WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Postponement of the ban on testing on animals

Given that Directive 93/35/EEC(1) provides for a ban on testing on animals in the cosmetics industry and lays down that such testing must be replaced by alternative methods of testing as from 1 January 1998,

that some EU Member States (the Netherlands and Germany) have introduced such a ban but that most have not done so,

that the cosmetics industry already has available thousands of ingredients which have been tested on animals,

that alternatives to most, frequently cruel, tests on live animals exist but are not being used and that research into new alternative methods of testing finds very little support,

and that the Commission has still not taken any action in respect of the promised directive on a ban on testing on animals for finished cosmetics products,

why is the Commission postponing the ban provided for in the Directive which was due to enter into force in 1998? In the Commission's view, does commercial policy take precedence over animal welfare? On what grounds does the Commission keep postponing decisions on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

By means of Directive 97/18/EC of 17 April 1997, postponing the date after which animal tests are prohibited for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic products,(2) the Commission postponed the date of 1 January 1998 laid down in Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 to 30 June 2000, bearing in mind that the main objective was to protect public health and that, while progress had been made in research into alternative testing methods, there were still none which had been scientifically validated and which were the subject of guidelines adopted by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

Directive 97/18/EC lays down that the postponement of this date must not, however, be prejudicial to the objective of reducing the number of test animals and their suffering wherever possible, notably through the use of screening tests, and that every effort must be made to promote research, pursuant, in particular, to the provisions of the 4th Framework Programme for Research.

Any action to prohibit animal testing, particularly any action of a legislative nature, must also be compatible with international agreements and the rules of international trade, particularly those laid down by the World Trade Organisation.

Progress has been made since April 1997 and alternative methods have been validated in the areas of phototoxicity and skin corrosivity. In accordance with Article 4(1)(i) of Directive 93/35/EEC, however, the Commission must consult the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products for Consumers. Tests on animals can generally be, and to a great extent are, avoided in the case of finished cosmetic products.

The progress made in 1997 will be described in the 1997 annual report on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing in the area of cosmetics which the Commission will be forwarding very soon to the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission hopes that testing on animals in the Community can be prohibited promptly on every occasion that this is possible without compromising human health. It is planning to propose amendments to the Directive on Cosmetic Products along these lines to the Parliament and the Council.

(1) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 114, 1.5.1997.