Update 12/5/23 – I have been contacted directly by Steve at Cruelty Free International regarding the issue of UK animal testing for cosmetics.  I show his full response below which covers how the UK government “Home Office disclosed that it had been secretly granting licences to test for cosmetics since February 2019”.

I have also included additional info from the CFI site and also a link to the site.  They have actions which you can take, so I suggest that a visit there is a good starter.  Obviously, people can write to their own MP’s about this all based on the info provided.

Regards Mark.

Comment:

Hi Mark

Re: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2023/05/11/uk-official-victory-stuff-europe-animal-testing-for-cosmetics-will-not-resume-in-the-uk-government-statement/

Cruelty Free International issued the following statement yesterday:

“Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is misinformed about the Government’s position on animal testing for cosmetics. A policy banning such tests was first introduced in 1998. However, in a letter to Cruelty Free International in August 2021, the Home Office admitted that the policy had ‘changed’ (i.e. been abandoned), to bring the UK into line with an EU ruling in a case called Symrise.

“When Cruelty Free International challenged the new approach in a recent judicial review, the Home Office disclosed that it had been secretly granting licences to test for cosmetics since February 2019. A High Court judge ruled that legally it was entitled to, based on his interpretation of EU general chemicals legislation known as REACH and its relationship with the EU Cosmetics Regulation.

“Importantly, however, the judge also said that there was nothing to prevent the Government from reinstating the policy ban. This is what the Government said in 2015 in the context of another judicial review:

‘… For the avoidance of any doubt, we are advising you that the current UK ban on testing cosmetics in animals is an absolute ban… No licence authorising the testing of cosmetics (finished products or ingredients) has been issued since 1998 … The UK’s policy ban remains in place even where EU legislation would appear to require or permit such testing’.

“The Government also said separately that the policy applied to worker safety testing. The Prime Minister’s statement refers to tests ‘for the consumer’. Whether labelled as consumer or worker safety, the animal tests are identical. The Government is now unquestionably once more allowing cosmetics testing on animals for the benefit of consumers.

“The 2015 statements constitute the policy the Government abandoned in 2019, paving the way for cosmetics testing on animals once again.

All the PM needs to do is to reinstate the policy. The Government does not have to slavishly follow legislation coming from the EU. It should do what the overwhelming majority of British people want.”

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Regards

Steve

Additional:

UK government admits it secretly abandoned cosmetics animal testing ban in 2019 | Cruelty Free International

The UK government has admitted that it secretly abandoned the UK’s ban on animal testing for cosmetics in 2019 – but as part of the ruling in our Judicial Review of the policy, a High Court judge has told the Home Office that it can reinstate the ban.

Click on the above link to continue reading more from CFI.

CFI website:

https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/

Regards Mark

Reproduced from a BBC article – link given at end.

Animal tests for makeup resume after 25-year ban

By Esme Stallard

Climate and Science Reporter, BBC News

5 May 2023

The government has allowed animal testing for makeup ingredients to resume despite a 25-year ban.

It changed a policy on animal testing to align with EU chemical rules, according to a High Court ruling.

The High Court said on Friday that the government was acting legally after a case was brought by animal rights activists.

More than 80 brands have said they are “dismayed” by the government’s new position.

A Home Office spokesperson told the BBC: “We are pleased that the High Court has agreed with the Government’s position in this case. The government is committed to the protection of animals in science”.

Animal testing for makeup or its ingredients had been completely banned in the UK since 1998. Animal testing had only been allowed if the benefits gained from the research outweighed any animal suffering, for example for medicines.

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.

During the case it was revealed that since 2019 the government had been issuing licences for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients in line with EU chemical rules, which it retained despite leaving the EU in 2020.

This could include testing chemicals commonly found in foundations and concealers by forcing rats to inhale or ingest them.

It is not known how many such licenses were issued or to whom.

Cruelty Free International (CFI), which brought the case, argued this was illegal and in breach of the animal testing ban for makeup and its ingredients, which has stood since 1998.

Mr Justice Linden ruled in favour of the government, saying that the change in policy still met existing laws, although he said it was “regrettable” the public had not been informed.

The change in the government’s position has been heavily criticised by major beauty and cosmetic brands, including Unilever, Body Shop and Boots. Most major brands have long campaigned to end animal testing.

Cruelty Free International said it was “outrageous” that the government had effectively lifted the ban.

Christopher Davis, director of activism and sustainability at the Body Shop said they would “campaign vigorously” against the changes.

“Allowing animal testing for cosmetics would be a devastating blow to the millions of people who have supported campaigns to end this appalling practice,” he told the BBC after the ruling.

The ingredients that may be tested on animals include homosalate – a common sunscreen ingredient used already in many foundations and skincare products.

In low doses homosalate is safe but in higher concentrations the evidence for its impact on the human immune system are inconclusive.

Manufacturers can now apply for licenses to undertake animal testing before production begins, to ensure the safety of workers. But they still cannot undertake any animal testing to check the safety of the makeup for consumers. This should be done using other methods.

Mr Justice Linden said that nothing was stopping the government from introducing an absolute ban on animal testing of makeup products if it desired.

Cruelty Free International CEO Michelle Thew said: “The case shows clearly that [the government] was prioritising the interests of contract-testing companies over those of animals and the wishes of the vast majority of British people who are strongly opposed to cosmetics testing.”

CFI said it would appeal the decision made by the court and ask the government to reinstate the complete ban in the UK.Dr Julia Fentem, head of the safety and environmental assurance centre at Unilever – one of the world’s largest cosmetic companies – said tests potentially required under the new policy were “unnecessary”, and that safety tests could be carried out without animal involvement.

A new chemicals strategy is expected to be published this year outlining the government’s position on the use and testing of chemicals in the UK – which may include further guidance to cosmetic companies.

Animal tests for makeup resume after 25-year ban – BBC News

Also read  Animal testing for make-up restarts in UK after 25-year ban (msn.com)

Regards Mark

7 April 2023

In the year of the onset of the pandemic, many scientific projects that had planned to use animals were cancelled or postponed, though a number of new studies involving animals were carried out for projects studying COVID-19.

The European Commission has published its statistical report on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the 27 EU Member States and Norway in 2020. This is the first year that data from the United Kingdom – a major user of animals – are no longer included. Four of the 12 countries that saw an increase in the number of animals used, attribute the increase to additional research projects related to COVID-19. 

In 2020, 7,938,064 animals were used for the first time in research, testing and education in the EU-27 and Norway. Although this represents a decrease of 7.5% compared to 2019, multiple factors relating to the COVID-19 pandemic makes comparisons with previous years difficult. National measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were at least partly responsible for the decrease in the number of animals used for scientific purposes in 11 Member States. 1.8 million animals used for scientific purposes were genetically altered, including mice, zebrafish and other species of fish, rats, amphibians, domestic fowl, rabbits, and pigs.

Another 686,628 animals were reported to be used for the creation and maintenance of genetically altered (GA) animal lines, representing an increase of 4% from 2019. In contrast to previous years, marmosets and tamarins were not reported to be used for the creation of new GA animal lines in 2020. It should be noted, however, that animals used for the maintenance of GA animal lines not displaying a harmful phenotype or not genotyped using an invasive method remain outside the scope of the annual statistical reporting. Also, the European Commission acknowledges that the accurate reporting of animals involved in the maintenance of existing GA lines continues to be particularly challenging.

The report describes considerable new increases in uses of many species. The use of horses, donkeys and cross-breeds increased by 176%, and the use of cats continued the upward trend, increasing by a further 15%. The use of hamsters and other carnivores increased by 66% and 59% respectively. The use of dogs and non-human primates, however, decreased by 16% and 10% respectively. There was also a significant decrease of 90% in the use of cephalopods, which had seen a major increase in 2019.

The main species used for scientific purposes were mice, fish, rats and birds, which together represented 91% of the total number of animals. As in previous years, more than 70% of animals were used for research purposes, of which approximately 40% were used for basic research and 30% for translational and applied research. A further 17% of uses of animals were for regulatory purposes to satisfy legal requirements. The percentage of uses that caused ‘severe’ suffering remained around 10% (796,750 uses). 

Non-human primates continue to be used in the largest numbers to satisfy regulatory requirements for medicinal products for human use (59%), and also for routine production, mostly for blood based products (13%), for studying human infectious disorders (11%), and for other basic research (4%). 81% of the non-human primates used for scientific purposes were born in Asia and Africa, before being transported to laboratories in the EU. Although the Directive encourages movement towards only using non-human primates who have been bred, ultimately, in self-sustaining colonies, the proportion of non-human primates coming from self-sustaining colonies is still low, and decreased by 15% from the previous year. However, inaccurate reporting of information, and a misunderstanding of the term ‘self-sustaining colony’ may have resulted in some fluctuation in numbers over time. 

The use of an animal in any procedure where a validated alternative method, that either avoids the use of animals altogether, or reduces their use and suffering, will always be of particular concern. Nearly 42,000 mice were used in 2020 for the production of monoclonal antibodies using the mouse ascites method, mainly in France (95%). The continued use of this method is of serious concern, even more so as the figure actually represents an increase of 12% from the previous year, and because alternative approaches are available to replace the mouse ascites method. A more positive trend is seen in the uses of rabbits for pyrogenicity tests, which decreased by 21%, but it is clear that more efforts should be made to speed up the transition to non-animal methods.

As in previous years, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark remain the EU Member States with the highest number of animals used for scientific purposes, with more than 5.3 million animals used between them in 2020. However, a recent opinion poll carried out in these 8 Member States highlighted the public’s strong desire to accelerate the full replacement of animals used for scientific purposes and transition to non-animal science.

Regards Mark