Avon, L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Lush have joined Humane Society International in a public declaration against a recent European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) judgment demanding animal testing for some cosmetics chemicals. They claim that the new guidelines undermine the EU’s ban on cosmetic animal experimentation.

The call comes after two decisions by the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) Board of Appeal in August, requiring German chemicals manufacturer Symrise to conduct several animal toxicity tests on two chemical UV filters (homosalate and 2-ethylhexyl salicylate), which are used exclusively in sunscreen formulations, in order to meet “tick-box” registration requirements for worker safety and environmental protection.

“Unnecessary demands”

The European Chemicals Agency and its Board of Appeal, according to the signatories, are continuing “the pattern of systematically demanding superfluous animal data despite a legislative responsibility to promote non-animal techniques,” undermining the EU’s animal testing ban “success story.”

“These data demands are intended to guarantee ECHA has an administratively full collection of data for hazard classification and labeling, regardless of whether more data are in fact needed to ensure worker protection,” they claim.

In fact, Avon, L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Lush, and Humane Society International believe that lessons acquired over many years in animal-free cosmetics safety assessment may be “quickly adapted to occupational safety evaluation of chemicals without jeopardizing human safety.”

The signatories worry that the two chemical components presently under ECHA’s inspection may be merely “the tip of the iceberg,” with the EU Chemicals Agency and some Member States requesting additional animal testing for cosmetics at a time when the rest of the world is taking steps to abolish them.

“This is a direct danger to the EU’s historic prohibition on cosmetics animal testing, which is widely supported by consumers and cosmetic industries alike because torturing and killing animals for the sake of testing beauty goods or chemicals is both ethically and scientifically wrong. Chemical regulators must urgently adjust their mindset to embrace 21st-century research rather than dragging us back to painful and outmoded animal tests,” said Marina Pereira, Humane Society International’s regulatory science advisor.

Regulations that are contradictory

The developing conflict between two rules pursuing opposite aims is evident when one refers to the two rulings of the ECHA Board of Appeal (below).

These tests, according to ECHA, are required to examine the safety of substances. According to the Board of Appeal, if this safety is confirmed, the tests will not have to be included in the cosmetic file and hence will not result in a restriction on the marketing of the substances in question. The objective of ending animal experimentation is never addressed in the rulings. Obviously, this is outside the purview of the Board’s concerns.

The objective for the cosmetics sector today appears to be acceptance of the legitimacy of alternative techniques under the REACH legislation, even if it requires adapting them.

How are other parts of the world dealing with animal testing?

Animal testing will be prohibited for so-called “generic cosmetics” imported into China from May 1, 2021. Brands will be required to produce GMP certifications as well as a product safety evaluation.

It’s a done deal now. Indeed, China’s National Medical Goods Administration (NMPA) released Provisions for Management of Cosmetic Registration and Notification Dossiers on March 4th, which state that so-called “generic” cosmetic products can be imported into China without needing to be tested on animals beforehand.

In fact, when it comes to cosmetics, Chinese rules distinguish between two types of products: “special-use” and “general” cosmetics. Hair dyes, hair perming products, freckle-removing/whitening products, sunscreens, anti-hair loss treatments, and any cosmetics “claiming novel efficacy” are examples of “special use” cosmetics.

All other items that meet the Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulation’s (CSAR) definition of cosmetics are classed as “generic cosmetics.”

As a result, the bulk of cosmetics imported into China are free from animal testing.

Documents that are required

The Provisions for Management of Cosmetic Registration and Notification Dossiers, however, need two papers to benefit from this exemption regime:

– The findings of the product’s safety evaluation; – A certificate of compliance with good manufacturing procedures (GMP) issued by the competent authorities of the country of origin.

Obtaining GMP compliance certifications may be more or less complex depending on the nation of origin. Government officials in France, on the other hand, have anticipated the publishing of the Chinese text and have set up an online system for requesting and receiving the document.

Certain items are exempt from this rule.

Furthermore, when some “general” cosmetic items are imported into China, they must still be tested on animals:

– Children’s products; – Products containing new components (as specified by Chinese legislation) during the mandatory 3-year monitoring period;

Products notified, imported or manufactured by a person listed as a key supervision target by the NMPA.

“We were happy to learn that the National Medical Products Administration had finalized the expected modification to China’s cosmetics animal testing guidelines, exempting some imported conventional cosmetics from obligatory animal testing as of May 1st this year. While certain ingredients and products are still ineligible, and there are still issues regarding GMP regulations, it is still too early to say whether or not we are cruelty-free, but we are getting closer.