Animal rights charity PETA has launched an appeal to protect the integrity of the cruelty-free cosmetics industry” as a “regulatory loophole is forcing companies to test on animals to comply with chemical safety requirements,” it says.
For over 40 years, PETA has led the movement to end animal testing for cosmetics, and it has now said its US-based division, which hosts the world’s largest cruelty-free program, believes that progress is “under threat” due to a loophole in EU regulation.
Can beauty brands stay cruelty-free under EU REACH rules?
Indeed, the EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation states that animal testing should be used only as a last resort, in practice, thousands of animals continue to be tested on for substances that are used in cosmetics.
We spoke to PETA’s Head of Science Policy, Dr Julia Baines, to find out more…
CosmeticsDesign-Europe (CDE): Can you explain more about why some European cosmetics can no longer be eligible for cruelty-free status through PETA US?
Dr Julia Baines (JB): PETA US is updating its Beauty Without Bunnies programme to preserve the integrity of its cruelty-free certification. From now on, only companies that sell their products in the US, Canada, Germany, and India will be eligible to apply for cruelty-free status on crueltyfree.PETA.org. These are the countries where PETA has entity offices, allowing for direct oversight and communication to ensure companies meet the strict no-animal-testing standards.
Companies already certified but selling exclusively outside the eligible countries have been temporarily retained on the list, but their status is under review and may be withdrawn depending on future regulatory developments.
This policy shift is necessary because of a conflict between the EU Cosmetics Products Regulation and REACH, the EU’s large-scale testing programme for industrial chemicals. While the Cosmetics Regulation prohibits animal testing for cosmetic ingredients, REACH continues to mandate animal tests for cosmetic ingredients, even for substances used only in cosmetics and with a long history of safe use. This undermines the animal-test-free status of these products and creates a loophole that PETA has been fighting to close.
Historically, to be listed as animal-test-free by PETA, a company or brand must submit a legally binding statement of assurance confirming that neither it nor its ingredient suppliers conduct, commission, pay for, or allow any tests on animals for ingredients, formulations, or finished products anywhere in the world, and won’t do so in the future. This robust process ensures that animals are protected from experimentation and that consumers can trust the certification. PETA will not compromise on its values and so cannot continue to certify companies that are compelled to comply with archaic testing requirements under REACH – even if they do so unwillingly.
CDE: For people who don’t know, how does the regulatory loophole under the EU’s REACH regulation force some cosmetics companies to test on animals. Can you please go into more detail about what this is and why it causes this issue?
JB: REACH creates a regulatory loophole that undermines the crucial EU ban on tests on animals established by the EU Cosmetics Products Regulation. Tests on animals are permitted for ingredients used exclusively in cosmetics where there is a possibility of factory workers being exposed during the manufacturing process or a risk to the environment. For ingredients used in other types of products, such as detergents or other household products, tests on animals are permitted regardless of any worker exposure or environmental risk. This implies that the REACH regulation overrides the crucial ban on tests on animals established by the cosmetics regulation.
This conflict was brought into sharp focus in the Symrise case, where in 2023 the EU General Court upheld a request to test two substances used exclusively in cosmetics on animals to assess worker exposure under REACH. The ruling failed to consider how such testing undermines the objectives of the Cosmetics Regulation and reinforced the loophole that allows animal test data to be used in the safety files of cosmetic products.
Under the guise of the REACH regulation, thousands of animals continue to suffer and die in the name of beauty. Rats are force-fed shampoo ingredients for prolonged periods. Pregnant rabbits are dosed with face cream components to determine potential deformities in their unborn babies. This undermines the EU’s cruelty-free legacy and erodes public trust. The strength of public opposition was made clear when over 1.2 million citizens signed the European Citizens’ Initiative to Save Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, showing that the public support for ending animal testing for cosmetics is higher than ever.
PETA calls for reform as EU testing rules face backlash
CDE: What can beauty brands do if they want to avoid this for their brand?
JB: It’s becoming increasingly difficult for compassionate companies to find an alternative source for or reformulate a product to eliminate any cosmetic ingredients tested on animals under the REACH. The number of ingredients affected by testing decisions under REACH is growing, demanding that thousands of animals be force-fed substances for weeks or even months. As a result, companies are at risk of being involved in testing on animals – even if they don’t wish to be – because of the legislative requirements placed on suppliers of cosmetics ingredients.
Brands can combat this by getting politically active and calling for a change in regulation that will uphold and strengthen the EU’s commitment to a cosmetics industry free from animal testing. Brands can also choose to use existing ingredients that have already been proven safe or, if necessary, decide not to develop a product at all if doing so would require animal testing.
PETA urges the cosmetics industry to reject all animal testing and instead embrace advanced, non-animal testing methods to assess the safety of their products, fostering a future where beauty is synonymous with compassion. Modern and scientifically superior non-animal test methods should and already are being used to ensure the safety of cosmetic products and their ingredients. The EU Cosmetics Regulation has driven innovation by banning animal testing and promoting reliable non-animal approaches, such as the defined approaches for skin sensitisation and Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA). The bottom line is that cruelty-free is an option for every company.
CDE: Do you have any final thoughts for cosmetics companies on this subject?
JB: Consumers have been misled, and the EU’s cruelty-free legacy is at risk. That’s why PETA is calling on the European Commission to take decisive action: to close the REACH loophole, strengthen the Cosmetics Regulation, and ensure that safety assessments for consumers, workers, and the environment are conducted without animal testing—ever.
We encourage consumers, brands and anyone who cares about animals suffering in laboratories to make their voices heard and sign our petition calling on the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen to protect and strengthen the once groundbreaking ban on animal testing for cosmetics.
