European Union - Brief History of the Fight for a Ban

The issue of animal testing had dominated consideration of this Directive. There was intense lobbying and public pressure in favour of a ban, including the presentation of a petition of 2.5 million signatures (the largest ever presented at the time) and an historic demonstration where 4,000 campaigners converged on Brussels.

The European Parliament also supported the view that production of new cosmetics should not cause animal suffering and that, if necessary, the cosmetics industry could rely on the estimated 6-8,000 ingredients currently in use.

At first reading, the Parliament overwhelmingly supported amendments to the Directive, which would have effectively prohibited the marketing of cosmetics containing ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after 31 January 1995. The Commission could not accept this and, after much discussion, a compromise position was reached which delayed implementation of the ban until 1 January 1998. Furthermore, a provision was included which would enable the Commission to submit draft measures to postpone this date if 'despite all reasonable endeavours' there had been insufficient progress in developing and validating alternative measures offering equivalent protection to consumers. Parliament reluctantly agreed to such a provision - on the basis that any postponement proposal would necessarily be subject to codecision with Parliament (a procedure with full European Parliament involvement).

The compromise text agreed in negotiation between the Parliament and the Commission was not accepted in full by the Council. In particular, the proposal that postponement should be subject to codecision was rejected in favour of decision by a technical committee of the Member States.

Several amendments were re-tabled by Parliament and adopted by an absolute majority - these included the demand for any postponement to be made subject to the codecision procedure. All the amendments adopted by Parliament at second reading were rejected by the Council without further debate. Had this approach been taken post-Maastricht reforms of EU procedures, it is likely that this draft Directive would have been rejected by Parliament.

Despite further active campaigning and lobbying, including the presentation of a petition of over four million signatures from all over Europe (in November 1996), the worst fears of animal groups and the European Parliament were realised: On 20 March 1997, the technical committee (the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress - CATP) agreed to postponement of the ban until 1 June 2000 (with scope for yet further postponement).

At this CATP meeting, the representatives of the Member States expressed serious concern about the speed of development of alternative methods and demanded that the Commission make every effort possible to develop such alternatives, ensure that available alternatives are used instead of animal tests and take all necessary steps to bring about the international acceptance of this position. They also demanded the submission of the proposed Council/Parliament directive (to ban animal testing of finished products).

Despite the Commission's stated intention of bringing forward this Council/Parliament directive to confirm a ban on animal testing for finished products, and the official demand by Member States representatives, this measure had still not been presented by March 1998.

The European Parliament (EP) continues to press for a complete end to animal testing for cosmetics by 1998. In the European Parliament Plenary session on 22 October 1997, a report by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt MEP (as rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection) was passed. This report responded to 'the Commission report on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal experiments in the field of cosmetics - 1996 (COM(97)0182 - C4 - 0369/97). In its report, the EP recorded its deep regret at the postponement of the ban until 1 June 2000, and called for the long-awaited Council/Parliament directive to be brought forward without delay. It once again pressed for a full ban on cosmetic testing. Its fall-back demand was for a full ban on animal testing for finished products and fixed dates for final implementation of the ban in respect of ingredients, which should in no case be less than the year 2000.

See also: Cosmetics: Existing Legislation of Relevance

Top of this page | Cosmetics: Legislative Campaign | Cosmetics Campaign Index | WAN Home