Testing cosmetics on animals
Testing cosmetics on animals is controversial. It is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing.
France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.

# Definition
Using animal testing in the development of cosmetics involves a number of separate practices:
- testing a finished product such as lipstick;
- testing individual ingredients, or a combination of them;
- Contracting a third-party company to perform any of the above;
- Using a subsidiary or third-party company to perform the tests in countries where animal testing is not banned.
Some cosmetics companies claim that their products are not tested on animals despite using one or more of the above practices.
Re-using existing test data obtained from previous animal testing is generally not considered to be cosmetic testing on animals; however, the acceptability of this to opponents of testing is inversely proportional to how recent the data is.

# Legal requirements
Due to the strong public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers say their products are not tested on animals. However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws in most countries to show their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous in large quantities, such as when in transport or in the manufacturing plant. In some countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. In other countries, it may require animal testing to meet legal requirements. The United States and Japan are frequently criticised for their insistence on stringent safety measures, which often requires animal testing, although the U.S. has also been a leader in developing cell culture alternatives.
Some retailers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by their stance on animal testing. The British Co-op maintains a cosmetic-testing website,
 which includes statements from all their suppliers about the extent of their animal testing and the Body Shop is also known for its campaigns against cosmetic testing on animals. 

## UK position
Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, compounds that have both cosmetic and medical uses, such as those in the "anti-wrinkle" preparations Zyderm, Restylane and Botox, are still bound by the regulations requiring animal testing. According to activists, a raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that the LD50 test is still used on every batch of Botox (a toxin that, when administered intravenously, is lethal to humans) to establish potency   .

# Alternatives
Cosmetics manufacturers who genuinely do not test on animals generally use the following for safety testing of their products:
- reliance on existing natural or synthetic ingredients, compounds and substances, which have already been extensively tested on animals;
- avoiding novel ingredients or combinations of ingredients that have not been fully tested and may not be safe;
- testing on human volunteers/clinical trials.
This presumes that cosmetics companies are already using computer modeling and cell cultures to simulate human tissue, two techniques that have had ambiguous utility in discovering problems early. Supporters of animal testing say that neither can fully replace live human or non-human animal tests.