LONDON: The European Union had been on track to ban all animal-tested cosmetics, but according to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) UK, this appears to be changing. In 2003, the EU agreed ostensibly to ban all animal tests for cosmetics that would include the sale of cosmetics that had ingredients in them that had been tested on animals. Last year, the sales ban came into force, with certain exceptions for companies where tests were still permitted. The final deadline on the ban of all animal-tested cosmetics is to come into full force on March 11, 2013. “The sales ban means that not only are no cosmetics tests using animals now performed in Europe but also that non-EU companies hoping to export their products have to change their animal-testing ways too,” PETA UK said in a press release on Thursday. “That commercial pressure has driven the development of effective and humane non-animal test methods which can also be used for some drugs and other chemicals, stopping even more tests. “Most importantly, the ban puts animals' lives and well-being before vanity,” the statement read. It isn't all good news, however, as PETA reports the EU is looking into delaying the deadline for years, possibly indefinitely. The move comes after a “consultation” on technical aspects of the ban as a preliminary step to the final barring of animal-tested products. At the meeting, companies claimed that alternative testing methods have not been perfected. “Scandalously, that consultation sought only scientific information from experts on alternatives to animal tests, effectively excluding the millions of people who object to cosmetics testing on animals on compassionate and ethical grounds and who would rather not have yet another shampoo if it means animals will die,” said PETA UK. A former executive at a leading European cosmetics company told Bikya Masr on condition of anonymity that animal testing had reached its peak years ago and that there is little need to keep testing products. “What is needed is a look at the ingredients in these products,” the executive said. “We should be removing all the chemicals that actually ‘need' testing because they are probably harmful and so unnatural that they don't have to be there.” He has support from a wide range of scientists in Europe who have long talked on the hazardous materials in the products. “Animals rights groups are right that testing is horrible, but they should look at tactics that can convince even more consumers to not buy the shampoo with so many bad things in it,” the former executive added. BM
