HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

ECHA Clarifies Exceptions To Cosmetic Animal-Test Ban; NGOs Regroup

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments protests that “in practice, the animal tests bans would have virtually no application,” following ECHA’s clarification of REACH-related exceptions to Europe’s prohibition on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients. According to ECHA, the ban does not apply to testing required under REACH for “environmental endpoints, exposure of workers and non-cosmetic uses of substances.”

You may also be interested in...



‘Legislation In Search Of A Problem’? NGO Crusade Goes On For Global Cosmetic Animal-Testing Ban

NGOs continue to push for a worldwide ban on cosmetics developed at animals’ expense. With cruelty-free cosmetics laws already in place in Europe, California and other major markets around the globe, animal-welfare advocates still see strategic value in driving bans in, say, Nevada. 

California’s Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act Makes New Ingredients Officially Endangered

It’s debatable the extent to which SB 1249, now headed to the governor’s desk, will improve animals’ lot, but cosmetic ingredient innovation is almost certain to suffer. Industry could escalate efforts behind alternative methods development, or there’s another possible solution: federal preemption.

California Passes Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act: Now Friendlier To Industry, Still A Legal Minefield

Late-stage, industry-driven amendments to SB 1249 eliminated terms that could have made companies liable for animal testing entirely outside their control. The bill that passed Aug. 31 is still rife with legal risks for companies that claim exemptions, according to Sacramento-area attorney Angela Diesch.

Related Content

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS019273

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel