For past
achives on Riseup site
For
Past archives on our site
|
For past
achives on Riseup site |
|
|
BUAV Comment on Leicester City Council Animal Testing Policy
"The City Council will not buy products that have been tested on animals where alternatives are available that are of an equal quality and are comparable in price." This policy has a clearly admirable purpose: to ensure the Council is not supporting animal suffering through its purchasing. However, the policy as defined may not actually achieve this. This is for two reasons: firstly, it does not precisely define what it means (see below) which could lead to purchasing decisions which do not support its purpose; secondly, due to this imprecise definition, it could be interpreted so strictly that no suitable "alternatives" could be sourced and, as a result, it would have no effect whatsoever on purchasing. To clarify, the definition of a "product that has not been tested on animals" is open to considerable interpretation (the BUAV employs a clear definition for its purposes which we will examine later). The areas of possible ambiguity are:
Before attempting to formulate a usable and precise definition, therefore, it is necessary to examine the current situation regarding animal testing and to consider closely what the objective of the policy actually is.
Background All but a handful of products are made from basic ingredients, usually manufactured chemical substances or processed substances derived from natural sources. Most manufactured chemical substances have been tested on animals at some point in their existence and many substances of natural origin will also have been tested. Sometimes this testing will have been conducted for regulatory purposes (ie because the law demands it) but more often because a manufacturer has considered that animal testing will supply information that will help to demonstrate that the company has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their product. It is impossible to generalise but basic chemical ingredients of most products are likely to have been tested at some point. Many ingredients of cleaning and other products have been in use for decades, however, and may have been tested many years ago. Many cleaning products also contain ingredients which are used in other products or processes and which may have been tested (perhaps due to a legal requirement) for use in those other ways. Finally, new "products" may be simply reformulations of old products or new combinations of existing ingredients. Depending on a number of considerations, (the nature of the product and its ingredients, existing information on risk, legal requirements etc) manufacturers may test these new formulations or mixtures on animals but will not always do so. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, among others, information on the testing of substances and products may, however, never enter the public domain or, if it does so, it may be very difficult to access. When companies do provide information on their animal testing policies, their claims must be examined closely. If they test only ingredients, they may truthfully claim that their products are not tested while in reality they conduct animal tests. Secondly, they may claim that they do not test on animals because they either commission other companies to test for them or because their ingredient suppliers perform the testing. This means that their products and/or their ingredients may be extensively tested on animals, even though technically their hands are clean.
Implications For all these reasons, the objective of buying products that have never been tested on animals (either as a finished product or ingredients) is very difficult to meet: firstly because so may substances have been animal tested at some point and secondly because establishing whether a product or its ingredients have ever been tested on animals can be time-consuming and very difficult. The Council must therefore consider more closely what it hopes to achieve by applying this policy. Two possible objectives are considered below. Objective 1: retrospective purity The purpose of a policy based on this objective is to ensure that no products are used which have ever been tested on animals. This ensures that the purchaser is not providing financial support to a company that has tested on animals and that the products it uses have never been responsible for animal suffering. Although these tests have been performed and this fact will not be altered by the policy, it ensures that all products are literally "cruelty-free". Even if a company has tested on animals solely to comply with a particular law, has tested many years ago or has never tested a product but simply used ingredients that have been tested on animals at some point by someone, this policy would exclude their products from being purchased. As illustrated above, achieving this is extremely difficult. Objective 2: prevention of animal testing The purpose of this policy is to ensure that purchasing precludes any future animal testing by suppliers and therefore contributes to the end of animal testing. This means that products which have been tested on animals or contain ingredients which have been tested on animals may be used but it ensures that suppliers know that any further involvement in animal testing will result in the withdrawal of custom. This policy does not, of course, exclude the use of products or ingredients which have never been tested on animals. This objective is concerned with producing practical results rather than establishing a rigid principle. The BUAV’s position The BUAV supports Objective 2, and believes that it offers the most usable and effective approach to achieve meaningful and positive results. Obtaining "retrospective purity" is exceptionally difficult but offers no benefit over Objective 2 in preventing future animal testing. It therefore does not actively reduce animal suffering to any greater extent, despite its greater challenges. For an organisation the size of the Council, a policy designed to achieve Objective 1 would be almost literally impossible to establish, comply with, audit and enforce. A policy which is aimed exclusively at preventing future testing will be more workable and achievable, while ensuring that the Council is honouring the spirit of the existing policy, which is to ensure that it is not supporting animal suffering.
Establishing a policy The BUAV’s Humane Household Products Standard and Humane Cosmetics Standard enshrine the objective of preventing animal suffering. These standards are applied to companies who sell or manufacture cosmetics, toiletries and household products and are thus aimed at producers rather than purchasers. The BUAV also approves companies as a whole, rather than individual products while the Council’s purchasing policy as stated is concerned with individual products. Nevertheless, the criteria set by the standards provide the basis for a meaningful and effective definition of "not animal tested" and we recommend that they form the basis of the Council’s policy. An abbreviated version of our criteria is found in Appendix 1, and our list of definitions in Appendix 2. Establishing that products are compliant with the criteria set by the standards can be challenging. Nevertheless, large companies with many suppliers such as the Body Shop (for cosmetics and toiletries) and the Co-op (for cosmetics, toiletries and household products) are able to meet these standards. This illustrates that establishing an effective policy is achievable. Ingredients The BUAV’s criteria include both products and ingredients as new ingredients are far more likely to be tested than new products. Fixed Cut-Off Date The basic requirement of both standards is that companies adopt a "fixed cut-off date" (FCOD). This means that they confirm that they have not conducted or commissioned testing of products after this date and that they will not use any ingredients that have been animal tested after this date. The date may be set at any time in the past but is never set in the future and it cannot be subsequently changed. This means that neither the company nor anyone who supplies ingredients to it will ever be able to test again if they wish to retain approval. In contrast to the FCOD, some manufacturers employ a "rolling rule", ie that they will not use any ingredient tested within, for instance, the last five years. Clearly, however, this rule does not preclude future animal testing as an ingredient may be tested today or tomorrow and then be used in five years’ time. The BUAV does not approve any companies which adopt a rolling rule as this policy does not ensure that no future testing will take place. The BUAV does not dictate when the fixed cut-off date (FCOD) will be. This is a decision made by the company on the basis of examining their own supply chain and considering the implications of different dates. Generally, more recent dates are easier for companies to comply with as it allows them a greater range of possible ingredients but this varies considerably. Consequently, FCODs vary from one company to another. If the Council is approving individual products rather than a company’s range of products as a whole, there is scope for even more variation and we would recommend a similarly flexible approach. If the objective is to prevent future testing, nothing is gained by fixing a specific date. Purposes of testing The BUAV recognises that some substances used in cosmetics, toiletries and household products are used in other products are processes. For the purposes of the standards (which are confined to certain kinds of products), if they have been tested for these other reasons, that does not exclude approval, so long as certain criteria are met (see Appendix 2). Again, the Council must consider how this would relate to its wider definition of "product". Supply and Audit The BUAV expects companies approved by its standards to actively ensure that they are meeting the set criteria. Approved companies must both monitor the compliance of their suppliers and be willing to submit to external audit to ensure that both they and their suppliers are compliant with the standards. The Council would need to consider how it would implement and audit such policies.
Conclusion Leicester City Council’s current policy, while admirable in principle, is unlikely to achieve its apparent purpose in practice. This is disappointing as an organisation with the purchasing power of the Council could have a significant effect in helping to reduce animal testing. However, by producing a tighter definition of the policy and instituting a mechanism to achieve compliance with it, the Council could certainly have a significant impact on animal testing. The Council must first consider what it hopes to achieve with such a policy and then examine how best in practice to meet this objective. On the basis of our experience in formulating and administering our Humane Household Product and Cosmetics Standards, the BUAV believes it is undoubtedly possible for the Council to turn the intention of this policy into an effective and admirable practical programme.
AIC 7/12/05
Appendix 1 Basic criteria for approval on BUAV Humane Household Product Standard
1. A Company must not (now or in the future) conduct, Commission3
3 A Company must implement a Supplier Monitoring System10. 4 A Company must obtain Declarations of Product and Raw Material Compliance11 (or equivalent documents), from each of its Third Party Manufacturers and Suppliers. This information will be kept as part of the Company’s Supplier Monitoring System.
Appendix 2 Definitions used by the BUAV.
Contact: Alistair Currie 0207 619 6984 alistair.currie@buav.org |