Cruelty Free International – Written Evidence (JTN0008)

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Cruelty Free International is a UK-based organisation working to end animal experiments worldwide. With a history of over 100 years, our science, regulatory and legal experts work with authorities in the UK, the EU and around the world to advance humane and human-relevant science. Cruelty Free International also runs the Leaping Bunny approval programme for brands committed to cruelty free cosmetics, personal care and household products and works with hundreds of UK companies from small to large. In 2018, we delivered eight million petition signatures to the United Nations together with The Body Shop in support of a global end to the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Summary A UK-Japan free trade agreement is an opportunity for the UK government to put into action its verbal commitment to enhancing animal protection now that the country has left the European Union (EU). As our Prime Minister said in a debate in the House of Commons on 10th June 2020: “Not only will we protect animal welfare standards but, on leaving the EU, as we have, we will be able to increase our animal welfare standards.” In 1998, the UK was the first country to place restrictions in law on animal testing for cosmetics. Currently, there are no such restrictions in Japan where, for ordinary use cosmetics, it is for companies to decide which methods of testing they use and where, for so-called special use cosmetics, it is mandatory to test new ingredients on animals. In our view, any UK-Japan free trade agreement should explicitly state that the UK will not accept reliance on safety data derived from animal tests for the import of any cosmetics, whether ordinary or special use, into the UK from Japan – even if this is already the effect of the relevant UK law. As the UK enters into bilateral trade negotiations with Japan and other countries, provisions that seek to ensure that higher welfare standards apply to the use of animals in experiments within the UK must not be abandoned. Import bans of products developed using animals – including but by no means limited to cosmetics – in ways which would not be permitted in the UK should also be negotiated through relevant trade agreements and should properly reflect animal welfare concerns, including the use of non- animal methods where they are available. 2.0 Animal testing for cosmetics purposes in Japan 2.1 Japan is the world’s second largest cosmetics market with a value of $29.9 billion.1 In Japan, cosmetics are regulated by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law (PAL). For legal purposes, beauty products are divided into quasi-drugs and cosmetics. Although Japanese law does not require most ordinary cosmetics to undergo animal testing, there are no regulations that specifically prohibit animal testing, and companies can carry out safety analysis of ingredients and finished products in any way they see fit. Cosmetics deemed to be quasi-drugs, however, must be subjected to a number of efficacy and safety tests – including animal tests – when containing new ingredients.2 2.2 The PAL defines a “quasi-drug” as an item for the purpose of: (i) preventing nausea and other discomfort (ii) preventing heat rash, soreness, etc. (iii) encouraging hair growth or removing hair, or (iv) exterminating and preventing mice, flies, mosquitoes, fleas, etc. Among these quasi-drugs are deodorants, depilatories, hair growth treatments, hair dyes, perm and straightening products, as well as medicated cosmetics, such as whitening products, anti-aging products and oily skin or acne treatment products. 2.3 The Japanese Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) was created in 2005 to facilitate the 3Rs in animal testing for regulatory purposes, validating and accepting non-animal methods. Although JaCVAM works closely with similar bodies in Europe (ECVAM) and in the USA (ICCVAM), there is concern that official recognition of data acquired using non-animal methods by the Japanese authorities is not yet as extensive. 3.0 Animal testing for cosmetics purposes in the United Kingdom 3.1. Since 1998, the UK has had a clear position not to permit the use of animal tests for cosmetics purposes, a stance that led the way to the EU prohibitions on animal testing for finished cosmetics products, on ingredients for cosmetics purposed and on the reliance of animal testing safety data obtained anywhere in the world for cosmetics to be imported into the EU, including the UK.

1 Socio-economic contribution of the European Cosmetics Industry 2018 report. 2 EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation, Guidebook for Exporting/Importing Cosmetics to Japan, January 2015. 3.2. A 2019 UK regulation 3 clearly states that no animal testing for finished cosmetics products, their ingredients or combinations of ingredients may take place in the UK in order to meet the purposes of the regulation. The regulation also states that " No cosmetic product may be placed on the market (a)where the final formulation of the product has been the subject of animal testing in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation; (b) where the ingredients or combinations of ingredients of the product have been the subject of animal testing in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation." 3.3. UK public opinion is adamant on the issue of cosmetics animal testing. In the government’s own commissioned survey of public attitudes to animal testing published in 20164, 91% believe that animal testing should not be permitted for cosmetic purposes. 4.0. Animal welfare in free trade agreements 4.1. The EU Japan European Partnership Agreement was criticised by civil society in both the EU and Japan for its lack of animal protection commitments. The Trade and Sustainable Development chapters were felt to be weak in this regard, being aspirational but lacking sanctions and with no obligation to co-operate on matters like, for example, wildlife trafficking. There was no specific mention at all of animal research and testing. 4.2. Despite not yet having found parliamentary time, the UK government has said that it is committed to ensuring that animal sentience would be recognised in UK law after Brexit. This commitment should be visible in the UK’s approach to and the content of trade agreements. 4.3. Any UK-Japan free trade agreement should explicitly state that the UK will not accept reliance on safety data derived from animal tests for the import of any cosmetics, whether ordinary or special use, into the UK from Japan. Likewise, UK-based companies should not have to produce animal testing data to be able to sell any cosmetics into Japan. 4.4 As the UK enters into bilateral trade negotiations with Japan and other countries, provisions that seek to ensure that higher welfare standards apply to the use of animals in experiments within the UK must not be abandoned. 4.5 Scientific partnerships with researchers outside the EU should be subject to the equivalent standards to those which apply under UK law,

3 The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 SI 2019 No 696, Paragraph 17 of schedule 34 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/696/schedule/34/made 4 Clemence and J. Leaman, Ipsos-Mori, Public Attitudes to Animal Research in 2016 Report, July 2016. especially where the research project is funded partly by UK state funds. Government-funded research councils should insist that all research in third countries is conducted at least according to UK standards (and reviewed by the home institution’s Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) wherever applicable), as a condition of receiving funding. 4.6 It is important to support the scientific community in the UK as it adopts alternatives to using research animals, by banning the importation of products developed using animals in ways which would not be permitted in the UK. An example is monoclonal antibodies (MAbs): production using animals is prohibited in the EU in most cases because there are non-animal alternatives, but it is still possible to import the same MAbs which have been produced using animals, from outside the EU. Such import bans could be consistent with WTO rules because they would reflect the prevailing morality of UK citizens. At the same time, every effort should be made to agree standards through the relevant and appropriate global standard setting body e.g. Codex Alimentarius, European Food Safety Authority and the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD). 4.7 International standards more generally could be agreed through global bodies, such as Codex, EFSA and the OECD. Import bans should also be negotiated through relevant trade agreements and should properly reflect animal welfare concerns, including the use of non-animal methods where they are available.

18 August 2020