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
PDF 102kWORD 24k
15 January 2015
Question for written answer P-000498-15
to the Commission
Rule 130
Julie Girling (ECR)

 Subject:  Animal testing in the context of the REACH and Cosmetics regulations
 Answer in writing 

Together with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Commission has recently clarified the relationship between the marketing ban for products tested on animals under the Cosmetics Regulation ((EC) No 1223/2009) and the information requirements under the REACH Regulation ((EC) No 1907/2006).

It has made clear that the testing and marketing bans in the Cosmetics Regulation do not apply to testing required for environmental endpoints, exposure of workers or non-cosmetic uses of substances under REACH.

I have some concern that such provisions for ‘exceptions’ to the ban will undermine its effectiveness, and will fail to meet consumer expectations regarding a full ban.

In the case of exposure of workers, these tests and those used for consumers are the same. Since the exposure for consumers is greater, non-animal tests used to ensure consumer safety should also apply to worker safety.

I would therefore welcome a clarification from the Commission on why it considers such an exception to be necessary, and why the tests used to ensure consumer safety cannot be applied to worker safety.

Legal notice - Privacy policy