COSMETICS and the USE of ANIMAL TESTING

Date: 9th September 2015

Preface

This replaces the original animal testing position paper written by Mr David Rennie (October 14, 1987) and approved by Mr Tony Merrington (President) 22nd October 1987 and Mr Ray Maio (Technical Committee Chairman) 10th November 1987. Although the ASCC position has not changed since this paper was first written, at the time of writing this revision brings the reader up-to-date with both the current and proposed regulatory situation and other recent events.

Position

The Australian Society of Cosmetic Chemists (ASCC) position is that, whilst there is legal, safety and ethical obligations with respect to animal testing, the ASCC supports the minimization of animal testing, the search for alternatives to animal tests, and the proposition that eventually cosmetic products should not be tested on animals. These are represented by the 3 “R”s:

1) Refinement (reduce to a minimum any possible hardship to animals);

2) Reduction (decrease the number of animals used for cosmetic approvals) and

3) Replacement (ultimately replace the tests by non-animal methods).

Qualification to Position

The biggest obstacle to the ASCC fully supporting any legislative change to ban animal testing in Australia is the Federal Department of Health – NICNAS requirement that all existing and new chemicals imported or used in Australia need to provide a degree of animal testing to ensure their safety with respect to handling, use and environmental disposal. Until this regulatory requirement is overcome then the creation of legislation to ban animal testing in Australia will be mutually exclusive with this requirement and cause great hardship to the cosmetic industry in Australia, stifling innovation and threatening the industry as it currently stands.

Animal testing of cosmetics and industrial chemicals

Animal testing of cosmetics has important scientific significance. The topic of animal testing also has considerable emotive and social impact. The ASCC, as the representative of Australian cosmetic chemists, has a cogent concern for this issue, which should take into account certain rational considerations.

1) Cosmetics make an important contribution to the welfare of people by improving their health, both physically (e.g. sunscreens, toothpaste, hygiene products) and psychologically, by means of personal care products which contribute to enhanced personal appearance, confidence and contentment. These factors are recognized as important in contributing to overall public health.

2) Cosmetic products must be validated for physiological safety prior to marketing, so as to protect the health and safety of consumers, including those who may inadvertently misuse a product (e.g. using a product for an unintended purpose or improper use by children), as well as safety for industry workers. This is a requirement imposed by Government regulations, but is also demanded by the general community as well as by the ethical considerations of industry members.

3) To provide the necessary assurance of physiological safety, toxicology testing needs to be carried out. Where possible, such testing utilises non-animal (in vitro) laboratory methods, or human volunteers. But where such methods are inadequate or may cause serious harm (to humans) and there is no validated in-vitro method available, the use of test animals may be required, as animal testing is still universally recognized as the most comprehensive and reliable procedure available at present for evaluating toxicological risk to humans.

4) The cosmetic industry, however, is only a marginal user of test animals, estimated in 1987 of 0.10-0.50% of total test animals. It should also be noted that cosmetic products, being mild by nature, do not tend to cause test animals any great harm. Often the materials used in the cosmetic industry have already been safety tested by other industries. Likewise, products that have not been tested themselves may use previously safety tested ingredients. Thus, apart from isolated cases no product can be developed without the involvement of some animal testing. Likewise, the industry cannot continue without the safety testing of its products.

5) In recognition of the moral obligations towards animals, codes of practice have been drawn up by governments, universities (through ethics committees) scientific and industry bodies to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals and to minimise avoidable hardship.

6) Furthermore, large scale efforts have been directed towards developing alternatives to the established animal tests. These are represented by the 3 “R”s: Refinement (of tests to minimize hardship); Reduction (of animal numbers) and Replacement (of animal tests). The cosmetic industry is among world leaders in this area of research with continuing contributions to universities and research institutions, as well as conducting extensive research within industry organisations.

An example of a major institution is Dept. of Toxicology, Dermato-Cosmetology and Pharmacognosy Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BE. supported by the European industry following Europe’s decision to ban the use of animal tests for cosmetics in 2009. These efforts have already resulted in major progress with reduced test numbers and advances towards the introduction of non-animal test methods.Refer to Appendix 2 for details.

Definition of Cosmetic

In recent press releases and from views expressed at recent public forums on the matter of animal testing of cosmetics the public appear to equate “cosmetics” to “make up” only, and may not be aware of the much broader definition under Australian law -

The definition of cosmetic in the IC(NA) Act:

(a) a substance or preparation intended for placement in contact with any external part of the human body, including:

(i) the mucous membranes of the oral cavity; and
(ii) the teeth;with a view to:
(iii) altering the odours of the body; or
(iv) changing its appearance; or
(v) cleansing it; or
(vi) maintaining it in good condition; or
(vii) perfuming it; or
(viii) protecting it; or

(b) a substance or preparation prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; but does not include:

(c) a therapeutic good within the meaning of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; or

(d) a substance or preparation prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.

Note: An ingredient or component of a cosmetic could be an industrial chemical.

This means “cosmetics” under Australian law include a large number of highly important everyday products, not just “vanity products” or “make up” as portrayed in the media. They include mouthwash, toothpaste, deodorant, antiperspirant, skin moisturiser, soap, skin cleansing and acne washes, hygiene powders, hand and feet emollients, anti-ageing cream, anti-wrinkle cream, face masks and scrubs, shampoo, hair conditioner, hair dye, shaving foams, depilatory cream, depilatory wax, antibacterial hand washes, baby care products, secondary sunscreen products with Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of 15 or less - hardly frivolous or vanity products.

NICNAS requirements

The extensive cross-section of materials covered by NICNAS regulations is spelt out on their website:

….. an industrial chemical is defined as any chemical that has an industrial use. Industrial chemicals include specialty chemicals, dyes, solvents, adhesives, plastics, laboratory chemicals, chemicals used in mineral and petroleum processing, refrigeration, printing and photocopying, paints and coatings, as well as chemicals used in the home, such as cleaning products, and cosmetics and toiletries.

That is, NICNAS cannot separate cosmetic materials used in products for human application, from the vast range of industrial chemicals used in all types of industrial and chemical processing (i.e. specialty chemicals, dyes, solvents, adhesives, plastics, laboratory chemicals, chemicals used in mineral and petroleum processing, refrigeration, printing and photocopying, paints and coatings, as well as chemicals used in the home, such as cleaning products).

The ASCC believes this poses unnecessary concern with respect to a multitude of gentle cosmetic materials and this will need to be reviewed to remove this anomaly.

Examples of where animal tests are required, by NICNAS, for new chemical assessment for approval, are found in the appendices. (for the complete list of NICNAS requirements please refer to Appendix 1).

In particular note,

NICNAS Appendix F: Data requirements for new chemicals applications.

SCHEDULE PART C (This part of the schedule specifies the health and environmental effects data you must submit as part of your Standard Notification application).
Ecotoxicity data
and
Fish, acute toxicity test (TG 203 or equivalent).

Recent Events

Before a Senate Estimates Committee (June 2nd 2014) a statement was made by the Director of NICNAS, Dr. Brian Richards, in answer to a question from Senator Lee Rhiannon

- Does NICNAS mandate by law that companies provide animal test data for local assessment of new ingredients or existing ingredients under safety review?.

Dr. Richards responded with the following (also recorded in Hansard):

.…NICNAS does not mandate anything by law. Parliament, as I understand it, passes the laws and NICNAS administers the laws as passed by parliament. The IC(NA) Act and associated regulations that have been enacted by the parliament do, at first glance, require certain data to be substantiated by animal testing, but the act also allows companies to apply to NICNAS for a variation of those data requirements and those data requirements are very frequently varied by NICNAS. I think it is fair to say that NICNAS has never insisted that a company conduct tests on animals in order to provide data.

NICNAS assesses a chemical based on the data that are able to be provided by a company. Clearly, if a company cannot provide sufficient data to allow a confident risk assessment to be undertaken then the restrictions that might be recommended by NICNAS to manage the associated uncertainty might be more onerous than conditions that might apply were a risk assessment able to be carried out with more precision.

”The Executive Director of Accord (Bronwyn Capanna) wrote to the Dr. Richards (13 June 2014) regarding these statements and resulting industry confusion relating to how his statement conflicted with direct company experiences where the agency has not only requested animal test data for new cosmetic ingredients, but has also recommended new animal tests be considered. The complete discussion of this can be found on the Accord website, contained within the Accord submission to the Australian Labor Party Cosmetics & Animal Testing Policy Consultation, August 2014.

Refhttp://www.accord.asn.au/members/resources/submissions/accord_submissions/2014_submissions/submission_to_alp_on_cosmetics

Conclusions

1) The Australian cosmetics industry does not use animal testing on finished products as a development requirement or routine safety testing regime and has not done so for many years, preferring to use non-animal (in vitro) laboratory methods, or human volunteers. Still, there is a legislative demand for some raw material ingredients to be tested on animals while no approved "non-animal" alternates for safety and environmental testing exists. These are generally done by international companies that import raw materials, and possibly cosmetics, into Australia.

2) The End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014, was introduced into the Australian Federal Senate March 18, 2014, as a private members bill, by Senator Lee Rhiannon (Federal Greens).

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s956

It is our view that this Bill does not take into consideration the issues, outlined above, with current legislation (particularly the ICNA Act) and may have consequences that could be disastrous for the entire cosmetics industry in Australia.

3) The ASCC supports the cosmetics industry’s continued strong commitment to minimize animal testing and to find alternatives to animal tests so that eventually cosmetic products need not be tested on animals. However the ASCC believes this must be done with carefully considered legislative changes that will not adversely affect the viability of the cosmetics industry in Australia, now or in the future.

4) The ASCC does not want to see the situation where, if animal testing is banned, a new ingredient or a product containing a new ingredient "necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health…" will be prevented from being introduced into Australia because a legislative requirement is interpreted by a Government department that it demand local animal testing to prove safety in use or environmental disposal.

5) This view is even more important when this testing may only be an un-necessary duplication of tests already conducted overseas. That is, if the material is approved for use by reputable international regulatory authorities, such as in the EU, Japan, USA, etc. Australian regulatory authorities should have greater acceptance of these international standards and risk assessments, promoting harmonization, cutting excess red-tape in Australia, and with subsequent savings in time and costs to business.

This long-held view of ASCC members has been supported from a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Abbott, October 2014, where he announced that “ministers will write to regulators in their respective portfolios and work with stakeholder groups to develop criteria to assess the acceptance or adoption of “trusted standards and assessments”.

The Government will adopt a new principle that if a system, service or product has been approved under a trusted international standard or risk assessment, then regulators should not impose any additional requirements for approval in Australia, unless it can be demonstrated that there is good reason to do so.

To date, businesses have had to undertake a regulatory duplication process to use or sell products in Australia that duplicates a process that already occurred in other developed countries. This adds to costs and provides little or no additional protection.

This new principle will ultimately remove regulatory duplication, reduce costs and delays to businesses and consumers, increase the supply of products into the Australian market and allow regulatory authorities to focus on higher priorities."

Other recent and relevant Federal and International Government Action.

Appendix 3 The Australian Labor Party Cosmetics and Animal Testing Policy Consultation Report

Appendix 4 Motion in Federal Senate by Senator Anne Ruston (Lib-SA) (November27, 2014)

Appendix 5 Senator Anne Ruston’s Media Release - Thursday 27 November 2014

Appendix 6 In a recent judgment, the High Court of Justice of England and Waleshas asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule on theinterpretation of the EU ban on animal testing of cosmetics productsand ingredients used in cosmetics.

Appendix 7 Senator Lee Rhiannon’s Media Release - Tuesday 23 June 2015

Appendix 8 Article "The hidden reality behind ‘cruelty-free’ cosmetics"

Ric Williams and Nick Urquhart

17 July 2015

Appendix 1

Excerpts from the NICNAS website (Regulations) pertaining to the requirement for tests to prove safety (including animal testing).

(NOTE: Green highlighted are tests which are no longer considered animal tests (no longer required).

Red highlighted are tests which currently have non-animal tests under development or none available.

Maroon highlighted are tests unique to Australia (and Canada) only).

NICNAS. Appendix F: Data requirements for new chemicals applications

Summary of how the chemical meets the definition of a hazardous substance

NICNAS legislation defines a hazardous substance as a 'hazardous chemical', which is then defined under the Act's regulations as a chemical that is:

classified as a hazardous substance under the Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances, 3rd edition, NOHSC:1008(2004)

included in the Hazardous Substances Information System published on the Safe Work Australia website.

From 1 January 2012 new Work Health and Safety laws commenced in a number of Australian jurisdictions, which require classification in accordance with the GHS. If only GHS information is available to the introducer, NICNAS will consider a chemical as a hazardous chemical if it satisfies the criteria for a hazard class in the GHS, except where that chemical satisfies the criteria solely for one of the following hazard classes:

a) flammable gases, category 2

b) acute toxicity—oral, category 5

c) acute toxicity—dermal, category 5

d) acute toxicity—inhalation, category 5

e) skin corrosion/irritation, category 3

f) serious eye damage/eye irritation, category 2B

g) aspiration hazard, category 2

h) hazardous to the aquatic environment, category acute 1, 2 or 3

i) hazardous to the aquatic environment, category chronic 1, 2, 3 or 4

j) hazardous to the ozone layer.

SCHEDULE PART C

This part of the schedule specifies the health and environmental effects data you must submit as part of your Standard Notification application.

You must provide complete study reports.

Acute toxicity data

Information on the acute toxicity of the chemical will give a measure of the toxic effects following short-term exposure and may indicate specific toxic effects and possible mode of action.

Tests must be relevant to the physical properties of the chemical and consider the way in which the chemical is to be used.

Exact LD50 values are not mandatory requirements and procedures such as a limit test to determine a minimum LD50 are acceptable.

Acute oral toxicity (TG 401 or equivalent)

Acute dermal toxicity (TG 402 or equivalent)

Acute inhalation toxicity (TG 403 or equivalent)

Skin irritation (TG 404 or equivalent)

Eye irritation (TG 405 or equivalent)

Skin sensitisation (TG 406 or 429 or equivalent)

Repeated dose toxicity (TG 407, TG 410, TG 412 or equivalent)

Induction of point mutations (TG 471 or equivalent)

Genotoxic damage in vivo (TG 474 or equivalent)

Chromosome damage (TG 473, TG 474, TG 479 or equivalent)

Fish, acute toxicity test (TG 203 or equivalent)

Daphnia, acute immobilisation test and reproduction test (TG 202 or equivalent)

Algal Growth Inhibition Test (TG 201 or equivalent)

Ready biodegradability (TG 301A-F or equivalent)

More specifically,

Ecotoxicity data

You need to provide information on the ecotoxicity of the chemical, to give a measure of the toxic effects on biotic systems.

When it is not possible to provide ecotoxicity data through testing of the chemical or a suitable analogue you can provide estimates derived from QSAR calculations. However, NICNAS will only accept QSAR calculations for ecotoxicity properties when information on the input parameters and calculation methods used are available for analysis. This ensures the methods used and results obtained are valid.

Fish, acute toxicity test (TG 203 or equivalent)

This assessment of the acute toxicity of the chemical to fish is made after continuously exposing them to a series of concentrations of the chemical in water over four days. Mortalities and abnormal responses are recorded over this period.

You must provide information and data that covers:

* measure of toxicity, for example, LC50 (in mg/L), with confidence limits

* number and species of fish used

* duration of exposure

* no-effect level (in mg/L)

* method

* results of testing, including:

* tabulation of mortality against concentration according to observation time

* concentration-mortality curve at end of test.

Appendix 2

These efforts have already resulted in major progress with reduced test numbers and advances towards the introduction of non-animal test methods.

From [1] How safe is safe enough for market presence?

“Cosmetics Business Regulatory Conference” Brussels – June 17&18, 2014

By Vera ROGIERS

Dept. of Toxicology, Dermato-Cosmetology and Pharmacognosy Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BE

What Validated 3R-Alternatives do we actually have?1

ACUTE TOXICITY

SKIN CORROSIVITY


SKIN IRRITATION

SKIN SENSITISATION


EYE IRRITATION


PHOTOTOXICITY 

DERMAL ABSORPTION

MUTAGENICITY/
GENOTOXICITY

CARCINOGENICITY

EMBRYOTOXICITY 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION

Fixed dose, acute toxic class, up-and-down

TER, EPISKINTM, EpiDermTM, Skin EthicTM,
epiCS (EST-1000TM)

EPISKINTM, modified EpiDermTM, Skin EthicTM RHE

LLNA also reduced and non-radioacRve LLNA {DPRA,
KERATINOSENS hCLAT, (MUSST): AOP strategy}

Screening tests for strong irritants (BCOP, ICE) AddiRonal tests: IRE, HET-­‐CAM, FLT, CM

3T3 NRU PT

In vitro (human/pig)

(Ames 
(In vitro mammalian cell mutaRon 
(In Vitro micronucleus 
(In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration

CTA Limited

WEC, MM, EST Limited

Oestrogenic Agonist Activity, LUMI-­‐CELL

What Validated Replacement Alternatives do we actually have?[1]

ACUTE TOXICITY

SKIN CORROSIVITY


SKIN IRRITATION

SKIN SENSITISATION



EYE IRRITATION


PHOTOTOXICITY 

DERMAL ABSORPTION

MUTAGENICITY/
GENOTOXICITY




CARCINOGENICITY

EMBRYOTOXICITY 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION

Fixed dose, acute toxic class, up-and-down

TER, EPISKINTM, EpiDermTM, Skin EthicTM,
epiCS (EST-1000TM)

EPISKINTM, modified EpiDermTM, Skin EthicTM RHE

LLNA also reduced and non-radioacRve LLNA {DPRA, KERATINOSENS hCLAT, (MUSST): AOP strategy}


Screening tests for strong irritants (BCOP, ICE) AddiRonal tests: IRE, HET-­‐CAM, FLT, CM

3T3 NRU PT

In vitro (human/pig)

(Ames (May give false results)
(In vitro mammalian cell mutaRon (May give false results)
(In Vitro micronucleus (May give false results)
(In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration (May give false results)

CTA Limited

WEC, MM, EST Limited

Oestrogenic Agonist Activity, LUMI-­‐CELL No end-point

Which Replacement Validated Alternatives are Lacking?1

Acute toxicity

Eye irritation (partly)

Skin sensitization (partly)

Subacute and subchronic toxicity (Needed for NOAEL*)

Chronic toxicity (Needed for NOAEL*)

Reproduction toxicity (Needed for NOAEL*)

Carcinogenicity

Toxicokinetics

Lack of alternatives for systemic and long-term toxicity testing

Problem for quantitative risk characterisation, in particular for Cosmetics containing new ingredients (testing & marketing ban) !!


*NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level)



Appendix 3

The Australian Labor Party Cosmetics and Animal Testing Policy Consultation Report

Executive Summary

The Australian Labor Party held a national consultation on cosmetics and animal testing between 10th July 2014 and 29th August 2014. The consultation had three parts;

• Public Submissions: 13,680 submissions were received.

• Public Forums: Public forums were held in six capital cities across Australia with between 30 and 90 people attending each forum.

• Stakeholder Submissions: Animal welfare groups; legal experts, and industry bodies (including ASCC members) made written submissions and also attended in-person meetings with MP’s.

In garnering the views of so many Australians thousands of views were heard. They cannot possibly be captured in detail in the report; instead the report concentrates on the ten themes that came up consistently during the consultation.

1. There is broad support for a ban on animal testing (92% in favour of banning animal testing).

2. Animal testing is seen as unnecessary.

3. There are several policy complexities that must be considered.

4. A retrospective ban is not desired.

5. There are differing views on exceptions, timeframes and legislative options.

6. There are several enforcement options.

7. There are precedents for change in other countries.

8. A ban represents an opportunity for industry and researchers.

9. Several related issues may require further consideration.

10. There is a strong call for action.

Labor will use the perspectives shared throughout the public consultation to inform development of policy options. These options are to be discussed with the Labor Caucus over the coming months.

For future updates please check the website; http://www.alp.org.au/cosmeticstesting

Clare O’Neil

17th September 2014

The full Policy Consultation Report can also be found on this website.

Appendix 4

Motion in Federal Senate (November 27, 2014)

On Thursday 27 November 2014 Senator Anne Ruston (Liberal Deputy Government Whip) passed a motion in the Federal Senate which states;

Motion

(1) The Senate notes:

a) The majority of Australians believe the use of animal testing to evaluate safety of cosmetic products and ingredients is unnecessary.

b) The regulatory framework in Australia for chemicals, including cosmetics, is complex.

(2) The Senate urges the Government to aspire to eliminate unnecessary animal test methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients.”

Appendix 5

Senator Anne Ruston’s Media Release - Thursday 27 November 2014

“Ruston calls for elimination of testing cosmetics on animals”

“A motion moved in Parliament today by Senator for South Australia Anne Ruston urges the Australian Government to investigate measures to eliminate testing of cosmetic products on animals in Australia.

“I think it’s time we acknowledged that most Australians consider testing cosmetic products or their ingredients on animals is unnecessary and – in many cases – cruel,” Senator Ruston said.

“This is not about relaxing safety standards. The safety of consumers must always be the priority consideration in the manufacture or sale of cosmetic products in Australia.

“This motion is aimed at ensuring that in the development of cosmetic products and ingredients in Australia, only those which can be verified as safe by using testing methods which do not involve animals should be allowed for manufacture and sale.

“The regulatory framework for cosmetics is unnecessarily complex and this motion is a first step in the process of unravelling the laws and regulations which require animal tests.”

Senator Ruston welcomed the strong support for the motion from her fellow senators Lee Rhiannon (Greens), Lisa Singh (Labor), Leader of the Palmer United Party (PUP) in the Senate, Glenn Lazarus, Zhenya Wang (PUP), Barry O’Sullivan (Nationals), Nick Xenophon and Ricky Muir (Motor Enthusiasts Party).

“I extend my thanks to my colleagues in the Senate for their support of this motion, particularly Senator Rhiannon who has been very active in this policy space,” she said. “The wide support for this motion is very encouraging and reflects what the public wants.

“It’s important to note that in aspiring to eliminate animal testing of cosmetics, there will need to be an inclusive and open consultation process with industry, consumers and other stakeholders. In my own consultation with stakeholders I’m convinced there is goodwill and support among them all to achieve this worthy goal.”

This motion, by Senator Ruston, indicates, to interested parties, that the investigation of the elimination of animal testing on cosmetics, is on the Liberal Government’s agenda for action.

Appendix 6

High Court refers questions about the scope of the ban on animal testing of cosmetics to the ECJ

In a recent judgment, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule on the interpretation of the EU ban on animal testing of cosmetics products and ingredients used in cosmetics. Animal rights campaigners condemn the legal action, which is seen as an attempt to weaken the EU ban.

Brought before the High Court by the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), the action concerned the interpretation of the EU ban on animal testing of cosmetic products and their ingredients. The Court concluded the claim involved a real issue and referred questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). [1]

Contained in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 on cosmetics products, the ban prohibits the marketing in the European Economic Area (EEA) of cosmetics products tested on animals or containing ingredients tested on animals. The questions referred concern the extent to which the ban applies to cosmetic ingredients tested on animals for the purposes of regulatory requirements imposed by non-EEA countries.

Actually, countries outside the European Union, such as China and Japan, may require some cosmetic ingredients to undergo certain tests, including tests on animals, to demonstrate the safety of those ingredients. According to EFfCI, there is uncertainty about whether placing cosmetic products incorporating these ingredients upon the market in the United Kingdom, or the rest of the European Union, would involve a breach of the prohibition imposed by Article 18(1)(b) of the Cosmetics Regulation.

The Humane Society International (HSI), animal rights group, said this action could undermine the EU’s historic cosmetics animal testing ban.

The industry’s legal action could be a potential disaster for animal welfare and is a betrayal of the clearly expressed desire by EU consumers to end cruel and needless animal testing for cosmetics no matter where in the world that animal testing is taking place. EFfCI’s case would undermine both the spirit and the letter of the EU ban, effectively allowing companies to continue testing cosmetics on animals abroad, and importing them back into the EU. We hope the ECJ will see fit to reject this case and find in favour of a strong and comprehensive ban,” explained Susie Wilks, HSI’s #BeCrueltyFree Policy Advisor.

The High Court’s judgement can be downloaded here:
http://www.premiumbeautynews.com/IMG/pdf/High-court-Judgment_4222.pdf?PHPSESSID=0ee6qe01qtecv6tviliatjoou2

Footnotes

[1] European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Attorney General [2014] EWHC 4222 (Admin)

Appendix 7

Dear Friend,

I have just introduced the Greens’ bill for an independent Office of Animal Welfare, an independent statutory authority with the responsibility for reviewing, advising and promoting the protection of animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities.

This Office is needed now more than ever, given the Abbott government is supporting a bill that will prosecute vets, media, animal protection groups and other members of the public who uncover and expose animal cruelty. That bill is nothing more than a move to protect the profits of industry at the expense of animal cruelty, and the Greens believe it should be rejected in its entirety.

As the Coalition continues to ignore systemic animal abuse in Australia and overseas, we need an independent statutory authority with the responsibility for protecting and promoting animal welfare.

This is why the Green’s bill for an independent Office of Animal Welfare is so important.

Our bill will help to protect the wellbeing and welfare of the animals that we use.

You can show your support for an independent Office of Animal Welfare by sharing this on Facebook.

I will continue to keep you posted on this campaign.

Thank you for your support.

Regards,

Lee

Authorised by L. Rhiannon 72 Campbell Street Surry Hills 2010

This email was sent to [email protected] To stop receiving emails, click here.

You can also keep up with Senator Lee Rhiannon on Twitter.

Appendix 8

The hidden reality behind ‘cruelty-free’ cosmetics

COSMETICS BUSINESS NEWS | EUROPE | REGULATORY

Abstract

Cruelty-free cosmetics can still result in testing on animals

Despite its positive connotations, cruelty-free does not always mean what the word implies, as Dr Julia Baines, Science Policy Advisor for PETA explains...

There was widespread celebration across Europe in 2013 when the EU ban on tests on animals for cosmetics and on sales of cosmetics tested on animals came into full force. But a statement released by the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) last October has destroyed the party atmosphere with a policy that flies in the face of the ban.

What many don’t know is that, under the guise of the REACH chemicals regulation (the world’s largest animal testing programme), tests on animals are permitted for chemicals used exclusively in cosmetics where there is a possibility of workforce exposure during the manufacturing process. For cosmetic ingredients used in other types of products, tests on animals are permitted regardless of any workforce exposure risk, inferring that the REACH regulation overrides the ban on tests on animals.

This is a small extract of the full article which is available only to premium content subscribers of “Cosmetics Business” newsletters.