[Type text]  
 
1 
   
March 2017                      
   2 
 
Contents  
Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
Background and Context  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 
Findings from Consultations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
Proposed Policy Framework  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  13 
How can I be involved?  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  15 
Appendix A:  Demographics of representative sample for market research online 
survey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
©Department of Health   
3 
 
Introduction  
The Australian Government has announced its commitment to implement a ban  on the testing 
of cosmetics on animals .  This commitment r ecognises the strong view  of many Australians on 
this issue , and brings Australia into line with similar bans  implemented in other countries.  In 
fulfilling this commitment the Australian Government will continu e to maintain Australia’s high 
standards in protecting public health, worker safety and the environment and ensure that any 
adverse  impact s on business, trade and industry are taken into account and are minimised.  
A public consultation process commenced in November  2016 with the release of the 
Background P aper.  Initial  consultations were conducted with stakeholders through  a series of 
facilitated workshops and an online survey.  Further consumer views were sought through 
independent market research .  The fe edback obtained from this process has provided a range 
of innovative ideas, insights, and concerns , and these have informed  the development of policy 
options.  
The purpose of this paper is to outline  an option that would introduce a ban for Australia  
following the completion of the initial consultation process .  The release of this paper aligns with 
the commencement of the second phase of the  consultation  process.   
To help shape the implementation approach, stakeholders are invited to provide their fee dback 
on the proposed policy framework and strategies  outline d in this document . 
                      
   4 
 
Background and Context  
Cosmetic products  
Cosmetics products (and other personal care items) are chemical products that are designed to 
be repeatedly applied directly to the human body, or inside the mouth, to change its 
appearance, cleanse it, keep  it in good condition, perfume it or protect it.  
Cosmetic products include:  
 Oral hygiene: mouthwash  and toothpaste ; 
 Soaps and deodorants: antiperspirants, bath gels, body washes, antibacterial hand 
washes, shampoos and conditioners;  
 Make up and beauty: nail polish, mascara, depilatory products, hair dyes and  perfumes;  
 Skin care: skin cleansing, acne washes, secondary sun protection products (with an SPF 
of 15 or below), lip care cr eams, anti -ageing creams, facial moisturisers, body lotions, 
hand/feet/skin emollients and shaving creams;  and 
 Some baby care and hygiene products.  
Cosmetics products are used by consumers every day – estimates indicate each  consumer 
uses at least seven di fferent c osmetics per day  and many of us  use more1.  The chemicals 
(ingredients) used in cosmetic  products  are often used in many other consumer and industrial 
products, such as in pharmaceuticals, detergents, food, paints etc.   
The Australian Cosmetic Industry  
In 2015 -16 Australian cosmetic and toiletry retail  market  sales  were valued at $3.7bn2.  The 
majority of c osmetic products sold in Australia are imported by multinational companies , 
principally from the United States, France, Thailand and China . 
The Australian cosmetic , perfume and toiletries  manufacturers industry was worth $945 million 
in 2015 -163 and employ ed some 18,000 individuals4.  This industry is globally focused , with 
exports mak ing up over half the manufacturing revenue , accounting for $535 million in 2015 -
165.  
                                                           
1 http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_MEMO -13-188_en.htm  
2 IBIS World Industry report C1852 Cosmetics, Perfume and Toiletries, Manufacturing in Australia – June  2016  
3 IBIS World Industry report C1852 Cosmetics, Perfume and Toiletries, Manufacturing in Australia – June 2016  
4 IBIS World Industry report G4271B1852 Cosmetics and Toiletry Retailing  in Australia – May 2016  
5 IBIS World Industry report C1852 Cosmetics, Perf ume and Toiletries, Manufacturing in Australia – June 2016  
 
 
 
                     
   5 
 
Regulation of cosmetics  
In Australia, cosmetics are regulated at the Commonwealth, and state and territory level.  These 
regulatory frameworks establish requirements which ensure the safety and efficiency of 
cosmetics sold in Australia.    
Cosmetic Products  
Cosmetics are a consum er good and are subject to the broad provisions of the Australian 
Consumer Law  (ACL)  (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 ) which is 
administered  by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.   The ACL provides a 
range of statutory g uarantees to consumers when they purchase goods and services to ensure 
they are safe and of acceptable quality. Separately, a specific information standard makes it 
illegal to supply cosmetic products  that do not provide  ingredient information to consumers at 
the point of sale6.  
The Cosmetics Standard 2007  and the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and 
Poisons  place further restrictions on ingredients used in cosmetic products and set 
requirements for specified products to distinguish them from similar goods that are for 
therapeutic use.  
Chemical ingredients used in cosmetics  
The ‘introduction’ (import and/or manufacture ) of cosmetic ingredients is subject to regulation 
under the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), which 
is established by the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 .   
Industrial chemicals are defined by exclusion (chemicals that are not therapeutic goods, 
agricultural or veterinary chemicals, food or food additives) and hence include cosmetic 
ingredients. There is no standalone legislation for cosmetics , and chemical ingredients u sed in 
cosmetics are often used in a broad range of other consumer and industrial products.  
Chemical ingredients proposed for use i n cosmetic products are required to be notified and 
(unless exempt from assessment) assessed for human health and environment al impacts. The 
extent of scientific information required for assessment depends on the category under which a 
chemical is notified.  
  
                                                           
6 For details see  https://www.productsafety.gov.au/standards/cosmetics -ingredients -labelling  
 
 
 
                     
   6 
 
Animal testing of cosmetic ingredients and products  
Testing  of cosmetic ingredients  and products is conducted to assist in developing a new product 
and to check the safety of new ingredients.  Testing is  used  to determine whether the  ingredient 
does what it is designed to do, and if there any side -effects.  Safety testing may also be carried 
out in order to meet regulations required to sell new products or formulations in order to protect 
human and animal health and the environment.  
For the investigation of  possible human health effects, animal tests have  historically  been 
considered to be the most reliable , as they best represent the overall effect o f a chemical on a 
living human.  However , as technology has advanced , animal tests are expensive, time 
consuming to conduct and are questioned  on both ethical and scientific  grounds . 
In recognition of the ethical concerns raised by animal testing  (in cases where non -animal tests 
aren’t available ), the ‘Three Rs’ (replacement, reduction and refinement principles) are applied 
to testing regimes by international and domestic standard setting bodies.   
Internat ionally, significant work has been undertaken to develop  alternatives to animal testing. 
For example, t he Organisation for Economic Cooperation  and D evelopment (OECD) offers 
guidelines on methods which  avoid or replace the use of animals, minimise the number of 
animals used in a test , and set out  methods which minimise sufferi ng and improve animal 
welfare.  However, non -anim al tests are not yet available to assess  all health effects, such as 
repeated expo sure to a substance . This may be because  alternatives have not yet been 
developed , or because they are still in the process of evaluation and validation.  
The initial consultation process conducted by the Department  of Health  involved State and 
Territory  governments in their roles as regulating the  use of animals in research .  Through this 
process jurisdictions  advised that no applications were received to test cosmetics and/or their 
ingredients from 2013 to 2015.  Both industry and animal welfare advocacy groups have 
similarly advised that animal testing for cosmetic purposes is no longer occurring in Australia.  
Similar to Australia, there is an international movement towards decreasing the use of animals 
in cosmetic testing.  
                      
   7 
 
International b ans 
Internatio nally, many  countrie s have introduced  bans to regulate cosmetic testing on animals, 
tailored to reflect jurisdictional  and local  laws and regulations .   
As illustrated in Figure 1 below , a number of countries  have  followed the EU in introducing a 
ban on animal testing of cosmetics.   
 
Figure 1: Bans (proposed and implemented) internationally   
Between 2004 and 2013, the EU implemented a ban prohibiting the use of animal testing on 
cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients.  This ban includes an exception to allow animal 
testing should an alternative non -animal test be unavailable , for example, in order to protect 
public health, the environment, and/or worker safety.   
This ban also prohibits the use of animal te st data to meet the requirements of the cosmetics 
regulations .  This ban however acknowledges that the majority of ingredients that go into 
cosmetics are ingredients that are also in use in many other consumer and industrial products, 
such as in pharmaceut icals, detergents, food, paints etc .  Those  ingredients are subject to 
animal testing requirements under the respective legal frameworks  and this testing is not 
prohibited by the EU ban .   
                    
   8 
 
Fundamental to these arrangements is that when they came into effec t they were prospective in 
application, that is, that products which already existed in the market were unaffected.  In 
addition, the ban focused on new animal testing with data obtained from animal testing 
undertaken prior to the implementation date still  able to be used to support the introduction of a 
new cosmetic ingredient.  
In 2016, New Zealand introduced a ban on animal testing.  This ban prohibits the use of an 
animal in any research, testing or teaching that is for the purpose of developing, making or 
testing a cosmetic or ingredient .  The ban on ingredient s however is limited to those ingredient s 
that are intended exclusively for use in a cosmetic . 
Contrary to these approaches, some countries continue to specifically require animal testing of 
cosmetic products prior to sale.  Local  and international companies continue to sell their 
cosmetic products in China , where it is understood that animal testing is required for imported 
cosmetics products .  Through the consultation process to date it is understood that the EU ban 
does not prevent  companies from undertaking this testing however data arising from this testing 
cannot be used to support the introduction of the cosmetic into the EU.   
The consulta tion process further highlighted that a  number of local and international companies 
have chosen not to sell their products in those countries where animal testing is mandated  to 
maintain their cruelty -free status or to m arket their products as cruelty -free. 
 
                      
   9 
 
Findings from Consultations  
 
To better understand and consider the viewpoints of all stakeholders, consultations  were 
conducted  to inform the development of the proposed policy framework  to introduce a ban for 
Australia . 
Commencing in November 2016, industr y, animal welfare organisations  and the general 
community  were invited to  provide  their views on how  the G overnment should approach a ban . 
Through face-to-face workshops and teleconferences , more than 50 individuals and/or 
organisations expressed an interest in providing detail ed views on the proposed ban . 
To supplement this research,  Hall and Partners (Open Mind) undertook external consumer 
market research. This researc h explored the views of Australians (across a breadth of 
demographic categories) through 18 focus group discussions , as well as  an online survey of a 
representative sample of  some 2,000 members of the general public .  The demographics 
associated with this gr oup are at Appendix  A.  
Feedback was also obtained from interested parties via an open online survey. The online link 
was open for responses from 18 November to 16 December 2016 and around 25,000 
individuals from the general public participated . 
The key themes communicated by stakeholders are depicted in Figure  2. 
Figure 2: Key themes communicated by stakeholders  
 
  
                    
   10 
 
Both respondents to the open online survey and 
consumers felt that the introduction of a ban would 
bring Australia into alignment with comparable 
overseas countries.  Similarly,  industry views indicate 
support for a ban  aligned with international 
approaches , however a transition period  is required 
to ensure the impacts of the ban are understood.  
Animal welfare a dvocates have indicated strong 
support for the ban , stating that cosmetic testing on 
animals  is unnecessary and  noting that  this 
commitment positions Australia as a progressive 
nation.   
The consultation suggests that while animal testing 
is a high profile issue for those responding to the 
online survey, general consumers  participating in 
the consumer market research  were  less engaged.  
Animal testing practices and  the potential effect of a 
ban on animal testing of cosmetics were not high 
profile issues for these consumers . Figure 3 
indicates that a round 35% of consumers did not 
know whether the ingredients or products currently  
available in Australia were tested on animals . Few 
consumers  were aware that animal testing of 
cosmetic  ingredients or products does  not occur in 
Australia.  
Consumers  considered there was a need for greater 
transparency and clarity around information that  
manufacturers provide on their products. They are  
unaware of where to find information regarding 
animal testing o f cosmetics in Australia , and find 
claims that companies are allowed to make on their 
products  potentially confusing .  Some consumers 
are assu ming that products are not being tested on 
animals on the basis of terms such as ‘low/no 
toxins’, ‘sustainably produced’, ‘ethical’, ‘locally 
made’, ‘home/ handmade ’ and ‘Australian made’.  
Even when a clear claim is present on a package, only 46% of consum ers feel confident that 
the product is definitely not tested on animals. 49% of consumers argue  that products should 
have prominent labelling to ensure consumers are not misled  around compliance with an animal 
testing ban.   
25%  25%  18%  19%  22%  19%  35%  36%  
All cosmetic products
currently available in
Australia are not tested
on animalsIngredients used in all
cosmetic products
currently available in
Australia are not tested
on animals
Disagree (1 or 2) Neutral (3)
Agree (4 or 5) Don’t know  Figure 3: Awareness of current animal 
testing of cosmetic products available in 
Australia – Representative consumer survey                      
   11 
 
All stakeholders commented that the design of an 
Australian ban should  take into consideration, and 
align as much as possible with, approaches in a 
number of countries that  currently have animal 
testing bans in place. Some 68% of respondents to 
the open online survey , and 49% of consumer s, (as 
indicated in Figure 4) felt that the introduction of a 
ban would bring Australia into alignment with 
comparable overseas countries.  It was noted during 
consultations that the introduction of a ban could 
potentially promote innovation with both products 
and testing methods .  Consumers argue  that a 
major increase in costs or significant reduction in the 
consumer choice  could drive individuals  to purchase 
their cosmetic products from overseas countries 
which may or may not have bans in place.  
In certain circumstances, consumers considered 
that animal test ing undertaken to determine the 
safety of a product or ingredient (for consumers, the 
environment and individuals working with the 
product ) is necessary. Figure 5 shows s ome 49% of 
consumers indicated either an  acceptance  or neutral 
response to the question  of animal testing in certain 
circumstance s. For example , if the product is 
intended for use by a vulnerable group such as 
babies , or to protect the wellbeing of people or the 
environment.   
When considering the impact of a ban, Figure 6 
shows approximately  34% of consumers  indicated 
that a ban would not have a detrimental effect on  
Australian jobs and businesses. Consumers  
expressed that they  do not want to disadvantage 
Australian businesses importing cosmetics or 
exporting Australian products to overseas markets .  
Consumers hav e an expectation that g overnment 
ensure that broader economic impacts are 
minimised when implementing the ban .  
5% 20%  49%  
26%  
A ban on animal testing of cosmetic products and
ingredients will bring Australia into line with other
countries/regions such as the EU
Disagree (1 or 2) Neutral (3)
Agree (4 or 5) Don’t know  
40%  
20%  29%  
10%  
Animal testing of cosmetic products or ingredients is
acceptable in some circumstances
Disagree (1 or 2) Neutral (3)
Agree (4 or 5) Don’t know  Figure 4: Attitudes towards ban on animal 
testing – Representative consumer survey  
Figure 5: Attitudes towards animal testing – 
Representative consumer survey                      
   12 
 
 
Survey participants were  then asked to consider 
how industry would demonstrate compliance with  
a ban.  Just over half of the consumers indicated  
that independent audits, monitoring or reviews 
were preferred compliance mechanism.   Some 
58% of survey participants support industry -
supplied compliance data as part of the 
mechanisms put in place to ensure compliance.  
Consultations indicate that consume rs are likely to 
be more supportive of a  prospective  ban due to 
concerns as to  how a retrospective approach 
could be implemented and enforced.  Further, 
consumers question the point of applying the ban 
to existing products or ingredients , as the testing 
has already been undertaken and banning these 
products now will not lead to a reduction in 
animals harmed.  Equally , a retrospective ban 
could potentially lead to large number of products 
disappearing from the shelves.   
Industry stakehold ers highlighted the potential 
significant challenges required to introduce and 
ensure compliance with an Australia ban . On this 
basis , industry contends  that a longer period of 
transition than announced is required. C onsumers 
noted that  the introduction of a ban was complex 
and appreciate the scale of adjustment required 
from industry .  Because of this, consumers 
expected that the ban will be phased in gradually 
to provide  organisations time to comply and 
innovate , and to allow  consumers time to adjust. 
Consumers  typically estimate the phase -in period 
for a ban will be between 1 -5 years.  
  
33%  34%  25%  24%  25%  25%  16%  18%  
A ban on animal testing of
cosmetic products and
ingredients will have a
detrimental effect on
Australian businessesA ban on animal testing of
cosmetic products and
ingredients will have a
detrimental effect on
Australian jobs
Disagree (1 or 2) Neutral (3)
Agree (4 or 5) Don’t know  Figure 6: Perceived impact of ban on 
Australian businesses and jobs – 
Representative consumer survey                      
   13 
 
Proposed Policy Framework  
 
The proposed policy framework  outlines an option that would introduce a b an for Australia  
which seeks to  address animal welfare concerns while  ensuring there are no unintended 
consequences for Australian consumers and the cosmetic industry .  The following policy 
principles are the foundation for the proposed approach : 
 
Consistent with the EU approach, the proposed approach  would  allow for exceptions for animal 
testing for public health and safety, worker health and safety, and the environment , where no 
non-animal test method is available and the risk cannot otherwise be adequately assessed.   
Data obtained from animal testing undertaken befor e implementation of the ban would  also be 
exempt .  This  approach w ould provide a certainty  for the future ensuring  cosmetic testing on 
animals does not occur . 
To ensure compliance,  the Government w ould work with i ndustry to develop and implement  a 
voluntary code of conduct .  This w ould ensure i ndustry and consumers are aware of the new 
obligations  and provide increased consumer confidence that purchased products were not 
tested on animals in Australia.  
   
The Australian Government proposes to introduce a Ban on the Testing of Cosmetic s on 
animals, which  will seek to:  
 Maintain Australia’s strong public health protection standards.  
 Ensure the ethical use of animals used for test purposes.  
 Provide a practical,  cost-effective and proportional regulatory response to the 
problem.  
 Be consistent with the Government’s agreed reforms to regulation of industrial 
chemicals.  
 Apply to data and testing where the sole purpose is to meet regulatory obligations 
for new cosmet ic ingredients and products.  
 Avoid negative consequences or spill over effects for other industry sectors.  
 Harmonise Australian regulatory practices with our major trade partners.  
 Support innovation in the cosmetic sector by allowing chemical substances tested 
prior to the start date of the ban to be used in future cosmetic products.                      
   14 
 
The proposed approach would  be phased in gradually to allow consumers time to adj ust and 
industry time to comply.  Industry and consumers w ould be kept informed by an ex tensive 
educational progr am providing information in relation to the changes and impacts following 
implementation.   
 
Objectives:  Strategies:  
 
The Government w ould  introduce the ban 
through the following objectives which 
combine both regulatory and non -
regulatory approaches, and recognise the 
regulatory system already in place for 
chemicals:  
 
1. Establish the ban within Australia’s 
current regulatory arrangements for 
industrial chemicals.  
 
2. Strengthen existing frameworks 
concerning the ethical use of animals 
in research.  
 
3. Provide a means for industry to 
demonstrate commitment to the ban, 
with an adequate period of transition 
to move to new arrangements.  
 
4. Provide mechanis ms for consumers to 
understand whether the products they 
are purchasing adhere to the new 
Australian ban.   
In order to achieve the Government’s policy 
objectives, it is proposed  that:  
 
 
 The new industrial chemicals legislation include 
provisions to ban the  use of new animal test data 
to support the introduction of chemicals used 
exclusively as cosmetic ingredients.  
 
 The National Health and Medical Research 
Council’s (NHMRC) Australian Code for the care 
and use of animals for scientific purposes  (the 
Animal Ethics Code) be amended to ban cosmetic 
testing on animals.  
 
 The NHMRC work with states and territories to 
ban cosmetic testing on animals by adopting the 
amended Animal Ethics Code into state and 
territory laws.  
 
 The Government work with the  cosmetics 
industry to develop a voluntary code of conduct 
for industry on animal testing of cosmetic 
products.  
 
 An information and communications approach 
will be developed to provide clarity for 
consumers and industry around promotional 
claims that can o r cannot be made on cosmetic 
products.  
 
Table 1: Proposed framework for the implementation of a ban on  the testing of cosmetics on animals                       
   15 
 
Exceptions  
It is suggested  that the design of the ban would allow for exceptions that exist in similar bans 
internationally including : 
 the use of data from animal testing undertaken before the  implementation of the  ban; 
 cosmetic products and ingredients which are already on sale in Australia before the 
implementation of the ban, as any animal testing has already  been undertaken ; 
 chemical substances used for a different purpose (e.g. a therapeutic or pesticide);  
 repurposing  a chemical substance (and any associated animal test data) used initially for 
a different purpose, for subsequent use in a cosmetic product; and 
 animal testing for a different purpose e.g. biomedical research, drug development , or 
occupational health and safety and environmental protection.  
How can I be involved?  
As outlined previously, t his paper forms the second  stage of a phased consultation  process to 
help shape the Government ’s approach  in implementing its commitment to ban the testing of  
cosmetic s on animals . Stakeholder feedback  is sought  on the proposed policy approach set out  
in this paper .  Information on how to contribute feedback can be found on  Department of Health 
website : http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ban -cosmetic -testing -
animals   
                      
   16 
 
Appendix A :  Demographics of representative 
sample for market research online survey