Dan Lyons update from Uncaged, UK. Cruel Cosmetics. Animal Rights 09...

[Guest guest]

Dan Lyons

March 11 at 4:54am

Reply

 

Cruel Cosmetics?Concern over loopholes in European ban on animal-tested cosmeticsDear Uncaged memberMarch 11th 2009 should mark a momentous day in the history of the anti-vivisection movement, but legal loopholes and Government indifference threaten to perpetuate the most gratuitous and extreme forms of animal cruelty. After a decades-long fight, two key Europe-wide measures to tackle animal testing are due to come into force as part of the EU’s ‘Cosmetics Directive’:1. a ban on animal testing of cosmetics ingredients (‘Cosmetics’ has a wide legal definition here and includes toiletries)2. a ban on the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals anywhere in the world for all but three test areas, regardless of the availability of alternative non-animal tests The complete sales ban where no animal tests are allowed at all for cosmetics sold in the EU is due to kick in during 2013. It is widely believed that the bans, supposed to enforced irrespective of the availability of validated ‘alternatives’, has provided a serious incentive for companies to invest in non-animal, advanced testing methods. The latest annual EU figures suggest that over 5,500 animals could be saved from poisoning tests for cosmetics in the EU alone, never mind the global impact as companies stop animal testing in order to continue access to European markets. However, the European Commission acknowledges more animals could have been used if tests are already being commissioned ‘for other purposes’. This admission flags up one of the major loopholes that companies like Procter & Gamble are likely to try to exploit. The worry is that companies will continue to use ingredients tested on animals in cosmetics by pretending the test was for another purpose such as ‘household products’ or ‘pharmaceutical’. This would be particularly easy for companies who produce different types of products in addition to cosmetics, such as household cleaners and pharmaceuticals. Indeed, in a leaked internal memo, P & G discuss how they can get round the EU law.But it’s not just companies that are sticking two fingers up to the rule of law – meet the UK Government. An ongoing Uncaged investigation reveals that there are potentially serious weaknesses in the way the UK Government is implementing the EU law: • They are deceiving MPs and the public, and blocking the release of animal testing information relating to products on sale in the UK. • They require local councils’ Trading Standards Departments (TSDs) to implement the law. But TSDs aren't and can't enforce this as they don't have sufficient resources and expertise. So we have a catch 22 situation where TSDs will investigate if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it is impossible to obtain evidence as it is deemed confidential.OFFICIAL SECRECYUnder the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 – the UK law which implements the EU law - cosmetics products manufacturers are obliged to collate information on animal testing in Product Information Packs (PIPs). These are to be made available to the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), and local TSDs.Initially, the Government gave the impression that animal testing information could be obtained by the public. On 25 May 2008, Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for State at BERR told Linda Gilroy MP: 'Anybody who is concerned that a product or its ingredients have been tested illegally on animals should speak to their local Trading Standards Department.' Again, in October, minister Claire Ward told MPs that the PIPs:‘will contain information on any animal testing that has been carried out in the past. If hon. Members are contacted by constituents with concerns about such matters, they can refer them to their local trading standards department.’ After we'd pointed out to MPs that TSDs couldn't give that information, BERR Minister Gareth Thomas MP admitted: ‘Although this information ["whether certain cosmetics products have at any stage been tested on animals"] may form part of the product information packages which all cosmetic suppliers must maintain and provide to Trading Standards Officers when requested to do so, the information provided is commercially sensitive and is not to be passed on to anyone outside the enforcement service. Anyone who wishes to find out the animal testing policies of a particular company should contact the company direct.’Information about animal testing can easily be edited to remove any genuine commercial secrets, so the Government’s decision to keep that information secret is perverse and contrary to the public interest. Moreover, as we are all well aware, Thomas' suggestion that people write to the companies is ludicrous as there is no obligation for companies to give truthful information about their animal testing and in fact companies who test on animals go out of their way to mislead consumers. Meanwhile, our survey of TSDs reveals their confusion and inability to enforce animal testing regulations. ACTIONMike Hancock MP has tabled EDM 137 for us, which calls on the UK Government to implement the Cosmetics Directive and disclose the animal testing data. If you ar a UK resident, please ask your MP to sign it via www.vote4animals.org.uk/edm137.htm.

 

-

lovelife...

 

colin sky

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this and the link. I will do a letter later today.

 

Vicky

 

, " colin sky " <colinsky wrote:

>

> Dan Lyons

>

> March 11 at 4:54am

> Reply

> Cruel Cosmetics?

> Concern over loopholes in European ban on animal-tested cosmetics

>

> Dear Uncaged member

>

> March 11th 2009 should mark a momentous day in the history of the

anti-vivisection movement, but legal loopholes and Government indifference

threaten to perpetuate the most gratuitous and extreme forms of animal cruelty.

After a decades-long fight, two key Europe-wide measures to tackle animal

testing are due to come into force as part of the EU's 'Cosmetics Directive':

>

> 1. a ban on animal testing of cosmetics ingredients ('Cosmetics' has a wide

legal definition here and includes toiletries)

> 2. a ban on the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals

anywhere in the world for all but three test areas, regardless of the

availability of alternative non-animal tests

>

> The complete sales ban where no animal tests are allowed at all for cosmetics

sold in the EU is due to kick in during 2013. It is widely believed that the

bans, supposed to enforced irrespective of the availability of validated

'alternatives', has provided a serious incentive for companies to invest in

non-animal, advanced testing methods.

>

> The latest annual EU figures suggest that over 5,500 animals could be saved

from poisoning tests for cosmetics in the EU alone, never mind the global impact

as companies stop animal testing in order to continue access to European

markets. However, the European Commission acknowledges more animals could have

been used if tests are already being commissioned 'for other purposes'. This

admission flags up one of the major loopholes that companies like Procter &

Gamble are likely to try to exploit.

>

> The worry is that companies will continue to use ingredients tested on animals

in cosmetics by pretending the test was for another purpose such as 'household

products' or 'pharmaceutical'. This would be particularly easy for companies who

produce different types of products in addition to cosmetics, such as household

cleaners and pharmaceuticals. Indeed, in a leaked internal memo, P & G discuss how

they can get round the EU law.

>

> But it's not just companies that are sticking two fingers up to the rule of

law - meet the UK Government. An ongoing Uncaged investigation reveals that

there are potentially serious weaknesses in the way the UK Government is

implementing the EU law:

>

> . They are deceiving MPs and the public, and blocking the release of animal

testing information relating to products on sale in the UK.

> . They require local councils' Trading Standards Departments (TSDs) to

implement the law. But TSDs aren't and can't enforce this as they don't have

sufficient resources and expertise. So we have a catch 22 situation where TSDs

will investigate if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it is impossible to

obtain evidence as it is deemed confidential.

>

> OFFICIAL SECRECY

>

> Under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 - the UK law which

implements the EU law - cosmetics products manufacturers are obliged to collate

information on animal testing in Product Information Packs (PIPs). These are to

be made available to the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

(BERR), and local TSDs.

>

> Initially, the Government gave the impression that animal testing information

could be obtained by the public. On 25 May 2008, Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for

State at BERR told Linda Gilroy MP:

> 'Anybody who is concerned that a product or its ingredients have been tested

illegally on animals should speak to their local Trading Standards Department.'

>

> Again, in October, minister Claire Ward told MPs that the PIPs:

> 'will contain information on any animal testing that has been carried out in

the past. If hon. Members are contacted by constituents with concerns about such

matters, they can refer them to their local trading standards department.'

>

> After we'd pointed out to MPs that TSDs couldn't give that information, BERR

Minister Gareth Thomas MP admitted:

> 'Although this information [ " whether certain cosmetics products have at any

stage been tested on animals " ] may form part of the product information packages

which all cosmetic suppliers must maintain and provide to Trading Standards

Officers when requested to do so, the information provided is commercially

sensitive and is not to be passed on to anyone outside the enforcement service.

Anyone who wishes to find out the animal testing policies of a particular

company should contact the company direct.'

>

> Information about animal testing can easily be edited to remove any genuine

commercial secrets, so the Government's decision to keep that information secret

is perverse and contrary to the public interest. Moreover, as we are all well

aware, Thomas' suggestion that people write to the companies is ludicrous as

there is no obligation for companies to give truthful information about their

animal testing and in fact companies who test on animals go out of their way to

mislead consumers. Meanwhile, our survey of TSDs reveals their confusion and

inability to enforce animal testing regulations.

>

>

> ACTION

>

> Mike Hancock MP has tabled EDM 137 for us, which calls on the UK Government to

implement the Cosmetics Directive and disclose the animal testing data. If you

ar a UK resident, please ask your MP to sign it via

www.vote4animals.org.uk/edm137.htm.

>

> -

> lovelife...

>

> colin sky

>