You are here: Home / Information / The Bunny Effect of The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

The Bunny Effect of The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

Posted by on August 25, 2010 · 7 Comments 

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

PrintFriendly and PDFPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

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

Related posts:

  1. ICMAD Response to The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010
  2. Safe Cosmetics Act 2011: Sec. 624 Animal Testing Alternatives
  3. The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

Filed under Information, Regulations · Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

  • http://www.sunshineconsultingltd.com/ Todd Weiss CFA

    This Safe Cosmetic Act has the appearance of nothing more than a shakedown of independent small business owners. While I am all for safe cosmetics, based on what I have read, the law seems to be initiated by big business to crowd out small business with little to no information on why it’s necessary and how it will make us safer. Thanks for sharing.

  • Dene Godfrey

    @ Todd – if you check back into some of the other articles/posts, you will see that the SCA was initiated by the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics(EWG) – composed entirely of small businesses! There is nothing like the divide between large and small businesses that many people seem to think. Why would the likes of P&G and L’Oreal et al with well over (probably) 90% of the market go to such lengths and cost themselves so much money to gain a relatively small share of extra market segment? It doesn’t make sense. I am not an apologist for large businesses, but I don’t understand why people try to paint them as the devil incarnate!
    I suggest that you also check out Colin Sanders’ post elsewhere on this site which identifies the major reason behind the EWG pushing for this bill.

  • http://www.sunshineconsultingltd.com/ Todd Weiss CFA

    Thanks Dene. Let me clarify my comments. I am not against big business or small business as well. Let me quote Colin’s post…

    “I had imagined the EWG, which is extremely well funded, had got its money from donations. Clearly not – this is big business in every sense of the word. Why were they ignoring pleas from small natural companies who you would think would be their natural allies? Because they are in fact their competition.”

    While the EWG may be funded by small businesses owners, the organization is a well funded large entity. While admittedly I am not an expert, based on what I have read, the law appears to not make consumers safer. It appears to be a propaganda campaign to create fear and help American Private Label create a market for its products and services.

  • http://twitter.com/hipcop Francis

    Oh Wow!! I hardly use any cosmetics!! I really need to but it is sad to see what goes on! I guess we can truly go through life with “Ignorance is bliss” but thank you for posts and sharing the information!! This is very sad and hate that it’s a reality! Look forward to more posts! :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fatin-Khawarizmi/100000541803855 Fatin Khawarizmi

    Business is business can be small or big the responsibility toward the consumer is exactly the same !
    BTW , i am always feeling sorry for those innocent animals & wondering if someday can be other solution to do those laboratory tests !

  • Pingback: Sunday Beauty Reads, 29/08/10 | beautifulwithbrains.com

  • http://www.theorganicview.com June Stoyer

    It has been proven by scientists that human DNA is different from animals. Not to mention the fact that no one who wears make-up is going to pour gallons of it in their eye to make sure they are not irritated by it. I mean, the tests are ridiculous to begin with.

    The EWG is as concerned about the environment as much as Snackwell’s produces healthy snacks. Give me a break!
    June Stoyer´s last [type] ..Can You Get TSS From iTampons