Companies can exploit animal testing loopholes, says charity

March 11 saw the introduction of the ban on animal testing of cosmetics ingredients in the EU. In addition, a marketing ban staggered for different endpoints has been introduced.

It is no longer possible to market a product in the EU which contains ingredients that were tested on animals after March 11 2009 for skin irritancy, phototoxicity, corrosivity, percutaneous absorption, genotoxicity, ocular irritancy and acute toxicity.

Other endpoints, such as reproductive toxicity, will be included in the marketing ban set for 2013.

Exploitable loopholes?​

However, animal rights charities and campaigners say that it is easy for companies to exploit loopholes in the regulation by testing their ingredients for other purposes.

“This would be particularly easy for companies producing cosmetics in addition to other products across multiple sectors such as household cleaners and pharmaceuticals,”​ said the charity in a statement.

This is made even easier as companies are not obliged to make toxicological research public, claimed a spokesperson for Dr Hadwen Trust.

“The vast majority of toxicological testing is not made public and companies are under no legal obligation to put it into the public domain,”​ the spokesperson told CosmeticsDesign.

This might be in the company’s interest if it wished to continue using new ingredients in its formulations and non-animal alternatives were not yet available for the relevant endpoints, the spokesperson explained.

According to Chris Flower from the UK cosmetics trade association the CTPA, this is theoretically possible, although unlikely.

"I can't imagine any of our members would approach the problem in this way,"​ he told CosmeticsDesign.

In addition, such a situation would be difficult and in fact unethical to legislate against, he said.

If someone, somewhere, is performing research on an ingredient for other reasons that ends up being applicable to cosmetics, we have a duty to react to this new research, he said.

"However, wilfully trying to find someone to test an ingredient for other purposes so that it can be incorporated into cosmetics is completely different and I would be very disappointed if I saw this happening,"​ he said.