Animal testing for cosmetics restarted in UK

[Silverbook]

Surely I’m not the only one horrified by this? To be clear- this is NOT for medical purposes but for make up? Surely if industries have managed to safely produce make up, without using animal experiments in the last 25 years (while under EU guidelines), they can continue to do so?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65484552

Have you actually read the article? The ban was overturned to comply with EU law. It is the EU that have allowed animal testing to be resumed.

You apparently ran a campaign and yet can’t seem to read an article. It’s nothing to do with the Tories. It’s an EU law and the ruling was made by judges.

Christ alive I despair of the average reading comprehension on here.

Bloody hell. And people like you have the vote.

Of course I read the article @SoupedUpSue. We are no longer in the EU. We no longer have a veto there or control anything they do. We apparently have Sovereignty now.

That makes this legistlation doubly retrograde. It wipes away the strides made by people like me in the 80s and 90s. It also makes a mockery of us leaving the EU to set our own laws.

It has everything to do with the Tories who are the UK government who won the case for Animal Testing. Did you read the article?

Oh no I didn't know this. That's awful and so frustrating

Christ alive I despair of the average reading comprehension on here

🙈🙈🙈

I don't really understand that report. Can someone explain? Are they saying they don't test the products on animals but they test some of the ingredients before making the products for the safety of the workforce not the purchasers? But that's just testing by the back door, isn't it? If they're testing the ingredients, then they're as good as testing the product.
It's absolutely appalling. Just as you think this govt can go no lower, it manages to slink its body into the sludge.

No, this is to do with UK/ EU chemical regulation. It will be related to the REACH regulation which mandates that companies that put chemicals on the market understand the risks and hazards associated with those chemicals. For chemicals used in large volumes, animal testing is usually required to to demonstrate this (I.e. is there a risk to human health or the environment). It seems that the reason for animal testing here is coming from worker exposure to when the chemical (not the cosmetic product) is being manufactured. So it’s the cosmetic ingredient that would be tested rather than the cosmetic itself.

So
Companies who do not test products on animals - this is true BUT they use known ingredients that have already been tested on animals by someone else.

@SoupedUpSue
I've got to admit I asked someone to explain to me because I didn't understand what was being claimed. (My excuse - it's been a long day!)
So are you referring to thus?

But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients.

I understand the govt complied because it wants to be able to export to the EU, but they should be more clear. (And, anyway, we have more than enough sunscreens.) Are these licences solely for this or will it be slow creep and they'll overturn the ban by the back door?

But it's the EU that's allowing animal testing. In fact, it's mandating animal testing to some extent. And yes we should overrule it, but if we want to sell into the EU, which I assume you do, we have to have had those chemicals tested.

But it's the EU that has brought these changes in.

This Tory government have ended the ban on animal testing for cosmetics in the UK @PollyPeptide. No one is to blame for that but the Conservatives.

Next thing you know we'll be breeding fur and exporting veal in crates again.

There's a petition on petition parliament website
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/133879905/signed

I work in interpreting chemical regs and there’s a general misunderstanding in the public re animal testing of cosmetics.

Substances in ALL chemical products in the EU are tested on animals. These substances are in all kinds of things: window cleaner, cleaning spray, car engine oil, you name it.

Whatever substance is only tested on animals ONCE (not defending this just stating the process.) Then other companies buy into the data.

Products themselves are not tested on animals. When companies such as Lush say their products arenot tested on animals, this is meaningless marketing BS because no one tests their finished products on animals. Lush will either buy into or use for free, data on the substances they put into the products they make. So they’re still taking advantage of animal testing technically.

Until recently, substances tested on animals where substance was solely used in cosmetics was not allowed. But if the data was existing for other product types the cosmetic companies could buy into it. Now testing is allowed but you’ve got to have a strong case such as not being able to extrapolate from existing data/ data from similar substances / theoretical calculations.

So there’s a lot of outcry now about now allowing testing of cosmetic substances on animals. Which won’t be that many as a lot of the data already exists. But what people may be less aware of is that whilst this debate goes on, all the other types of chemical products (and that’s a lot) have substances that have been tested or will be tested on animals.

Also Uk law copied all the EU laws following Brexit.

I’m not saying animal testing is right, just outlining the process.

The EU and UK are trying to move away fromanimal testing but it’s moving slower than desired tbh.

I don't think that's right. The EU said that certain chemicals have to be tested. I guess here it's for chemical sunscreens. Sunscreens are classified as cosmetics in the UK and spfs are found in foundation and concealers. That doesn't mean you're testing makeup. They're not testing the foundation or concealers. They're testing the chemical in the spf. And there does seem to be a constant chasing of new chemicals. The US FDA won't allow many, if any, EU chemical sunscreens to be sold in the US because they have doubts over these chemicals being used. There are tons of sunscreens still tested on animals.

As concerning as this is and I strongly support the cases brought in the EU and the UK to oppose these licences, it's not, as yet, any indication that animal testing will be resumed in this country - or indeed the EU.

Since 2019 the UK government have been issuing licences for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients. We don't know how many licences have been issued or who has received them @PollyPeptide. So how do you know who is testing what?

It's not as though our government has been open or transparent in any of this.

You do realise they just rear the animals in the uk before carting them off elsewhere anyway? It’s savage and I guess at least will eliminate a stressful transit before they’re tortured further. The industry is absolutely huge in the uk they’ve just never been able to directly do the testing here. These people walk among us in everyday life!!!

We haven't managed for 25 years, any company that wells in China has tested its products on animals, not here, but in other countries.

The leaping bunny means that the product is not tested on animals.

Until 2009 ingredients could still be tested on animals and be labeled as not tested on animals, although I don't think you could use the bunny logo.

This ^

First of all, you say the uk is responsible for introducing this testing. That's incorrect. It's the EU that introduced it before we'd left. They've already been taken to court to overturn the introduction of this testing and the plaintiff lost. At least lay blame equally where it should fall. Like the rest of the EU we were issuing licenses before Brexit had occurred. And if we'd stayed in the EU, we'd still be in the same position today.

It has always been my stance that animal testing should be stopped, not just on chemicals (I find unilever quite hypocritical), but on medical research too. It's true we don't know what's been tested but we know why it started and its intent was not to start testing on all makeup. It was for specific chemicals within spf products. Do I agree with that? No. But theres absolutely no reason to believe its going to lead to a free for all on makeup testing.

What makes it so difficult is the opaqueness of the language the govt uses. They are overruling Acts of 40 years ago to say if a foreign regulator requires a product to be tested, it must be. Clearly here it relates to the EU and the sunscreen ingredients. But what happens if other large economies like China demands things?

I'm always concerned when govts speak in waffle and talk of strategies. I see long grass. I feel so disappointed and let down by the UK and EU.

You will never stop animal testing for medicines, there are things you just cannot test with other methods eg zebrafish can regenerate heart muscle, knowing how and why has huge implications for humans.

The short lifespan of some animals lends them to research on Alzheimer's, fruit flies are often used as their natural life span is about 40 days rather than the 80 years of humans.

Shame on the uk. Moving backwards. Please only buy leaping bunny products.

Do you actually bother to read things before commenting?

It has always been my stance that animal testing should be stopped, not just on chemicals (I find unilever quite hypocritical), but on medical research too

Yet the outcry from the many people who objected to bring "guinea pigs" when the first covid vaccines were produced shows that a lot of people wouldn't agree with you.

Thank you for your explanation @Reachh