The UK government had banned the testing of makeup ingredients on animals for more than two decades when it quietly reversed its stance in 2019. It began issuing licenses for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients in line with European Union rules, which don’t allow animal testing to determine whether makeup is safe for consumers, but require that manufacturers use such tests as a last resort to ensure the safety of workers during production, per the BBC and Guardian. It continued to do so after leaving the EU in 2020. It was entirely legal, High Court Judge Thomas Linden ruled Friday following legal action by Cruelty Free International (CFI), though he noted it was “regrettable” that the public hadn’t been told of the policy change. Legal the move may be, but uncontroversial it is not.
More than 80 brands, including Unilever, TRESemme UK, and the Body Shop, say they’re “dismayed” by the position. “We want the UK to uphold its 1998 position as intended, with no new tests on animals allowed,” reads a letter signed by the brands. It notes that “the UK was the first country in the world to say no to animal testing for cosmetics and their ingredients,” which led to “innovation in non-animal safety science and assessment approaches.” The industry now has a “‘toolbox’ of non-animal methodologies with which to assess product safety,” yet the European Chemicals Agency is “requiring some widely used cosmetics ingredients (and ingredients used in many other types of consumer products) to be tested on hundreds of thousands of animals.”
PETA UK claims rabbits, rats, and other animals are forced to “ingest shampoo or sun cream ingredients for months at a time,” per Glamour. Dr. Julia Fentem, head of Unilever’s Safety & Environmental Assurance Center, says it’s not necessary to use animals in the safety tests. CFI CEO Michelle Thew argues the government “was prioritizing the interests of contract-testing companies over those of animals and the wishes of the vast majority of British people,” per the BBC. The organization plans to appeal the ruling. The UK Home Office says it’s “pleased” with the decision but remains “committed to the protection of animals in science.” Judge Linden noted, however, that there’s nothing stopping the government from introducing a complete ban on animal testing of cosmetics.
UK Government Didn’t Disclose the Change in Policy
Court proceedings revealed that the Home Office secretly abandoned the ban on animal testing for cosmetics in 2019. In 2021, the UK Home Office admitted in a letter to CFI that animal tests on cosmetic ingredients could occur in rare instances if deemed necessary to meet the requirements of chemicals regulations. In that letter, the Home Office said its approach was akin to that of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which can mandate animal testing to meet the needs of REACH – the EU’s pan-industry chemicals regulation. The ECHA’s position is that the longstanding bans on animal testing to meet the needs of the EU Cosmetics Regulation do not prevent the need for REACH compliance.
Following Brexit, the UK has adopted its own version of the EU’s REACH system, called UK REACH. In court, Home Secretary Suella Braverman argued that she was bound by a law originating in the EU to authorise such testing. Documents disclosed in the court proceedings revealed, for the first time, that the Home Office had secretly abandoned the ban back in 2019.
According to CFI, the Home Office had delayed replying to the NGO for nine months – and subsequently failed to disclose that the policy had been changed two and a half years earlier. Justice Linden agreed with the Home Office’s interpretation of the legislation, but said that that did not stop the UK having a policy prohibiting cosmetics testing on animals. He also criticised the “less than transparent” way the Home Office had conducted itself.
“It is outrageous that the government has abandoned the ban on using animals in cosmetics testing and did so in secret while giving the impression that the policy remained in place,” said Cruelty Free International Chief Executive, Michelle Thew. “Documents the Home Office was forced to disclose in the case show clearly that it was prioritising the interests of contract-testing companies over those of animals and the wishes of the vast majority of British people who are strongly opposed to cosmetics testing.
“Now that the High Court has said it can do so, we call on the government immediately to reinstate the policy ban.” Other animal rights campaigners have thrown their support behind the High Court’s decision. Chris Davis, Global Director of Activism and Sustainability at The Body Shop, commented: “The Body Shop was the first global beauty company to campaign to ban animal testing in cosmetics in 1989, with the UK becoming the world’s first to rule it out in 1998.
“We share the deep-rooted concerns of our longstanding partner Cruelty Free International that the ban was effectively lifted in 2019, under the radar. Following today’s high court ruling we also call on the government to reinstate the ban immediately. We can’t turn back the clock.” He added: “Allowing animal testing for cosmetics in the UK would be a devastating blow to the millions of people who have supported campaigns to end this appalling practice for nearly 35 years. So, the fight continues and we will campaign vigorously, as our late founder Dame Anita Roddick did, for as long as it takes.”
Misleading Statements
In a statement to Parliament, Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote: “I can inform the House that the Government is taking action to seek alternatives to animal testing for worker and environmental safety of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients. We are therefore announcing a licensing ban with immediate effect.”
However, Cruelty Free International, an animal rights organisation that recently applied for a judicial review against the Home Office’s decision to abandon the ban, has revealed that the new ban only applies to ingredients used exclusively in cosmetics. In effect, this amounts to about 20% of all chemicals used in cosmetics, so this is only a partial ban.
“This statement is a welcome first step in response to the information revealed in our Judicial Review earlier this month,” Cruelty Free International said in a statement. “We are pleased to see that the Government are listening to the British public in reinstating a partial ban on animal testing for ingredients used exclusively in cosmetics, to protect consumer, worker and environmental safety, and actively seeking alternatives to animal testing.
“However, ingredients used ‘exclusively’ in cosmetics amount to only about 20% of the total number of chemicals used in cosmetics. The previous ban, confirmed by the government in 2015, also covered ‘substances used exclusively or predominantly as cosmetic product ingredients.’”
As a nation of animal lovers it seemed serendipitous that the UK became the first country to ban animal testing in cosmetic products and ingredients in 1998. Most people believe that animals are no longer tested on for cosmetics in the UK. In theory they should be right, as in 1998 the then-Labour government officially banned the testing of cosmetic products and ingredients on animals. Unofficially, however, that hasn’t been the case since Brexit.
In a letter from the Home Office to animal welfare charity Cruelty Free International (CFI) revealed that the Tory government once again allowed animal testing on ingredients exclusively used in cosmetics – a move that effectively overturned the cosmetics testing ban that has been in place for 25 years.
Officials revealed that our rules would be aligned with a decision by the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) Board of Appeal, requiring certain ingredients to be tested on animals before they are used by humans. The ECHA stated that Symrise, a German chemicals firm, should carry out animal tests on two ingredients – which are widely used across a range of beauty products – to satisfy chemicals regulations, overruling EU restrictions on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients.
“Under UK regulations to protect the environment and the safety of workers, animal testing can be permitted, where required by UK regulators, on single or multi-use ingredients. However, such testing can only be conducted where there are no non-animal alternatives,” a government spokesperson said.
At the time, Dr Katy Taylor, CFI’s director of science and regulatory affairs, said: “The government is saying that even ingredients used solely in cosmetics, and with a history of safe use, can be subjected to animal tests in the UK.
“This decision blows a hole in the UK’s long standing leadership of no animal testing for cosmetics and makes a mockery of the country’s quest to be at the cutting edge of research and innovation, relying once again on cruel and unjustifiable tests that date back over half a century.”
According to Dr Julia Fentem, Unilever’s head of the safety and environmental assurance centre, there are approximately 100 cosmetics-only ingredients that could be subjected to animal testing under the regulations. She called the UK’s plan to align with the Symrise decision a “retrograde step”.
Earlier this year, PETA UK revealed that over 400 chemicals are registered in the EU as ingredients used exclusively in cosmetics, and some of these are subject to new animal testing requests by the ECHA. These tests involve forcing tens of thousands of rats and rabbits to ingest shampoo or sun cream ingredients for months at a time, say the charity, with some pregnant animals being force-fed these chemicals before they and their unborn offspring are killed and dissected.
After more than 80 companies – including Unilever, The Body Shop, Avon, Boots, Waitrose and the Co-op – joined the CFI in writing to the Home Office, the High Court granted the CFI permission to apply for a judicial review against the Home Office’s decision to abandon the ban.
Judicial Review
A judicial review is essentially a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In this case, it is looking at whether the way in which the Home Office made their decision is actually legal. The judicial review was granted on two grounds. Firstly, whether the change to the Government’s policy should be allowed.
Secondly, whether the harm-benefit test was being applied correctly. This test is required under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and is the process of assessing whether the harm that would be caused to protected animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome, taking into account ethical considerations and the expected benefit to human beings, animals or the environment.
Director of government and regulatory affairs at CFI, Kerry Postlewhite said: “This judicial review is vital to establish whether there is a ban on cosmetics testing on animals in the UK…The Government seems to be telling the public one thing – that cosmetics animal testing is banned in the UK – and doing something entirely different in practice.”
Documents disclosed in the court proceedings revealed that the Home Office secretly abandoned the ban in 2019 and a High Court Judge ruled that the ban can be reinstated, despite the Home Office arguing against it. In the Judicial Review, Mr Justice Linden agreed with the Home Office’s interpretation of the legislation – hence the Government’s actions weren’t deemed unlawful. But he said that did not stop the UK having a policy prohibiting cosmetics testing on animals.
Now that the High Court has said it can, Cruelty Free International will be calling on the Government to immediately reinstate the 1998 on animal testing.
In response to the ruling, Chris Davis, The Body Shop Global Director of Activism and Sustainability, said: “The Body Shop was the first global beauty company to campaign to ban animal testing in cosmetics in 1989, with the UK becoming the world’s first to rule it out in 1998.
“We share the deep-rooted concerns of our long-standing partner Cruelty Free International that the ban was effectively lifted in 2019, under the radar. Following today’s high court ruling we also call on the Government to reinstate the ban immediately. We can’t turn back the clock.”
