Abandoning the ban? CTPA debunks reports of animal testing reintroduction for UK cosmetics
10 May 2023 --- The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association (CTPA) is stating that animal testing on cosmetic products is not being reintroduced in the UK. This comes after various organizations and media suspect the government of abandoning the ban following a ruling from the Cosmetics Judicial Review of the Home Office’s policy on animal testing. PersonalCareInsights speaks to the association to bring clarity to the situation.
CTPA is dubbed “the voice of the British cosmetics industry,” where Dr. Emma Meredith, director-general, is “greatly disappointed by media reports covering the recent High Court Ruling on animal testing which suggest animal testing for cosmetic products and their ingredients could be resumed in the UK.”
“This is absolutely not the case. Animal testing on cosmetic products has been banned in the UK since the late 90s and these strict bans remain in place and will continue to be a key part of the UK cosmetics law, whether or not a product makes a ‘not tested on animals’ or ‘cruelty-free’ claims,” she stresses.
CTPA is reassuring that a strict ban on animal testing for cosmetics and personal care products will remain after seeking affirmation from a government spokesperson at the Home Office. To quote: “There has been no change in our legislation and the ban on using animals for testing finished cosmetic products remains in force.”
Firm stance against reinstatement
On the other hand, The Body Shop and its campaign partners at Cruelty Free International are calling on the government to reimpose the ban immediately.
“The Body Shop was the first global beauty company to campaign to ban animal testing in cosmetics in 1989, with the UK becoming the world’s first to rule it out in 1998. We share the deep-rooted concerns of our long-standing partner Cruelty Free International that the ban was effectively lifted in 2019, under the radar,” says Chris Davis, global director of Activism and Sustainability at The Body Shop.
The Body Shop has been campaigning to end animal testing in cosmetics for nearly 35 years, spearheaded by late founder Dame Anita Roddick (Image Credit: The Body Shop).“We can’t turn back the clock. Allowing animal testing for cosmetics in the UK would be a devastating blow to the millions of people who have supported campaigns to end this appalling practice for nearly 35 years.”
In 2018, 8.3 million people signed the company’s campaign petition to end animal testing globally.
“The Body Shop is forever against animal testing,” maintains Davis.
The hearing for a judicial review began in January at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, led by Cruelty Free International. The two-day review challenged the Home Office’s decision to abandon the policy ban on testing cosmetics on animals – which has been in place since 1998.
Why the confusion?
CTPA’s spokesperson tells us that the court case centers around the interaction between the animal testing ban under the UK Cosmetics Regulation and the chemicals legislation, Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
Under the REACH Regulation, animal testing is sometimes required.
“The European Chemicals Agency is committed to avoiding any unnecessary testing on animals; animal testing should only be used as a last resort,” Ofelia Bercaru, director for prioritization and integration at ECHA, previously told PersonalCareInsights.
The CTPA spokesperson states: “Unfortunately, there has been some confusion in interpreting the recent UK High Court ruling on animal testing and cosmetic products. The ruling does not mean that animal testing of cosmetic products will now take place on UK products.”
“The strict bans on animal testing of cosmetic products remain under the UK Cosmetics Regulation. The chemicals regulation, REACH, does not cover finished cosmetic products, so any requirements under REACH cannot impact the finished product testing ban.”
Moreover, the spokesperson says it is incorrect to state that testing of cosmetic ingredients will restart, according to CTPA. “Because the current UK position aligns with guidance that has always been in place under EU REACH, which the UK was part of until the beginning of 2021.”
CTPA states that the ruling does not mean that finished cosmetic products will be tested on animals.
“The UK government is working on a new model for UK REACH, and the cosmetics industry is working closely with the government to advocate for non-animal safety assessment methods to be enshrined within the framework.”
“Secretly abandoned?”
In its August 2021 letter to Cruelty Free International, the Home Office reportedly admitted that it allows animal testing for cosmetics in the UK.
The animal protection group shares that the documents disclosed in the court proceedings in January revealed: “for the first time that the Home Office secretly abandoned the ban in 2019.”
“The Home Office had told us in an earlier judicial review that the policy was still in place and gave no hint that it had abandoned it until legally forced to reply.”
PersonalCareInsights has contacted the Home Office, which has yet to respond.
“The home secretary, Suella Braverman MP, had argued that she was bound by a law originating in the European Union to authorize such tests. However, the ruling by Mr. Justice Linden now allows Ms. Braverman to reinstate the policy,” says Cruelty Free International.
Michelle Thew, chief executive at Cruelty Free International expresses: “It is outrageous that the government has abandoned the ban on using animals in cosmetics testing and did so in secret while giving the impression that the policy remained in place.”
“Documents the Home Office was forced to disclose in the case show clearly that it prioritized the interests of contract-testing companies over those of animals and the wishes of the vast majority of British people strongly opposed to cosmetics testing. Now that the High Court has said it can do so, we call on the government immediately to reinstate the policy ban.”
“Industry is not looking for loopholes”
Cruelty Free International received a letter from the Home Office admitting that it allows animal testing for cosmetics.Contrastingly, CTPA maintains that there are no animal testing loopholes that the cosmetics industry is seeking to circumvent.
“The UK Cosmetics Regulation is clear in specifying that to meet its requirements, cosmetic products may not be placed on the UK market if the final formulation, ingredients in a final formulation or a finished product have been subject to animal testing if the purpose of the tests was compliant with the UK cosmetics laws – no matter where such tests took place,” adds the association.
The UK Cosmetics Regulation and the chemicals legislation UK REACH are the two primary laws covering cosmetic products and ingredients.
“Before February 2019, the UK Government’s policy was that chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients could not undergo any animal testing, even for the purposes of REACH,” continues the CTPA spokesperson.
“In February 2019, this policy was amended so that chemicals only used in cosmetics may be required by the authorities to be tested under REACH to prove safety for workers and/or the environment. This post-2019 policy aligns with how the situation has always been interpreted under EU REACH.”
Safety of workers and environment
The association says that it is working with stakeholders for the use of non-animal science to determine the safety of chemicals.
“Safety of an ingredient for the environment and for workers, such as at a manufacturing site, are not managed under the UK Cosmetics Regulation,” states the CTPA spokesperson.
“These important considerations are managed under the REACH Regulation and this regulation can mandate animal testing as a last resort. The UK Cosmetics Regulation, and the competent authorities for cosmetics, have no legal scope over this.”
Moreover, animal testing under REACH will arise “rarely” as only “a small number of chemicals” are exclusively used in cosmetics.
Under the REACH Regulation, animal testing is sometimes required.
“The cosmetics industry has invested its best scientists and millions of pounds toward developing alternative test methods, which don’t require animals. The cosmetics industry works with animal charities, academics, authorities and regulators globally to promote these methods internationally to work toward an end to animal testing in all sectors, including for REACH,” continues the spokesperson.
More than 35 cosmetics manufacturers and suppliers, industry associations and animal protection organizations linked up in February to launch the International Collaboration on Cosmetics Safety. PersonalCareInsights also interviewed Erin Hill, president and CEO at the organization.
“The main complaints in the court case were that the UK government had not clearly communicated its policy change and that the new policy is unlawful. The High Court dismissed the complaints,” shares the spokesperson.
“The ruling does not mean that finished cosmetic products will be tested on animals – finished cosmetics products are unrelated to the case.”
Animal testing in the headlines
Last month, the Canadian government laid out new measures in its Budget Implementation Act and the cruelty-free legislation is set to pass this summer.
PersonalCareInsights revealed that a market gap for cruelty-free cosmetics exists despite modern science producing non-animal methods to test product safety. In part one of this series, we also revealed loopholes in EU regulations and that there are no alternatives to replace all kinds of animal testing for safety assessments.
In other controversies, Brazil partially banned animal testing for personal hygiene products, cosmetics and perfumes. However, Humane Society International (HSI) flagged that the nation’s continued import of cosmetics will leave leeways for animal-tested cosmetics.
In related news, HSI asserted that REACH “has become the largest mass animal testing project in European history” and that the postponement could reduce the number of animals used for scientific experiments.
By Venya Patel
