EU Cosmetics Directive and the Ban on Animal Testing: Compliance, Challenges, and the GATT as a Potential Barrier to Animal Welfare

• Author: Jennifer Klein
• Pages: 251-275

EU Cosmetics Directive and the Ban on Animal Testing:

Compliance, Challenges, and the GATT as a Potential

Barrier to Animal Welfare

Jennifer Klein

I. OVERVIEW OF THE EU COSMETICS DIRECTIVE .............................. 253

A. Purpose of the Directive ............................................................ 254

B. Definition of “Cosmetics” Products Covered by the Directive . 255

C. Elements of the Directive: Regulated Conduct ........................ 257

1. The Testing Ban ................................................................. 257

2. The Marketing Ban ............................................................ 257

3. The Importation Ban .......................................................... 258

D. Stages of Implementation ......................................................... 258

1. Conduct Prohibited as of 2009 ........................................... 259

2. Conduct Prohibited in 2013 ............................................... 260

3. Use of Alternative Methods and Exceptions ..................... 261

II. CHALLENGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2003/15 ... 262

A. Challenges in EU Member States ............................................ 262

1. Exceptions to the Ban on Animal Testing for

Cosmetics ............................................................................ 262

2. Proposed Rules That Would Limit the Scope of

Directive 2003/15 ................................................................ 262

3. EU Cosmetic Companies’ Preparation for the Ban .......... 263

B. Compliance Within the EU: Will the EU Member States

be Able to Meet Directive 2003/15’s 2013 Deadline? ............. 264

1. General Implications of Directive 2003/15 on

EU Cosmetic Companies .................................................... 264

2. The Unsuccessful French Challenge to Directive 2003/15265

III. CHALLENGES COMPLYING WITH DIRECTIVE 2003/15 IN THE

UNITED STATES .............................................................................. 266

A. The Ban on Importation of Animal-Tested Cosmetic

Products..................................................................................... 266

B. Consequences of the Importation Ban in the United States ... 266

C. Possible U.S. Responses to the Importation Ban .................... 268

1. Legal Challenge Under the GATT ..................................... 268

TRANSNATIONAL LAW & CONTEMP ORARY PROBLEMS [Vol. 21:251

252

2. Pending Canadian Challenge to the EU Ban on

the Sale and Marketing of Seal Products ......................... 272

3. Alternative Means of Compliance if the U.S. GATT

Challenge Proves Unsuccessful ......................................... 273

D. Recommendations on a Course of Action in the United

States ......................................................................................... 274

IV. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 275

EU COSMETICS DIRECTIVE AND THE BAN ON ANIMAL TEST ING: COMPLIANCE,

CHALLENGES, AND THE GATT AS A POTENTIAL BARRIER TO ANIMAL WELFARE

The European Commission signed European Union (“EU”) Directive

76/768 (the “Cosmetics Directive”) into law in 1976 in a broad effort to

regulate the European cosmetic industry.1 In 1993, the European

Commission amended the Cosmetics Directive with Directive 93/35, which

originally sought to end animal testing for cosmetic products by the year

1998.2 This was the Commission’s first attempt to regulate animal testing for

cosmetic products.3 Despite the original implementation date, two

subsequent amendments to the Cosmetics Directive have delayed the

Commission’s goal of ending animal testing in the cosmetic industry.4 The

Commission postponed the ban once in 2000 and again in 2003. 5

The European Commission enacted Directive 2003/15 in 2003 as part of

the EU’s effort to reduce animal testing for cosmetic products.6 Directive

2003/15, the seventh amendment to the Cosmetics Directive,7 provides the

1 Council Directive 76/768, 1976 O.J. (L 262) 1 (EEC), [hereinafter Cosmetics Directive],

available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1976/L/01976L0768-20060809-

en.pdf (the original Cosmetics Directive regulated general aspects of the cosmetic industry but

did not speak to animal testing in particular).

2 Council Directive 93/35, 1993 O.J. (L 151) (EEC), ¶ 3, [hereinafter Directive 93/35], available at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0035:EN:HTML.

3 See generally id.

4 See Commission Directive 2000/41, 2000 O.J. (L 145) 25 (EC), [hereinafter Directive 2000/41],

available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:145:0025:0026:

en:PDF (amending, for the second time, the date after which animal tests are prohibited,

changing the date to “30 June 2002” from the previous date of “30 June 2000” as liste d in Article

4(1)(i) of the Cosmetics Directive); see also Cou ncil Directive 2003/15, 2003 O.J. (L 66) 27 (EC),

[hereinafter Directive 2003/15], available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?

uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF (requiring the period for implementation be limited to ten

years after the enactment of the Directive).

5 See Directive 2000/41, supra note 4; see also Directive 2003/15, supra note 4.

6 See Directive 2003/15, supra note 4.

7 Although the Commission has amended the Cosmetics Directive numerous times since it

passed Directive 2003/ 15 in 2003, the purpose of those amendments is to adapt the Annexes to

technical progress and not to push back or change implementation dates. See EUROPEAN