Industry calls for cruelty-free policy action on EU chemical regulations as petition deadline looms, EC and ECHA respond
08 Jul 2022 --- Unilever is urging the EU to deliver consistency between chemical regulations and the 2013 ban on animal testing for cosmetics amid concerns that production loopholes may emerge. However, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has defended animal testing under certain conditions for the long-term protection of human and environmental health.
“ECHA 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, tells PersonalCareInsights.
An EU official also tells us that the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) includes a strong commitment to promote alternatives and move away from unnecessary animal testing in the EU and beyond.
“The strategy calls for innovation of safety testing and chemical risk assessment to reduce dependency on animal testing but also to improve the quality, efficiency and speed of chemical hazard and risk assessments,” they say.
These developments came as Salman Sufi, head of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s strategic reforms unit in Pakistan, announced a ban on live testing of animals in vet colleges and industrial complexes in Islamabad Capital Territory last week, reports PETA.
Unilever shares that 41 countries prohibit animal testing for cosmetics.
Threats on the horizon
Contrastingly, Unilever asserts that it “firmly” believes animal testing is not necessary to assure the safety of personal care, home care and foods or the ingredients in them – for the people who use them, the people who manufacture them, or for the planet.
“We remain deeply concerned that the EU animal testing ban is currently under threat,” a spokesperson from The Body Shop tells PersonalCareInsights.
“Under existing EU chemicals regulations, the ECHA has begun requesting new tests for cosmetics ingredients with a long history of safe use. These tests will involve the suffering of tens of thousands of animals,” Dr. Julia Baines, science policy manager at PETA, also tells us.
Additionally, the EU Citizens’ Initiative is ending after August 31 this year. The initiative outlines three requests: protect and strengthen the cosmetics animal testing ban, transform EU chemicals regulation and modernize science in the EU.
“The petition has reached 704,000 signatures so far,” says The Body Shop spokesperson. Once the petition reaches one million signatures, EU policymakers will have to consider the demands, says Unilever.
In ECHA’s defense: Human safety
Bercaru explains that the EU’s chemicals legislation is set up to protect people and the environment from the harm that hazardous chemicals may pose.
“Companies that place products on the markets must ensure their safety, and for that purpose, animal testing is still in some cases necessary.”
“ECHA’s role is to ensure that companies provide the information required by the law to prove that the substances can be manufactured and used safely,” says Bercaru.
“We encourage companies to use alternative methods, and animal testing should only be used as a last resort. Animal testing is only required if no alternative tests are available,” stresses Bercaru.
She says that the EU’s chemicals legislation requires ECHA to work proactively to avoid any unnecessary testing on animals, for example, by making companies share data to avoid duplicating tests.
“Currently, there are no alternatives to replace all animal testing that would be adequate for classification and labeling and risk assessment purposes.”
“The REACH [Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals] Regulation sets the legal requirements to ensure the safety of chemicals, including for workers. Especially long-term effects of chemicals are under the spotlight, such as their toxicity to reproduction or ability to cause cancer. For these effects, there currently are not yet valid alternative test methods available,” explains Bercaru.
Technology versus animals
Unilever highlights that REACH states animal testing should only be done as a last resort. However, the company observes that it is not happening in practice due to ECHA’s requests for new animal testing.
“That’s why we want policymakers to transform EU chemicals regulations so that they are based on the modern safety science that now exists,” justifies Unilever.
“I would love to see the EU being bold and progressive in re-thinking its regulatory approaches to chemicals,” states Dr. Julia Fentem, head of safety and environmental assurance center at Unilever.
Bercaru adds that the ECHA actively participates in developing non-animal test methods, for example, in the context of the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. However, she says not all these methods are available to test all health hazards.
“As part of the commitment to the eventual replacement of all animals in science, the Commission actively supports the development of alternatives by funding research: European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC), which aims to protect human health and the environment better, includes coordination and undertaking of validation studies of alternative methods for the safety assessment of chemicals,” adds the EU Commissioner.
“We will step up the efforts to support alternatives by, for example, getting more actively involved in steering research projects on NAMs [new approach methodologies] to support regulatory needs via PARC,” adds Bercaru.
Scientific advancements for total ban
The push for science-backed testing comes as the EU Commission (EC) recently released the Innovation Agenda this week, envisioning Europe as an innovative and environmentally sustainable hub. The Agenda can perhaps propel technological advancements toward a cruelty-free future.
“Some 70% of EU citizens want to see an end to the suffering of animals in laboratories,” says Baines.
“Humane alternatives to animal tests can use simple organisms like bacteria or human tissues and cells as well as sophisticated computer models. For example, almost every type of human and animal cell can be grown in the laboratory. Tests using reconstituted human skin and other tissues have been developed and are used to replace the cruel rabbit eye and skin irritation tests,” shares The Body Shop spokesperson.
“The notorious Draize tests involve placing rabbits in restraining stocks. Experimenters pull their eyelids apart and apply chemicals. Laboratory technicians record the damage – swollen eyelids, irritated eyes or blindness. Non-animal approaches like three-dimensional tissue models and advanced computer simulations are more reflective of human biology, and the results are more consistent,” adds Baines.
The ECHA says that at the moment, accepted alternative methods only exist for acute and short-term effects, such as eye irritation, skin sensitization or bioaccumulation testing. “Animal tests are often still essential for assessing the long-term effects, such as organ damage, weakening of the immune system, development of allergies or asthma or reproductive problems and congenital disabilities.”
In defense of animals
Similarly, Unilever believes advances in science and technology can generate much more relevant safety data to protect people and the environment. It shares that it has developed and used non-animal methods for more than 40 years.
Baines explains that under the EC CSS, new data requirements are being set for assessing changes to the hormone system, neurotoxicity and immunotoxicology.
“To increase data requirements for cosmetics and others without – by default – emphasizing the necessity to rely only on non-animal assessment risks increases in animal testing and will also limit innovation in the field of safety testing without animals, contrary to objectives set out in the CSS.”
Furthermore, Baines stresses that approaches currently under discussion fail to acknowledge the extent of political support for phasing out animal testing – “70% of EU citizens want to see an end to the suffering of animals in laboratories.”
An EU official says that the CSS includes a strong commitment to promote alternatives and move away from unnecessary animal testing in the EU.
“In its recent resolution, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to draw up an EU-wide action plan to accelerate the active phase-out of the use of animals for scientific purposes by 2030, and in July 2020, in its resolution on the CSS, the Parliament noted that “the bans on testing on animals set by the Cosmetics Regulation must not be compromised by testing conducted under other legislation such as REACH.”
She continues by saying the Commission must accept that improved protection of human health and the environment can best be achieved by accelerating the transition to non-animal methods.
“We have to be optimistic that we can succeed. We won’t allow all this hard work to go to waste. The fight to protect animals from unnecessary harm is far from over. We won’t ever tire of raising our voice to the campaign,” concludes The Body Shop spokesperson.
Additionally, Members of Congress want the Food and Drug Administration to develop guidance to diminish animal testing for cosmetics, reports The Federal News Network. New York State awaits the governor’s signature to ban the sale and manufacture of cosmetics tested on animals.
By Venya Patel
