A policy which banned animal testing for cosmetic products in 1998 could be reversed to verify the safety of popular ingredients in makeup and skincare.
Animal testing has been considered a controversial practice since the 1960s.
While it is generally accepted in global scientific research for the purpose of developing prescription medicine, using live creatures to test the safety of beauty products is largely viewed as unethical.
For that reason, more than forty countries – including every country in the EU – have banned or strictly limited cosmetic animal testing.
Despite this, over half a million animals are used for this purpose each year in places such as the USA and China.
Last year, The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) suggested that two substances only found in cosmetic products need to be tested to see if they are safe for humans.
To satisfy chemical regulations put in place by the ECHA, a German firm called Symrise carried out animal tests for the pair of chemicals, once of which acts as a UV filter.
Technically, this was a breach of the EUβs policy which restricts animal testing for cosmetics – but it was allowed to go ahead in the interest of public health.
Now, ministers are considering softening current animal testing bans in the UK to align itself with the EUβs new chemical regulations.
The decision has been met with anger and disappointment from campaigners who had previously labelled the UK as a leader in animal rights and protection policies.
The charity Cruelty Free International (CFI) has called reverting to βcruel and unjustifiableβ animal testing a βmockery of the countryβs quest to be at the cutting edge of research and innovationβ.
There are roughly 100 cosmetics-only ingredients that could need safety checks under ECHAβs regulations – meaning thousands of animals could suffer in the process.
Although Brexit means that the UK is no longer required to adhere to EU standards, it wouldnβt be unreasonable to assume the government will follow its neighbourβs standards regarding health and safety in the future.
The fact that the products we lather onto our faces everyday may contain unregulated and potentially harmful chemicals is worrying.
At the same time, most can agree that our own vanity shouldnβt mean subjecting other living beings to a life of harmful testing regimes within the stressful environment of a laboratory.
Animal testing on cosmetics to be bought back post Brexit.
This was made illegal by the UK Labour government proposal to the EU nearly 25 years ago.
Truthfully, there is no reason to regress back to animal testing.
In fact, 84 percent of people surveyed in 2020 said they would not buy a product if they knew it was tested on animals.
Many beauty brands already pride themselves on being cruelty-free, using natural ingredients or requesting human volunteers to test products in their developmental stages.
The UKβs adherence to the EUβs regulations is not yet set in stone, but we can all play our part in resisting unethical practices by avoiding products that take part in them.
You can find a comprehensive and regularly updated list of cruelty-free beauty brands here. And why not check out this guide to choosing cruelty-free beauty products by CocoKind while you’re at it?
Iβm Jessica (She/Her). I’m the Deputy Editor & Content Partnership Manager at Thred. Originally from the island of Bermuda, I specialise in writing about ocean health and marine conservation, but you can also find me delving into pop culture, health and wellness, plus sustainability in the beauty and fashion industries. Follow me on Twitter, LinkedIn and drop me some ideas/feedback via email.
In efforts to cut company emissions and pollution by 2050, the denim brand Levi Strauss & Co. has announced its new climate transition plan detailing its road to net-zero.
Itβs no secret that the fashion industry is now one of the worldβs most unsustainable, with textile waste, pollution, and greenwashing all being unfortunately common practices.
Consumers have become more conscious of how their environmental impact is impacted by their shopping choices,...
Actor Lily Gladstone has called out Valentino, the latest brand to copy Indigenous designers. Protecting these cultural crafts from the capitalist machine is a longstanding βΒ and often exhausting βΒ battle.Β
By now, itβs a familiar cycle: a fashion house unveils its latest collection, the press fawns, social media unearths its problematic roots, and the brand issues a half-hearted statement about inspiration versus appropriation.
This week, it was Valentinoβs turn under the microscope,...
From the 1874 Ugly Girl Papers to the overt normalisation β and promotion β of harmful practices such as preventative botox, are we looking at the end of variety and youth in faces which have all been touched by the same needle?
βThe first requisite in a woman toward pleasing others is that she should be pleased with herself,β begins chapter one of The Ugly Girl Papers;...
Scientists from one of the worldβs leading conservation bodies have condemned London Fashion Weekβs decision, warning that itβs ill-informed and that exotic animal skins are often far more sustainable than alternatives such as leather and synthetic materials.
Amid continued protests against the use of exotic skins (think snake, crocodile, and other reptile species) in fashion, many brands, celebrities, and designers have chosen to begin pivoting away from it.
Years of animal...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
0 comments
