Europe Bans Animal Testing on Cosmetics

Budget Fashionista content uses affiliate links. We may earn a buck if you click and buy.

What: By 2013, no European cosmetic products (at least legal ones) will be tested on animals – in theory –  thanks to two new bans that outlaw animal testing on cosmetic ingredients and consequently, the sale of animal tested cosmetics.

What We Say: Bravo to the EU for taking such a difficult step toward animal rights. Even those of us who aren’t PETA members like to hear that “no animals were harmed in the making of this makeup.” British-speaking lab rats are probably throwing a party right now.

But it’s a lot more complicated than that. After all, there’s a reason animals are tested in the first place, and that reason isn’t that creators of cosmetics hate animals. Unfortunately, we just haven’t found alternatives that are as effective as animal testing… yet. Although the FDA doesn’t require US brands to test their cosmetics on animals, it does require such cosmetics to be safe. And if you’ve got to have a lab rat on hand to prove such a thing (which is often the case), well, you’ve got to do some animal testing.

So, what’s Europe’s secret? Well, if all the players in the industry are dealing with the same legalities, they’re all about even. We could see some of them coming to America to market their animal tested products, getting back their edge.

Do you care if your cosmetics are tested on animals? If so, what brands do you buy – Avon, anything else?

You also might like these:

  • Connie

    Chessmont: Using a life saving drug is a little different than buying ten different colored eyeshadows. One is much less necessary. I don’t think it makes you a hypocrite to reduce your use of products tested on animals to only a few that are life saving for you. We don’t NEED all of these luxury anti-aging creams and nail polishes. If you condemn buying expensive perfumes tested on animals but support your uncle receiving chemo that is fine in my book, not hypocritical. You’re right animal testing has greatly benefitted medicine and cosmetics but there comes a point where it’s a little selfish of us to inflict so much suffering for eyeliner.

    • You took the words out of my mouth. Fighting cancer with drugs that were tested on animals is just a bit different of wanting to tart yourself up for a night out. I would rather look bland and wear no makeup or hair products etc. than buy products that have been tested, but suffering a debilitating chronic illness and needing treatment for this myself, as much as it breaks my heart and how much I feel a hypocrite for it, for medical purposes some testing is necessary. 🙁

  • Nana

    What is Europe’s secret? We are not morons. If you just do a little research you’ll find that there are these little things called skin cell culultures that not only are cruelty-free but also are more accurate in testing cosmetics.
    The companies that still do animal testing will say, of course, that their method is safest. But seriously? Did you really think that after almost 80 years of cosmetic testing there wouldn’t be a better alternative? Come on.

  • Ella_1073

    I hate animal testing-it’s cruel what they do to animals, and it’s not that accurate, humans and rats aren’t that closely related. Anyways, some of my favorite brands are: Urban Decay, Revlon, TRESemme, Wet ‘n Wild, Bath and Body Works, Claire’s [and The Icing by Claire’s], Sephora, etc.

    • Claire Sutcliffe-Campo

      Tresmee and reveling are not cruelty free sadly

  • Chessmont

    Animal Testing is necessary; how do you think chemotherapy, life-saving cancer trearments, intricate surgeries, life-saving drugs and antibiotics come into being for the benefit of humanity?  Even the nutcase Ingrid Newkirk of the radical animal rights group PETA praised painkillers as how she was able to deal with a broken (arm? not sure what bone)  How the hell does that crazy hypocrite think those painkillers were developed to aid in her comfort??

    The former VP (I believe that was the position) of despicable PETa) I believe her name is Mary Beth Sweetland, uses insulin for diabetes.  Even though now it is made without using pigs, she took it for years before that.  How did she justify it?  paraphrasing a quote – “My work is so important it’s OK for me to use animal products.”  What a load.

    And BTW, a cosmetic can be labeled ‘not tested on animals’ if THAT particular product was not; the ingredients of it, if they were tested at some prior point (years ago, by another company)  – the ‘cruelty-free’ product is not required to disclose that and be labelled for that.

    To me, this is not a complicated issue.

    Hypocrites will gladly use life-saving measures on themselves with animal-tested products and procedures.  Hypocritical or naive.