Cosmetics
company memo reveals plan to side-step EU animal testing ban
One of the world's leading
cosmetic companies planned to sidestep an EU animal-testing ban by conducting
the experiments outside Europe, according to a leaked memo.
Procter & Gamble,
which makes Head & Shoulders shampoo and Max Factor make-up, proposed testing
cosmetic ingredients outside the EU while being "able to market them in
EU countries".
An internal memo sent
to its chairman, Alan Lafley, by Barbara Slatt, a senior US executive, also
revealed the company planned to lobby governments to delay the EU legislation
by up to 10 years. In the memo, dated 18 June 2002, Ms Slatt said it was important
to keep P&G out of the "media spotlight". She warned: "It
would be damaging to be seen as the company lobbying to test on animals, against
public opinion." Britain banned animal testing for cosmetics in 1998 and
the European Parliament voted earlier this year to introduce an EU-wide testing
ban. Member governments will meet MEPs this week to try to reach a deal on the
legislation.
An amendment to the
European Cosmetics Directive, which would have outlawed the sale in Europe of
products tested on animals anywhere, had to be abandoned. Most EU members, including
Britain, opposed a sales ban because they believed it would contravene world
trade laws. There is no suggestion that the company planned to break EU law.
However, Ms Slatt suggested
that P&G lobby against the parliament and develop a "fallback position"
to ensure a ban on marketing cosmetics tested on animals was delayed. "We
must work with MS [member state] governments to ensure that they oppose the
restrictive position of the parliament, and that an acceptable compromise can
be achieved."
Ms Slatt suggested the
company could continue testing outside the EU if the directive came into force.
"A cosmetics testing ban in Europe is expected to be manageable, since
the vast majority of our safety testing is conducted elsewhere. We are in a
more favourable position than regional EU cosmetic companies ... We can still
carry out safety tests for other GBU's [global>business units] and apply
the results to cosmetics.
Equally, we can conduct
tests on cosmetic ingredients for regulatory purposes outside of the EU and
still be able to market them in EU countries."
Wendy Higgins, the campaigns
director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, accused P&G
of trying to hide its position on animal testing. "They know that people
are unlikely to buy products that have been tested on animals." P&G
said it did not comment on internal documents but insisted it was "committed
to the elimination of animal testing" while ensuring products were safe
and complied with safety legislation across the world.
A P&G spokesman
said: "It is our intent to fully abide by the letter and the spirit of
any future EU law. Therefore, like many others, we are seeking a middle- ground
option that ensures human safety but allows a realistic time for development,
validation and, importantly, government regulatory approval in those areas where
alternatives are still required. P&G has already invested £103m in
developing alternatives to animal testing and are very active in the EU Scientific
Committee developing alternatives.
"P&G has already
stopped finished product tests on all non-drug, non-food products and only tests
on animals where required by law or where no validated alternative exists."
There is no excuse for
trying to avoid a ban on animal testing
Taken from The Independent
newspaper on 4 November.
The testing of cosmetics
on animals is politically, scientifically and morally indefensible. That Procter
& Gamble, a company making beauty products, should find such a view irksome
is predictable, and abundantly clear from a leaked internal memo revealed by
The Independent today.
What is remarkable is
the lengths to which the company will go to avoid the European Union's ban on
animal- testing for cosmetics.
Indeed, and even more
tiresome for Procter & Gamble executives, they have realised that public
opinion is so hostile to the idea that, before long, the EU may ban cosmetics
being sold in the EU if they have been tested on animals at all, irrespective
of where that testing took place.
Procter & Gamble
and other cosmetics firms no doubt sincerely believe that the European public
and its parliament are being sentimental about rats and rabbits. We do not agree;
but even if they were right about that, it would not justify trying to subvert
the clear and settled view of the majority of EU citizens. This view is that
the testing of animals for cosmetics (rather than for, say, human life-saving
drugs) is unacceptable.
Arrogant transnationals
such as Procter & Gamble are, evidently, not inclined to respect the views
of peoples and parliaments if they get in the way of their business. If they
treat the laws made by a rich and powerful bloc such as the EU with so much
contempt, then we can well understand the difficult predicament in which governments
of developing nations find themselves when trying to deal with such powerful
groups.
Procter & Gamble
seems determined to explore every ingenious device to get around the letter
and the spirit of European legislation - while still mouthing worthy platitudes
in public. Or, as its own memo states: "Throughout this process, it was
important that we were successful in keeping P&G out of the media spotlight.
It would be damaging to be seen as the company lobbying to test on animals,
against public opinion." We could not put it better; and now the damage
is done.