Animals still suffer and die in the name of beauty. Why?

The sale of cosmetics tested on animals has been banned in the EU for 12 years. But the Cosmetics Product Regulation (CPR), through which the bans were introduced, is currently not fit for purpose.

Cosmetics ingredients are still being tested on animals, partly because of the way that the EU’s main chemicals law REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) has been implemented alongside the CPR.

Animals continue to suffer and die in the name of beauty, to gauge the safety of ingredients which can be used in cosmetics and personal care products, such as make-up, shampoo, moisturiser, soap, perfume and toothpaste. Bringing just one new cosmetics ingredient onto the market could potentially involve the death of at least 1,200 animals.

In February, the European Commission published a ‘Call for Evidence’, inviting stakeholders from industry, public authorities and NGOs, plus citizens, to provide their thoughts on how the CPR works in practice. Now, this initial feedback and a future public consultation, could inform the scope of a potential revision of the CPR in the middle of next year.

With proposals for the long-overdue revision of REACH expected to be published by the end of 2025, it is the right time to address the way the CPR and REACH regulations work. Now is finally the time to deliver on the original intention when the bans were written into the CPR by bringing an effective and total ban on animal testing for cosmetics. This is what both the citizens of Europe and Members of the European Parliament have said they want, and the Commission say has been achieved.

Sadly, the reality has proved to be very different.

The EU’s 2023 ruling against the German manufacturer Symrise seriously compromised the cosmetics bans, as the General Court of the European Court of Justice decided that even ingredients used exclusively in cosmetics are not exempt from REACH requirements to supply animal test data for assessing worker safety and environmental protection. This ruling, on two previously approved ingredients used exclusively in sunscreens, overlooked the fact that it is even written into the REACH regulation, which came into force after the cosmetics bans, that the prohibition of animal testing for cosmetics takes precedence.

We want to see the CPR strengthened and properly aligned with other regulations, including REACH, to prevent it being further undermined and to ensure its primacy. This will simplify matters for industry and regulators and reduce the burden on the legal system.

When Directive 2003/15, the legislation which introduced the bans, came into force, it insisted that ‘it is essential that the aim of abolishing animal experiments be pursued and that the prohibition of such experiments becomes effective’. The EU also clearly stated that ‘there can be no new animal testing for cosmetics purposes in the Union – be it for cosmetics products or ingredients thereof’. It then specified that ‘if product safety cannot be demonstrated (without animal testing) the product simply cannot be placed on the market’.

Far from hampering the cosmetics industry, the bans have been the catalyst for innovation, in both the manufacture of cosmetics and the development of non-animal testing methods which can and have been used by other industries. Such innovations will be instrumental in helping the Commission fulfil its promise to phase-out animal testing for the safety testing of all chemicals.

The EU cosmetics testing bans have also been a model for many similar bans across the world. With many countries worldwide having banned the use of animals in cosmetics testing, it is of utmost importance, not least for the credibility of the EU, that they achieve what they set out to do.

In our submitted response to the Commission, we highlighted two animal tests which are routinely required under the REACH regulation, and which can therefore be required for ingredients used in cosmetics products. In a commonly used test to study effects on developing foetuses, which can use 1,100 rats or 700 rabbits, pregnant females are force-fed a chemical for several weeks, which can cause significant distress and injury, before they and their unborn pups are killed and dissected.

In another study, which investigates a chemical’s effect on the reproductive system and can use at least 960 rats, adult rats are force-fed a chemical for a ten-week period during which they mate and the females give birth. The parents and their pups are monitored for abnormal symptoms such as repeatedly walking in circles and changes in their skin, and the pups are further subjected to distressing behavioural tests. All animals are killed at the end of the study.

Over 1.2 million people demanded the protection and strengthening of the CPR by signing the ‘Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics’ European Citizens’ Initiative, which was launched in August 2021 by a coalition of European animal protection groups including Cruelty Free Europe. In response, the Commission committed to plan the full replacement of animal testing for chemical safety assessment (including cosmetics) in the European Union. However, in their response, the Commission failed to address the conflict between the cosmetics testing bans and REACH.

It is shocking that we are still having to fight on behalf of animals in laboratories. Even more distressing is the fact that more and more animal testing is being required by regulators for ingredients in cosmetics, against the wishes of European consumers and cosmetics brands.

We welcomed the promise of a roadmap to end animal testing for chemical safety assessment, but the failure to even properly implement existing laws is very concerning and does not bode well for the extension and strengthening of animal testing restrictions. Instead of positive steps forward, these changes risk taking us backwards again, just as we thought that animal testing for cosmetics would become a thing of the past. We demand change, and Europe must evolve past the cruel and outdated use of animals.

But the clock is ticking and the time for regulation revision is running out. If not now, when?