Presentation by Mrs. Emma Bonino

I am particularly happy to take part in this symposium and to be able to seize this opportunity to speak to all the personalities and all the representatives of interested circles gathered here today in order to stress the importance which both the Commission and myself attach to the development of alternative methods to animal-testing in general and in the field of cosmetics in particular.

Before turning to the development of these alternative methods in the field of cosmetics, I would like to describe to you briefly the general context of the Commission's consumer policy.

It is indeed an appropriate moment to do so, since the Commission has just adopted, at the end of October, a communication on its priorities for consumer policy. I outlined these priorities at the Consumer Affairs Council on 9 November. The new consumer policy options focus on three main priorities:

- the need to inform and educate the consumer, thereby enabling him to adapt to the new market conditions arising from the completion of the internal market, while at the same time meeting his immediate concerns with regard to public services, financial services and the safety of food in particular;

- the adoption of measures to enable consumers to enjoy the advantages of the development of the information society and the resulting worldwide globalisation of supply;

- lastly, a contribution to the achievement of the objectives of Economic and Monetary Union, the development of sustainable growth and consumption, and the enlargement of the Union through membership of the countries of central and eastern Europe.

It is quite clear that the current changes relating to the information society, the globalisation of supply and the opening-up of central and eastern Europe will also have a lot of implications for the cosmetics sector. I think that we should reflect on how to react to the implications of these developments and on the advantages and new obligations that will follow from them.

It is my firm belief that consumers must be given more and better information. They are becoming increasingly sensitive to issues such as product safety, sustainable consumption or protection of animal life. This increased sensitivity will have to be taken into account and consumers must be given proper information about the matters of concern to them.

To turn more specifically to the subject of this symposium, you know that the 6th amendment to the "Cosmetics" Directive, adopted in June 1993, provides for the banning of cosmetic products containing "ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after 1 January 1998, in order to meet the requirements of this Directive".

This is a challenge for us all which reflects a real concern on the part of public opinion with regard to animal suffering inflicted by man. We must all endeavour to take up this challenge without forgetting, of course, to assure consumers that the products offered to them are safe and harmless.

The Commission first of all created ECVAM, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as a unit of the Joint Research Centre, benefiting from the technical facilities and scientific back-up of the Ispra JRC and given the tasks of coordinating the validation of alternative methods at Community level, constituting a forum for the exchange of information, developing and managing a databank on alternative methods and promoting dialogue between all the operators involved.

This Centre was inaugurated last year in the presence of His Royal Highness Prince Laurent of Belgium. Professor Balls, the Head of the Centre, will be giving an account this afternoon of the work carried out and the challenge of validation in Europe.

In April 1994 ECVAM organised, jointly with the Consumer Policy Service, which is now Directorate-General XXIV of the Commission, a workshop which enabled the problems to be pinpointed and the areas where action was desirable to be identified, having regard to the implementation of the 6th amendment to the "Cosmetics" Directive.

The Scientific Committee on Cosmetology, which is chaired by Professor Kemper and provides assistance to the Commission in the field of cosmetics, has also created a sub-group on "Alternative methods", which has already carried out a great deal of work under the chairmanship of Professor Loprieno.

The Commission has already financed, via the successive biotechnology programmes, research on alternative methods that can be used for cosmetics, for example research on cell cultures and reconstituted skin carried out by certain cosmetics companies and by FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments). This year too, the Commission is financing work on delayed hypersensitivity.

DG XXIV "Consumer Policy" has established many contacts with all parties concerned with alternative methods, and the Commission is well-informed about the concerns of the animal welfare organisations and about the considerable efforts already made by the industry, especially in Europe.

As I have already said, the 6th amendment to the "Cosmetics" Directive provides for the banning of tests on animals from 1 January 1998. However, there is also provision for this date to be postponed if there has been insufficient progress in developing methods that can satisfactorily replace animal testing, and in particular in those cases where alternative methods of testing, despite all reasonable endeavours, have not been scientifically validated as offering an equivalent level of protection for the consumer. In such cases, the 6th amendment stipulates that the Commission must submit, by 1 January 1997 at the latest, draft measures to postpone the date of banning of animal tests for a period of at least two years.

The 6th amendment also lays down that the Commission must present each year to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers a report on the progress made in the development, validation and legal acceptance of methods that can replace animal-testing.

The Commission forwarded its first annual report to the European Parliament and the Council in December 1994.

This report was deliberately realistic and has tried to give an objective account of the progress made, the outlook for the future and the foreseeable difficulties. It shows that at the end of 1994, there was reasonable hope that animal tests on ingredients could be replaced in the near future in the fields of eye irritation, cutaneous absorption, mutagenicity (for the basic tests) and phototoxicity, as well as for finished products. On this subject, I would like to state that for its part the Commission will interpret the provisions of the 6th amendment in such a way that the banning of animal tests also covers finished products, thereby meeting the concerns of the European Parliament and the animal welfare organisations. We have also noted that the cosmetic industry has interpreted these provisions in the same way.

The Commission's 1994 report was the subject of a European Parliament resolution, following a report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, which was drafted by Mrs Roth-Behrendt.

As you are aware, the European Parliament acknowledges the efforts made but considers the results still highly unsatisfactory and is calling for urgent action.

On the basis of the progress noted in the 1994 report, I feel that, when preparing its draft of measures for 1 January 1997, the Commission will probably be able to consider maintaining the banning date of 1 January 1998 for finished cosmetic products and for certain areas of ingredient testing in which it is to be hoped that alternative methods will be developed and validated.

To be frank and realistic, I must state, however, that there are real difficulties for certain areas of ingredient testing and that a partial postponement will have to be considered.

I would like to stress that all reasonable possible efforts have to be made in any event and that the European Parliament will have its part to play when the measures presented by the commission are adopted.

I very much doubt that the Commission's proposals would be readily accepted by Parliament if it were not convinced that sufficient efforts had been made by all the parties concerned to eliminate the need for animal-testing. Please keep an eye out here!

Through fruitful exchanges of views in a dispassionate climate, this symposium will definitely make it possible to take stock of the progress made over the past few years and to outline the hopes for the future.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to launch an appeal to the cosmetics industry and scientific circles to step up their efforts still further, particularly in new areas. I am fully aware that research involves scientific and financial constraints, but I believe this to be an important priority.

I would also like to ask the cosmetics industry to continue to cooperate with national authorities in the collection of datas concerning the number and type of tests carried out on animals, so that the Commission can include them in its next annual reports, as stipulated in the 6th amendment and requested by the European Parliament. I know that the collection of such data is not always an easy matter and may involve difficulties of processing and interpretation, but I think that it is essential in this case.

The various Commission departments concerned will continue to take an active interest in the development of alternative methods for testing cosmetics and to press for the validation and legal acceptance of such methods in conjunction with the OECD.

The organisation of this symposium and the presence of a large number of speakers and participants are evidence of the common will to encourage the development of alternative methods. I am convinced that this symposium will give rise to particularly interesting exchanges of views, which I hope will make it possible to step up the urgent joint efforts needed to achieve our shared objective of ensuring the safety of consumers with the greatest possible respect for animal life.