Watchdog Rejects NGO Complaint on Cosmetics Animal Testing

The European ombudsman has dismissed a complaint by a UK-based animal rights NGO, which argued that the European Commission's approach to animal testing for cosmetics products is misleading.

The complaint, filed last year by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) UK, referred to a joint statement issued by the Commission and Echa in 2014 on the conduct of animal tests used in cosmetics.

The statement clarified the relationship between the cosmetics Regulation, which bans animal testing, and REACH, which allows it under certain circumstances.

It says that while registrants of substances exclusively used in cosmetics may not perform the testing, they are permitted to conduct those tests:

> for substances used for a number of purposes; and

> when assessing the risk of workers' exposure.

Peta says that the Commission and Echa are allowing cosmetics manufacturers to violate the EU's ban "by permitting the ingredients to be tested on animals under REACH". As a result, certain cosmetics are being wrongly labelled as "free from animal testing", it says.

Peta wanted their statement withdrawn, which it says is contrary to EU law and to the cosmetics Regulation in particular. But last week the ombudsman concluded there was "no maladministration" by the Commission and Echa.

It says that the joint statement is "not contrary" to the cosmetics Regulation or to EU law; that both the Commission and Echa have a right to issue one; and "no clarifications are needed concerning the labelling of cosmetics" as the issue falls under the cosmetics Regulation and not REACH.

The joint statement is concerned only with how REACH is interpreted and applied in light of the cosmetics Regulation, the ombudsman adds, and does not purport to deal with the interpretation of the latter.

Call for guidance

Following the decision, Peta has called on the Commission and member states to publish EU-wide guidance to clarify how the animal testing ban on cosmetics should be interpreted and applied.

"Without such guidance, cosmetics manufacturers and distributors remain in a state of legal uncertainty," the NGO's Dr Julia Baines says.

Peta also wants the Commission and Echa to amend their statement to make it clear to registrants that it deals "only with REACH and not the interpretation and application of the cosmetics Regulation".

The ombudsman says it agrees with Peta that it is not legally binding: "The fact that the Commission and Echa may issue such guidance does not prejudge the issue of whether their guidance is correct."

Another NGO, Cruelty Free International (CFI), also raised the issue of inconsistency between the cosmetics Regulation and REACH in comments to the Commission's REACH Review earlier this year.