Cosmetics testing
FRAME is delighted that, thanks to a voluntary agreement within the industry, cosmetic products and their ingredients have not been tested on animals in the UK since 1998.
FRAME's ultimate aim is to bring about an end to the use of animals to test any cosmetics, by developing and validating reliable replacement alternatives.
FRAME believes that validated non-animal methods should be implemented immediately into toxicity testing guidelines, and should replace animal tests where appropriate.
FRAME has funded, and continues to support, the development and validation of alternatives to the use of animals for the purposes of testing cosmetic ingredients.
Additional information
In the UK, no animals have been used for the testing of finished cosmetic products since 1997, and no animals have been used for testing cosmetic ingredients since 1998. The Home Office released statements which stated that animal tests on cosmetics products (1997) and ingredients (1998) will no longer be conducted in the UK. This is due to a voluntary agreement by organisations which hold licences for testing cosmetic products and ingredients.
However, some testing still takes place in the EU, although the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive (2004) has laid out a timetable to phase out animal testing for cosmetics and toiletries. For cosmetics manufactured in the EU, animal testing for products was banned in 2004, and animal testing of ingredients is to be banned in 2009.
A marketing ban on any cosmetics or toiletries which have been tested on animals (or their ingredients have been tested on animals) outside the EU will be brought in during 2009 and 2013, depending on which animal tests have been used. This is a difficult issue, since alternative methods for all toxicity end-points are not yet available for testing new ingredients.
The most difficult end-points to replace are skin sensitisation, long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity and developmental and reproductive toxicology (all these tests have until 2013 to be replaced for the marketing ban).











Print the page