Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Craig and Marc Kielburger founded Free The Children and Me to We. Their biweekly Brain Storm column taps experts and readers for solutions to social issues.

It's a ban that could forever change the way we style our hair or apply our eyeliner – "we" in the general sense.

As of March 11, the European Union will no longer allow the sale of cosmetic products if they or any of their ingredients have been tested on animals, with no exceptions – the first jurisdiction in the world to do so.

Story continues below advertisement

For years, animal lovers have relied on a bunny logo on personal care products to ensure good looks don't come at the expense of animal welfare. However, the words "not tested on animals" don't necessarily apply to the ingredients themselves: rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats are still used to test new cosmetic materials sold around the world – including Canada.

Humane Society International is leading a Be Cruelty-Free campaign to convince other countries to adopt a ban like the European Union's, but the cosmetics industry argues that some animal testing methods are still required to ensure their products' safety. Is consumer awareness enough, or is a global ban on cosmetics animal testing necessary?

This week's question: How can we ensure the safety of products destined for human use without being cruel to animals?

The experts:

Hilary Jones, ethics director at LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics

"We could stop the pointless search for wonder ingredients that stop us from looking old. There is a world of natural materials out there, and endless combinations of these tried and tested ingredients. To bring a product to market you simply have to test the finished formulation safely on a panel of human volunteers. There is no excuse for any level of animal suffering for us to have a new face cream or a new shower gel!"

Thomas Hartung, chair for evidence-based toxicology at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing

Story continues below advertisement

"Keep up the pressure. Cosmetics are the wrong target but we are happy to have one: less than 0.03 per cent of animal testing is for cosmetics, however, the ban has made the cosmetic industry an engine of change for alternative methods, which have been and continue to be invaluable for all industries using animals for safety testing."

Mara Long, former research fellow at the Canadian Council on Animal Care

"Be patient: many non-animal testing methods have been used by cosmetics companies for decades. However, new testing methods can take up to 10 years from development to validation and regulatory acceptance, and there are still health endpoints for which there is no accepted non-animal model. The science is getting better, but it takes time."

Have your say in the comment section.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies