21. ANIMAL TESTING AND COSMETIC PRODUCTS
(24098)
—
—
|
Amended draft Directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to cosmetic products.
|
| Legal base: | Articles 95, 152(1) and 153(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 11 December 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see footnote 60
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment: | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
21.1 Council Directive 76/768/EC[59]
seeks to protect public health by laying down rules governing
the contents, labelling, and conditions for use of cosmetic products
within the Community. In response to growing animal welfare concerns,
an earlier amendment would have introduced a ban on the marketing
of such products if they contained ingredients (or combinations
of ingredients) which had been tested on animals. However, as
a result of doubts which had arisen in the meantime over the drafting
of the proposed ban, and its compatibility with the rules of the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Commission proposed in April
2000 that the intended marketing prohibition should be rescinded,
but that instead:
- the performance of tests on animals in the territory of the
Member States should be prohibited so far as finished cosmetic
products are concerned; and
- in the case of ingredients (where suitable alternative
tests are not yet available), tests on animals should be prohibited
once an alternative method had been scientifically validated,
but that, even if such a method had 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).
21.2 The Commission recognised that these prohibitions
would not apply to imported products, but it said that, once methods
not involving animals had been validated within the Community,
it would make efforts within the OECD and in bilateral negotiation
to secure their international acceptance.
21.3 These proposals were subsequently the subject of
exchanges between the Council and European Parliament on which
we have reported extensively (and which were debated in European
Standing Committee C on 13 March 2002). Our most recent Report
was on 16 October 2002, when we noted the Commission's reaction[60]
to the amendments to the Council's Common Position proposed by
the European Parliament at its second reading on 11 June 2002.
In particular, the latter would entail:
- an immediate ban on the testing of finished cosmetic products
on animals;
- a ban on testing ingredients (or combinations of ingredients)
on animals, as soon as an alternative method has been established
by the Commission following endorsement of its validity by the
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM),
and in any case from 31 December 2004, but with the possibility
of very limited exceptions;
- a total ban on the marketing of cosmetics, the ingredients
of which have been tested on animals, where satisfactory methods
exist to replace existing methods (or, where these are not yet
available, methods which reduce the number of animals used, or
reduce the suffering caused, and which are scientifically validated
by ECVAM as offering an equivalent level of protection for the
consumer).
21.4 The Commission had, however, rejected the re-introduction
of a cut-off date for a Community ban on the testing of ingredients,
and it had also rejected the re-introduction of a marketing ban,
citing the earlier concerns that this would not be in conformity
with WTO rules, and would thus be open to challenge.
21.5 We also noted the Government's view that the Parliament's
proposal for a test ban was in line with the UK's own voluntary
ban on testing cosmetics and their ingredients, but that the Parliament's
position on a marketing ban remained at odds with that taken by
the Council's Common Position text, which provided for such a
ban only when alternative tests, internationally validated through
OECD, were available. We were also told that the UK supported
the Council's position as being much more defensible in WTO terms,
but that there might be a possibility of a compromise at the conciliation
stage, due to commence formally on 7 October.
Minister's Explanatory Memorandum of 11 December 2002
21.6 Although no official text is available, we have
now received an Explanatory Memorandum of 11 December 2002 from
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers
and Markets at the Department of Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie
Johnson) reporting that agreement has been reached in the Conciliation
Committee, and will now be subject to formal approval by the Parliament
and Council. She says that this would provide for:
- an immediate ban on the testing of finished cosmetic products
on animals;
- a ban on testing ingredients or combinations of ingredients
on animals, as soon as an alternative method has been published
by the Commission (after suitable endorsement of its scientific
validity) with due regard to the development of validation within
OECD, and in any case six years after the entry into force of
the Directive (or ten years in relation to three tests for which
no alternatives are currently under consideration);
- a total ban on the marketing of cosmetics, the ingredients
of which have been tested on animals: this will operate in the
same way as the ingredient test ban described above;
- the production of guidelines for advertising that a product
has not been tested on animals.
21.7 The Minister says that the UK can support this approach,
and that the Government remains committed to a policy which seeks
to raise the level of animal welfare within the Community, but
in a manner which respects international trade disciplines. She
adds that the UK is pleased to note some of the changes agreed
in conciliation, and supports the linkage of the marketing ban
to the development of European validated alternatives, even though
it would have preferred the ban to be linked directly to the development
of OECD validated alternatives.
Conclusion
21.8 Given the interest which the House has taken
in the subject, we think it right to draw attention to the outcome
of the Conciliation Committee and to the Government's reactions
to what has been agreed. We clear the document.
59 OJ
No. L 262, 27.9.76, p.169. Back
60
(23741) 11451/02; see HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), paragraph 22 (16
October 2002). Back
|
