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 39kWORD 10k
23 September 2020
P-005170/2020
Priority question for written answer P-005170/2020
to the Commission
Rule 138
Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE)
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: European Chemicals Agency Board of Appeals (Cases A-009-2018 and A-010-2018) – what remains of the scope of the ban on animal testing for cosmetics

In its joint note with the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) of 2014 (1) , the Commission limited the scope of the EU’s cosmetics animal testing ban to animal testing for ingredients solely used in cosmetics (2) , and included an exemption for testing nominally carried out for worker safety (even though the tests for worker and consumer safety are identical).

1. In the light of the decision taken in August 2020 by the ECHA Board of Appeal on two related appeals brought by Symrise (3) to require animal tests on ingredients exclusively used in cosmetics, does the Commission agree with this highly restrictive interpretation?

2. Can it clearly set out what it believes now remains within the scope of the cosmetics testing ban, as workers will be exposed to virtually all substances?

(1)https://echa.europa.eu/-/clarity-on-interface-between-reach-and-the-cosmetics-regulation
(2)Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products.
(3)Cases A-009-2018 and A-010-2018.
Last updated: 28 September 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy