欧盟监管机构禁止化妆品里添加动物测试成分‏

E.U. Bans Cosmetics With Animal-Tested Ingredients

詹姆斯·坎特

By JAMES KANTER

发布时间:2013年3月11日

Published: March 11, 2013

布鲁塞尔 – 欧盟监管机构周一宣布禁止进口和销售含有在动物身上测试成分的化妆品,并承诺更加努力推动世界其它地区,如中国,接受替代产品。

这项禁令将立即生效。托尼奥·博格(Tonio Borg),欧盟健康和消费者政策的委员, 在一份声明中说禁令“给出了欧洲重视动物福利的一个重要信号”。

欧盟在2004年禁止了用动物来测试化妆品成品。第二项关于禁止含动物试验成分的化妆品,四年前就已生效。但是由于各大化妆品制造商大量的游说,导致给像过敏和癌症等找不到替代品的一些测试延长了期限。周一的行动消除了那些剩下的豁免。

即使在新规则正式宣布前,总部设在法国的化妆品公司欧莱雅在周一之后表示,他们将尊重禁令,并不再在欧洲销售含有动物测试成分的成品。

但是价值约700亿欧元或910亿美元产业的欧洲其他工业界代表则批评欧盟不应该在找到替代一些最复杂的试验方法之前就使禁令生效。

欧洲化妆品贸易协会发言人科林·麦凯(Colin Mackay)说:“欧洲的想法是给世界其他地区施加更多压力以便结束动物试验,但是科学与政治的时间表并不同步”。

最有可能的结果将是“欧洲的消费者将不会有新的产品,因为我们不能保证某些成分在得不到适当和足够测试的情况下是否安全,” 麦凯先生说到。

全球安全规则的分歧也可能意味着公司们在全球范围内销售同样的产品,但是在不同的国家如中国推销以动物实验为安全验证的版本,而在欧洲则因为替代试验推销另一个版本。

上周一有警告说禁令仍然留有漏洞。此禁令公布后不久,达格玛·罗斯- 贝伦特(Dagmar Roth-Behrendt),一个来自德国的社会党立法委员,十年前曾参与协助欧洲议会并令其导致通过2004年的禁令。 他说公司仍然可以使用动物试验的成分,只要测试是为非化妆品例如药品或化学品等进行的。

罗斯 – 贝伦特女士说,她不知道漏洞是否“来自于行业的压力,”但她补充说,“这是不对的。”

从空气清新剂到防晒霜等产品的消费者是不太可能立即发现新规定的差异,因为化妆品中动物测试的成分若是在禁令之前得到的,则可以继续留在货架上。

但是,此举可能会将与世界部分地区如中国等要求动物试验作为营销化妆品条件国家的贸易关系复杂化。

博格先生在发言中说,他将“与其它国家合作并另其效法我们欧洲的做法。”

博格先生将承诺继续资助替代品的开发,使欧洲树立“一个对化妆品消费者的安全负责的创新例子。”

总部设在美国的化妆品制造商雅诗兰黛(Estée Lauder),表示该公司没有对动物进行产品或原料测试,并且不断加大工作力度使不依赖动物试验而获得安全性评价方面获得全球性的认可。

雅诗兰黛在其网站上说,这些努力包括“教育不接受体外试验结果的中国及其他市场的科学家们,体外试验经过了科学验证并具安全记录”。

雅诗兰黛说,该公司“没有对动物进行产品或原料的测试,我们也不要求别人为我们去做,除非法律上有要求。”

文章来源:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/business/global/eu-to-ban-cosmetics-with-animal-tested-ingredients.html?_r=2&

翻译:圆怀

校对:不惑

 

E.U. Bans Cosmetics With Animal-Tested Ingredients

By JAMES KANTER

Published: March 11, 2013

BRUSSELS — European Union regulators announced a ban Monday on the import and sale of cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals and to pledge more efforts to push other parts of the world, like China, to accept alternatives.

The ban, which will take effect immediately, “gives an important signal on the value that Europe attaches to animal welfare,” Tonio Borg, the E.U. commissioner for health and consumer policy, said in a statement.

The European Union banned animal testing of finished cosmetic products in 2004. A second ban, on animal-tested ingredients, went into effect four years ago. But heavy lobbying by major cosmetics manufacturers resulted in an extension of the deadline for some tests for effects like allergies and cancer and for which there is still no substitute. Monday’s action eliminated those remaining exemptions.

Even before the new rule was officially announced, the cosmetics company L’Oréal, which is based in France, said it would respect the ban and “no longer sell in Europe any finished product with an ingredient that was tested on animals” after Monday.

But other representatives of the European industry, worth about €70 billion, or $91 billion, annually, criticized the commission for putting the ban into effect before alternatives existed for some of the most complex tests.

“Europe’s idea is to put more pressure on other parts of the world to end animal testing, but the science doesn’t match that political timetable,” said Colin Mackay, a spokesman for Cosmetics Europe, a trade association.

The most likely outcome would be “that consumers in Europe won’t have access to new products because we can’t ensure that some ingredients will be safe without access to suitable and adequate testing,” Mr. Mackay said.

The global divergence in safety rules could also mean that companies sell the same product globally, but market one version for countries like China backed up by safety evidence from animal tests, and another version for Europe backed up by evidence from alternative tests.

And there were warnings on Monday that the ban still left a loophole. Shortly after the announcement, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a Socialist lawmaker from Germany who a decade ago helped to steer a measure through the European Parliament that resulted in the 2004 ban, said companies still could use ingredients from tests on animals as long as the tests were carried out for non-cosmetic products like pharmaceuticals or chemicals.

Ms. Roth-Behrendt said she did not know if the loophole “followed pressure from the industry,” but added, “This is wrong.”

Consumers of products from deodorants to sunscreens are unlikely to notice an immediate difference from the new rules because cosmetics containing ingredients that were tested on animals before the ban can remain on the shelves.

But the move could complicate trade relations with parts of the world like China that demand animal testing as a condition for marketing cosmetics.

Mr. Borg said in his statement that he would “engage with third countries to follow our European approach.”

Mr. Borg will promise to continue helping finance the development of alternatives, so that Europe sets “an example of responsible innovation in cosmetics without any compromise on consumer safety.”

Estée Lauder, a cosmetics manufacturer based in the United States, said it did not test products or ingredients on animals and it was increasing efforts to gain global acceptance for safety evaluations that did not rely on animal tests.

Those efforts include “programs in China and other markets where in vitro testing is not accepted in order to educate scientists on the scientifically validated safety record of these methods,” Estée Lauder said on its Web site.

Estée Lauder said it does “not test our products or ingredients on animals, nor do we ask others to test on our behalf, except where required by law.”