The Bunny Effect of The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
I am all about creating safe cosmetics that are natural, green and do no harm to our environment and no unnecessary harm to animals. At Essential Wholesale, we use a volunteer human panel to test all of the new products that come out of our Research and Development Lab. Our products are designed for human topical use and I see no purpose to needlessly torture animals.
I get it and understand why some ingredients must be tested on animals, but I was alarmed when Anne-Marie of Brambleberry uncovered how the EU Initiative increased the number of animal tests, rather than what I believe the EU was committed to doing, which I thought was decreasing the number of animal tests.
We are committed to Cruelty Free Cosmetics. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 will force our industry into even more testing on animals than the EU Inititative has caused. Certified Vegan and Cruelty Free Cosmetics will become a thing of the past if this bill is passed. I’m not okay with that, especially since cosmetics will not be any safer for human topical use with the passage of HR 5786.
Please read the Bunny Factor and then Oppose The Safe Cosmetics Act with these action steps. The testing required by REACH is significantly less than what would be required here in America to comply with HR 5786.
The Bunny Factor, Source Anne-Marie Faiola
When the European Union passed REACH, the proponents of REACH legislation suggested that the testing would use 9 million laboratory animals and the ongoing costs for conducting the tests would amount to €1.3 billion. The study now published by Costanza Rovida and Thomas Hartung suggests that the testing required would involve 54 million vertebrate animals and that the costs would amount to €9.5 billion (20 times more animals and cost 6 times as much as previously stated). Animal testing is the most viable form of testing for many of the allergen, toxicity, reproductive health (etc.) issues that HR 5786 purports to protect against, yet the very bill that is requiring the testing is calling for a decrease in animal testing and in fact is requiring a testing method that is ‘superior in scientific quality’ to animal testing. Unless humans can be used, sadly bunnies and primates are still the ‘gold standard’ for safety substantiation of data.
• C. Rovida & T. Hartung: Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals – a report by the Transatlantic Think Tank for Toxicology. ALTEX 26, 1/09.
• T. Hartung & C. Rovida: Chemical regulators have overreached. Opinion in Nature, vol. 460, 27 August 2009.
• Nwaogu, T. & Vernon, J; European Commission Directorate General Enterprise and Industry: Impact of European Regulation on the EU Cosmetics Industry September 2007
• Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry (2004): Final Regulatory.
• Frost & Sullivan: Active Ingredients – Key Drivers, Constraints and Challenges in the European Markets
More about the author: Kayla Fioravanti is the Vice President, Chief Formulator, ARC Registered & Certified Aromatherapist for Essential Wholesale and its lab division Essential Labs. Read more from this author