Strasbourg, 05/04/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament adopted at first reading (codecision procedure), on 3 April, the report devoted to Dagmar Roth-Behrend (PES, Germany) on the proposal amendment to the 1976 directive on cosmetic products. Although the amendments considerably toughen the provision recommended by the Commission, they nonetheless leave industry a certain amount of time to adjust to the situation that will be created by the absolute ban on animal testing. This explains why the vote was relatively well received by industry and by animal rights campaigners.
The marketing of cosmetic products tested on animals has in principle been banned since 1998 following implementation of the provisions of the sixth amendment to the Directive 76/768/EEC. The ban, however, was not applied until now. In order to explain this situation, the European Commission puts forward the lack of alternative testing methods and the problem of lack of conformity of Community provisions with those of the WTO. In order to remedy this, it recommends in a proposal for a seventh amendment, which is the subject of a report by Ms Roth-Behrendt: - a permanent and definitive ban on animal testing for finished cosmetic products; a definitive ban on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients three years after the implementation of the directive by member States (with the possibility of extending this by two years failing validated alternative testing methods); - the compulsory use of such methods for tests on cosmetic ingredients as soon as they are validated at European level.
The amendments adopted by the Parliament provide not only for application of the existing legislation but also for abolition of the possibility of extending by two years the time preceding introduction of the definitive ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients (this ban would apply as of 31 December 2004), and the ban on marketing over the next five years of products tested on animals even if alternative methods are not available. As far as the application of the regulation in the context of WTO is concerned, the Parliament considers that third world producers must be treated in the same way as Community producers. Another amendment calls on manufacturers that carried out tests on animals after the date when the directive took effect to state on the product label that the products were "tested on animals" in clearly legible letters covering at least 20% of the surface area of the packaging. The Parliament calls for funds from the 6th Framework Programme for Research to be used to allow for the development of new methods of testing other than on animals. It also hopes that the labelling will show the ingredients of the cosmetic products for the consumer's information. Finally, an amendment calls for the labelling to show allergenic products contained in perfumes.
Ms Roth-Behrendt rejected the accusations that the directive would violate WTO regulations. She referred to an American law recently adopted called the "dog and cat fur act", which bans the production and importation of fur from dogs and cats justified by the fact that such products run counter to public morality and the protection of animals. The same criteria should apply to tests on animals, says Ms Behrendt, MEP.
It should be noted that, at the beginning of the vote, an amendment proposed by the EPP/ED Group, calling for the rejection of the Commission proposal as a whole was rejected by 132 votes to 191 and 8 abstentions. Commenting on the vote, John Bowis (EPP, UK) said that, at this stage, the Commission proposal will simply have the effect of relocating animal testing outside the Union, in countries where regulation is less clement. He said animal testing should be gradually phased out according to a reasonable timetable and as soon as alternatives are available to protect human health and ensure animal wellbeing.
Speaking before the press, Ms Roth-Behrendt had criticised those who, for example in Germany and the United Kingdom, call out loud and clear for animal protection but say nothing when the industry carries out tests on animals. It is difficult for French colleagues in Parliament, she said, as L'Oréal, for example, is a very large employer. She added: "they have certainly received clear instructions about how to behave" (which caused a strong reaction from French Socialist Pervenche Berès, who told a small group of journalists that such accusations were unfounded). We should bring into play a stage-by-stage ban, she said, with the guillotine of the ban at the end. To those who wonder why the Parliament is only attacking the industry for cosmetic products and not, for example, the pharmaceuticals industry or the household products industry, which also do testing on animals, she said that these are false arguments. We must take "one thing at a time"; now, we must decide on the directive concerning cosmetics. It is moreover possible that we shall act differently for pharmaceutical products, she acknowledged. Ms. Roth-Behrendt also rejected criticisms from those who feared job-losses in the cosmetic products industry. Here, we are talking about the future, and products manufactured due to tests on animals remain on the market and may continue to be sold, she stressed, denouncing the "cannibalism" of an industry that "eats its own products" to launch new ones, simply to gain additional market segments, and noting that it was hardly possible to know what such a development would lead to in terms of jobs. "I do not believe that my proposals strangle the industry", Ms. Roth-Behrendt went on. Then, regarding the ban on the marketing of products tested on animals when alternative methods could be used, so as to prevent the sale on the Community market of such products from third countries, she stipulated: "I'm calling for a halt to tests on animals, I'm not forcing anyone to do so, I'm simply telling them that their products will not be allowed to be sold here…"
Colipa, association that defends the interests of the cosmetics sector at European level, declared that it was satisfied that Parliament should have taken account of some of its concerns. Its Secretary-General declared that "a total ban on animal experimentation for ingredients, whereas there are no alternative methods, would have had the effect of placing consumer safety in danger" adding that "the best way of achieving animal welfare is to pursue research in view of developing alternative methods of experimentation". As for the association Eurogroup for animal welfare, it welcomed the willingness expressed by Parliament to see the EU put an end to the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.