Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-First Report


TWENTY-FIRST REPORT

The European Scrutiny Committee has made further progress in the matter referred to it and has agreed to the following Report:—


ANIMAL TESTING AND COSMETIC PRODUCTS



(21170)
7716/00
COM(00) 189

Draft Council Directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products.


Legal base: Articles 95, 152(1) and 153(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
Document originated: 5 April 2000
Forwarded to the Council: 7 April 2000
Deposited in Parliament: 27 April 2000
Department: Trade and Industry
Basis of consideration: EM of 11 May 2000
Previous Committee Report: None
To be discussed in Council: Following receipt of European Parliament opinion
Committee's assessment: Legally and politically important
Committee's decision: Not cleared; further information requested

Background

  1.1  The main aim of Council Directive 76/768/EC[8] is to protect public health by specifying the conditions under which cosmetic products may be marketed within the Community. It includes provisions governing their contents, labelling, conditions for use, whilst methods for testing composition and purity are laid down in subordinate Commission legislation. The Directive has subsequently been amended on a number of occasions, and, in response to growing animal welfare concerns, the most recent (sixth) amendment following the adoption of Council Directive 93/35/EC[9] introduced with effect from 1 January 1998 a ban on the marketing of such products if they contain ingredients (or combinations of ingredients) which have been tested on animals. Directive 93/35/EC did, however, allow that date to be postponed if there had in the meantime been insufficient progress in developing satisfactory methods to replace animal testing, and Commission Directive 97/41/EC subsequently extended the implementation date to 30 June 2000. However, as a result of doubts which have arisen over the drafting and enforceability of the sixth amendment, the Commission has now proposed that the main Council Directive should be amended, and that, pending adoption of the proposed change, the implementation date for the existing measure should be deferred for a further two years to 30 June 2002.

The current proposal

  1.2  In presenting its latest proposal, the Commission highlights that the two chief considerations which need to be taken into account in this area are consumer safety and animal welfare. It stresses that it is not possible to abandon safety testing, either in relation to new substances or to new data which might appear on existing substances, but that the reduction (and the elimination "wherever and as soon as possible") of animal suffering in the testing process is an objective common to all parties involved.

  1.3  However, the Commission also says that, for any measures to be effective and enforceable, it is also necessary to take account of the constraints arising from compliance with international trade rules, and in particular those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). According to the Commission, the latter forbid any discriminatory measures between similar products, and more especially state that imported products shall be treated no less favourably than like products of national origin. The Commission then goes on to suggest that, as the test method does not have any physical effect on cosmetic products, a prohibition based on whether or not ingredients have been tested on animals, and which applies irrespective of whether such products have been manufactured in the Community or imported from third countries, could be considered to be contrary to WTO rules.

  1.4  It has therefore proposed that the intended prohibition on the marketing of products whose ingredients have been tested on animals should be rescinded, but that instead:

  • the performance of tests on animals on the territory of the Member States should be prohibited so far as finished cosmetic products are concerned (on the grounds that their safety can already be assessed from knowledge of their ingredients and by methods which do not involve the use of animals);

  • in the case of ingredients (where suitable alternative tests are not yet available), tests on animals should be prohibited once an alternative method has been scientifically validated, but that, even if such a method has not been agreed, the proposed prohibition should come into force after three years (or five years, if there has still been insufficient progress in developing satisfactory methods to replace animal testing).

  1.5  The Commission recognises that these prohibitions would not apply to imported products, but it says that, once methods not involving animals have been validated within the Community, it will make efforts within the OECD and in bilateral negotiation to secure their international acceptance as well as mutual recognition of test data. In addition, it is proposing to improve consumer information by setting out guidelines to prevent misleading claims by manufacturers about the testing methods used.

The Government's view

  1.6  In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 May 2000, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry (Dr Howells) says that all of the three key issues are already in line with UK practice, and in particular that this country already has a voluntary ban in place, which prevents the testing on animals of any cosmetic product or ingredients or combinations of ingredients. He thus regards the policy implications of the proposal as limited, but says that, unlike the marketing ban introduced by the existing sixth amendment, it is WTO compatible, and hence avoids the prospect of retaliatory action against Community trade by any WTO members wishing to challenge it. He also points out that three alternative tests are available to ensure the safety of cosmetic products; that for those areas where such alternatives are not yet available, data from animal tests in previous years is relied upon; and that, where manufacturers believe they need to carry out animal tests, this is done outside the UK and increasingly outside the Community.

  1.7  The Minister has also provided with his Explanatory Memorandum an interim Regulatory Impact Assessment, pending the comprehensive consultation which it is planned to carry out with the industry. However, given the voluntary ban which already exists, he does not consider industry would experience any direct costs as a result of the proposal, except perhaps as regards labelling (though these are not expected to be significant). According to the Assessment, the main costs are likely to fall on enforcement authorities, but these are put at no more than £40,000 a year.

Conclusion

  1.8  We note that the Government considers the proposal will have limited policy implications within the UK, and of course we welcome its aim of reducing, and eventually eliminating, tests in this area involving animals. However, before clearing it, we would like further clarification on three aspects of the proposal.

  1.9  First, the existing prohibition on marketing would have affected both products produced within the Community and those imported from third countries, and thus does not appear to treat the latter less favourably than the former. In view of this, we would like the Minister to provide a more convincing explanation than that supplied by the Commission as to precisely why the intended measure should be regarded as susceptible to challenge within the WTO.

  1.10  Secondly, the circumstances in which the ban on testing ingredients on animals would actually come into effect are far from clear. On the one hand, the proposal envisages this would occur when alternative test methods are available, but it then appears to impose a three year deadline, regardless of whether an alternative method has been validated by then. Having done that, it also provides for a further two year postponement if insufficient progress has still been made in developing satisfactory alternative methods. Does this last provision not undermine the point of the initial three year deadline; and does it also mean that the prohibition would come into force after five years irrespective of whether alternative methods are available at that stage?

  1.11  Thirdly, the Minister indicates that, where cosmetic manufacturers believe they need to carry out animal tests, this is done outside the UK and increasingly outside the Community. We would be concerned if such a practice were to weaken the impact of the current voluntary ban within the UK, and we would be interested to know how widespread it is.


8   OJ No. L 262, 27.9.76, p.169. Back

9   OJ No. L 151, 23.6.93, p.32.  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 26 June 2000