|
Sustainable
eNews |
August 2002 |
|
|
IWMC
World Conservation Trust |
|
Cosmetics Test Ban
would
Harm Male Humans
|
There are some problems in the EU that might be
cleared up if the members of Parliament had more information of a
scientific nature. For years there has been a debate in Europe over the
cosmetics industry practice of testing products on animals before they are
marketed to humans. One would think that decent concern for the safety of
those using the products would mandate this safety procedure. However,
because animal welfare advocates have noted that cosmetics are frivolous
and "unnecessary" and that mainly women purchase them, animal
testing has come under intense fire. The unspoken message has been that
women's health is of secondary importance, compared to the alleged
suffering of animals used for product safety testing.
New information has just become available to the medical community and
the public, that many types of cosmetics contain phthalates, a class of
substances that is known to pose a risk to the reproductive potential of
male humans. Phthalates are found in nail polish (used by millions of
breeding-age young women), in perfumes and other products' fragrances, and
male fetus damage has been repeatedly demonstrated in animals exposed to
the products THROUGH COSMETICS TESTING. Further, it was disclosed by STAT
Analysis Corporation (in Chicago) that not only cosmetics, but also a
number of medical products such as plastic tubing are implicated in further
phthalates testing studies.
There are five kinds of phthalates commonly found in consumer products.
On July 10th, STAT released information that 52 of 72 products
tested contained these substances, some as a substantial proportion of
product ingredients. Their report says, "by claiming the chemicals are
fragrances or that they're trade secrets, companies can legally keep
phthalates off ingredient lists." Further, the cosmetics industry
claims that since fragrances can have "hundreds of ingredients"
that it is simply not practical to have to list them all on the mandatory
list of ingredients on product labels. (Science News, July 20, 2002, p. 36)
By this reasoning, no consumers can protect themselves by reading labels.
The implication of this last piece of information is that because of
testing on cosmetic products, a harmful class of substances with specific
damage to male human fetuses has been found, not only in
"frivolous" products, but also in products such as plastic
tubing, commonly used in medical practices. Therefore, animal testing in
the production of cosmetics has produced information about other areas of
potential exposure to great harm. As in many cases of scientific inquiry,
unexpected results have been perceived and those results are of grave
significance. It is hoped that this information reaches the majority of EU
Parliamentarians, (who are MEN) and that they resist the constant pressures
to ban all cosmetics testing on animals. Scientific information vital to
human health and safety can only be found through tests on animals as a
preliminary procedure. The information can then be used to extend to
knowledge about other products used by humans in other fields.
IWMC does not condone frivolous, unnecessary or careless use of animals
in the testing of any products. However, reasonable concern for human
health and safety should be the standard by which any decisions on testing
are made. It would be unconscionable to ban animal testing on any products
used by humans, regardless of whether or not some groups consider those
products "frivolous" or find that they are commonly used only by
women. 
|
