties for the cosmetics industry, while such a law might be challenged in the World Trade Organisation as a barrier to trade. Background Cosmetics are a major worldwide industry, which range from everyday toiletries such as soap and toothpaste to more specialist products such as perfumes and anti-ageing creams. The first European Community proposal to harmonise national laws relating to cosmetics was proposed in the 1970s with the primary motivation of enabling the free circulation of cosmetic products within the European Community. A further motivation was to ensure that the cosmetics produced by the industry were safe for human use. Council Directive 76/768/EEC was adopted in July 1976. It has been amended substantively and adapted to technical progress on numerous occasions subsequently. The 1976 Directive was not thus specifically dealing with the issue of the use of animals for testing new ingredients in cosmetics. Nevertheless, this issue has developed into a controversial one over the years. Testing of new ingredients for safety reasons is clearly essential before they can be used in products to be used by humans. The traditional way to carry out such tests is on animals. However, animal rights groups argue that to carry out such experiments on animals for the sake of human vanity is wrong and should be outlawed. They argue that alternative testing methods should be used, and that there are sufficient ingredients already available. The animal welfare group Eurogroup claims that 38,000 animals a year are used each year in the EU in the development of new cosmetic products. In addition, the view that there is a general ethical requirement to respect life has gained considerable ground in Europe. Nevertheless, it is also the case that any EU law that has been adopted to protect the consumer, the environment or animal welfare within the EU has to comply with international trade rules, in particular those of the World Trade Organisation, to ensure that its implementation does not unfairly create a barrier to international trade. Others argue that the number of animals used for experiments in the EU for cosmetic products is very small: only 0.3&percent; of experiments carried out on animals. It is also said that that the tests do not involve killing the animal, and that particular suffering is not inflicted on it. The main species used are guinea pigs, rats, rabbits and fish; in no cases are primates used. The main voice for the cosmetics industry in Europe, COLIPA, argues that the continent is a world leader in this industry, generates substantial turnover and employs a significant number of people. It also says that the profits generated by the European cosmetics industry is the main source for funding research into finding alternative testing methods. In 1993 Council Directive 93/35/EEC was adopted (known as the sixth amendment to the 1976 Directive). It provided that 'Member States shall prohibit the marketing of cosmetic products containing ingredients tested on animals after 1 January 1998' . A postponement of this deadline until June 2000 was proposed by the European Commission in 1997 on the basis that, despite much effort, sufficiently safe alternative testing methods were not in place. The marketing ban would cover cosmetics manufactured in the EU and in third countries. It is this latter point that concerns the European Commission as it is feared that the EU would be challenged by third countries as imposing a barrier to trade by citing Article III (4) of the GATT. The current legislative proposal In April 2000 the European Commission introduced a proposal (COM (2000)189 final) to further amend the 1976 Directive. The main objective of the proposal is to settle the issue of animal testing in the cosmetics sector. To take account of the need to comply with international law, the proposed amendment would prohibit the performance of tests on animals on the territory of the Member States for the purpose of complying with Directive 76/768/EEC, but not the marketing of products which have been tested on animals. The European Commission argues that this would be an advance on existing law in the EU, although a retreat on what was adopted in Council Directive 93/35/EEC in terms of the marketing of cosmetic products containing ingredients tested on animals, but not yet implemented. The Commission argues that this formula would serve the double objective of ensuring WTO compatibility and providing a more effective way to protect animal welfare. A summary of the proposal can be seen (IP/00/335). The proposal also introduces an immediate and definitive testing ban for finished products in the EU and a definitive testing ban for cosmetic ingredients three years after the implementation of the Directive (the latter could be further postponed for up to two years in case of a lack of validated alternative methods of testing). Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German MEP, has been appointed to be the Rapporteur for this proposal. It was her amendments to the proposal as published in Report A5-0095/2001, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which were the basis of the debate in the European Parliament plenary session on 2 April 2001. The amendments proposed would preserve the ban on marketing. The Committee wanted the ban to come into force immediately for ingredients where other validated testing methods exist, and in any case five years after the adoption of the directive. To ensure WTO compliance, producers in third countries would have to be treated in a way equivalent to Community producers, with no discriminatory treatment. The Committee called for funding from the Sixth Framework Research Programme for the development of new non-animal testing methods. It also wanted the ingredients of cosmetic products to be listed in full. There was also an amendment put forward by two European People's Party MEPs calling for the complete rejection of the proposal on the grounds that it made the current situation worse and was unnecessary. This last amendment was rejected, but the amendments put forward by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt were adopted. The proposal will now continue its way through the EU's policy process: the next stage will be the Council's Common Position. In an article in European Voice on 5 April 2001 it is suggested that the current EU Presidency country, Sweden, will try to get the Council to accept the marketing ban, but that it is not at all likely that there will be sufficient support for this to happen in the Council: France, the United Kingdom and Spain are said to be sceptical. The UK, Austria and the Netherlands already have national bans on the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals. To follow the progress of the legislative proposal see: PreLex The proposal will follow the co-decision procedure. Animal welfare groups were generally pleased by the vote in the European Parliament, while the cosmetics industry was critical. Reactions are noted below. Further information within European Sources Online: European Sources Online: European Voice Further information can be seen in these external links: European Commission: DG Enterprise European Commission: DG Health and Consumer Protection European Commission: Press and Communication Service European Commission: Press and Communication Service: SCADPLUS European Commission: Joint Research Centre: Environment Institute Economic and Social Committee Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament World Trade Organisation (WTO) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA) European Coalition to End Animal Experiments Eurogroup for Animal Welfare Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) The Boyd Group Naturewatch Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (USA) World Animal Net FT.com BBC News The Independent Further and subsequent information on the subject of this In Focus can be found by an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online by inserting 'cosmetics and animal testing' in the keyword field. Ian Thomson The European Parliament held its first reading debate, 2 April 2001, and vote, 3 April 2001, on the European Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry |
