Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
19 June 2013
E-007135-13
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

 Subject:  Testing of tobacco products on animals
 Answer(s) 

The testing of cosmetic products on animals and imports of such products into the EU have been largely regulated, but the closely linked issue of testing tobacco products on animals, in particular on rats, monkeys or dogs, remains a grey area. Although tests which involve exposing animals to tobacco smoke for many years under atrocious conditions are prohibited in the EU, there are no such restrictions on tobacco products imported into the EU by the well-known manufacturers which carry out these tests. Leading importers include China, Brazil, India, Turkey and the US.

Attempts to verify the damaging side-effects of nicotine are a pointless exercise nowadays, since the harmful nature of nicotine consumption has been proven beyond all doubt. A further reason why there are no grounds whatsoever for this research is that animals react differently to toxins, and moreover animals in the laboratory are not exposed to tobacco smoke in the same way as people.

1. How does the Commission intend to promote EU practices outside its borders in such a way as to influence the actions of tobacco groups and producers?

2. Does the Commission intend to block imports of tobacco products tested on animals?

3. How can the Commission argue in favour of maintaining the European Union’s cooperation with tobacco companies when the above proves them to be indifferent to the fate of animals?

Original language of question: PLOJ C 81 E, 20/03/2014
Last updated: 3 July 2013Legal notice