Chapter 6
Cosmetics testing in France
print

This chapter reviews the key companies comprising the French cosmetics industry, looks at the government’s attitude to animal testing, and describes the numbers of animals used in different tests conducted in the name of human vanity.

The French cosmetics industry – behind the glamour

France is known worldwide for its cosmetics and toiletries. In the USA, Europe and Japan, there can be few people who have not heard the names of L’Oréal, Guerlain, Clarins, Givenchy and Christian Dior. Advertised widely, in the minds of millions of people these brand names create images of luxury products which pamper and beautify.
But there is another, ugly side to the French cosmetics industry – a side which these companies do not want their customers to know about. The ugly side to the beauty business is, of course, the suffering of animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, hamsters and rats, on whom these products and their ‘new, active ingredients’ are often tested. Interestingly, some of the magazine advertisements placed by large cosmetics companies explain that clinical and test-tube (in vitro) tests have been conducted during the formulation of their products, but animal testing is never mentioned.
The cosmetics industry is a very big business. The world cosmetics market is valued at 83 billion euros, and France is a key player. In 2002, the French LVMH group of companies – brand names Christian Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo – had net sales worth 2 336 million euros. The group is very keen to constantly ‘innovate’, stating in their annual report for 2002 that they want to offer more than 20 per cent of new products each and every year (55) .
‘Innovation’ is always bad news for laboratory animals, since new ingredients are still being animal-tested. But novel products based on novel ingredients are claimed by many French companies to be essential for expanding their markets, even though there are already 8 400 ingredients available. These existing ingredients could be combined almost endlessly to yield new products – without animal testing.
L’Oréal is a company recognised around the globe. As well as its own L’Oréal products, the group has many subsidiary companies and brand names, including Biotherm, Helena Rubinstein, Laboratoires Garnier, Lancôme, Lanvin, Maybelline and Vichy, as well as Daniel Hechter, Gloria Vanderbilt, Color Riche, Jet Set, Elnett and numerous others. L’Oréal is a very powerful voice in the cosmetics industry worldwide, active in Europe via COLIPA as well as in the French trade association.
Although L’Oréal has conducted considerable research into the development of alternative, non-animal testing methods, and stopped testing its finished products on animals some years ago, it likes to develop novel ingredients – which are tested on animals. In 1996, L’Oréal published a report of carcinogenicity experiments on 140 mice, in which an ultraviolet filter (sunscreen), called Mexoryl SX, was tested to see if it could prevent light-induced skin cancers (56). The mice were divided into three test groups and two control groups, and were restrained and exposed to ultraviolet light for five days a week, for 40 weeks. Mice in all the groups developed skin tumours, and from day 28 onwards some mice had to be destroyed because of the size of their tumours. In animals treated with Mexoryl SX, tumour development was delayed by six weeks.
Of course, it is commonsense and good science to question whether results obtained in laboratory experiments on mutant, hairless mice have genuine relevance to humans. Perhaps this is why L’Oréal itself felt obliged to explain, in a later report (57), that despite many experiments on animals, “little is known about UVA protection of human skin” (our emphasis).
Other major businesses in the cosmetics market include the Clarins Group, with net sales of 922 million euros in 2002. France is also the home of subsidiaries of parent companies based elsewhere. One example is Colgate-Palmolive France, part of the US-based company, selling soaps, shampoos, shower gels, toothpastes and mouthwashes.
In efforts to increase their profits, some cosmetics companies produce products that almost stray into the medical field. The world’s most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, recently discussed this ‘blurring’ of the line between cosmetics and medicines (58). Called cosmeceuticals, these borderline products are sold on semi-medical claims such as reducing the signs of ageing or stopping hair loss. Selling as cosmetics and toiletries products which purport to have semi-medical functions enables companies to maximise their profits. This is because medical products must undergo much more extensive and lengthy testing for safety and efficacy, which would cost the companies more money. Producing cosmeceuticals increases a company’s customer base and income, without incurring the costs of extensive clinical trials which a medicine would have to undergo.
L’Oréal is one cosmetics company which saw, early on, a way to increase its market beyond cosmetics and toiletries. In 1981 it joined forces with Nestlé and established Galderma, a company which develops pharmaceutical products for skin, hair and nail problems. Galderma has more than 400 staff at three sites, including the main research and development centre at Sophia Antipolis in south-east France. Of course, pharmaceuticals are an area where animal testing is mandatory, and thousands of rodents, rabbits, dogs and primates will suffer in the development of each pharmaceutical product.
In response to growing public opposition to animal testing, the French beauty business has always hidden behind European legislation, claiming that animal tests are compulsory. But a recent amendment to this legislation (59) (see Chapter 3) has now set deadlines to prohibit the marketing of cosmetic and toiletry products containing animal-tested ingredients, and on the actual testing of many such ingredients in the EU. How warmly has France welcomed this humane development?

French government opposition to ending animal tests

It appears that the prohibitions on testing cosmetic ingredients and on marketing products containing these ingredients, only recently agreed by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, are not at all to the liking of France.
Despite the fact that 60 per cent of French citizens favour these bans, the French government has defied public opinion and lodged a case with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, demanding that the proposed bans be overturned (60). Firstly, the government complains that the bans are not compatible with the rules of the World Trade Organisation – even though public concern about animal welfare is one of the GATT 1994 general exceptions to free trade (61).
Secondly, the government claims that the bans will damage the European cosmetics industry, by excessively interfering with freedom to pursue a “professional activity”. Yet the legislation does not stop companies from developing and marketing new products. It seems, then, that the government wants the beauty business to have the freedom to cause pain and distress to laboratory animals in the name of vanity. The French government is the only one among the member states of the EU to have taken this extraordinary step.
However, another organisation representing the interests of the cosmetics industry has taken similar action. The European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients (EFfCI), based in Brussels, claims that the legislative ban on animal testing is not compatible with free trade rules and will damage European business interests (62). It also argues that the welfare of animals is not part of the internal market objectives of the European Community and that legislation ending animal testing of cosmetics ingredients may put consumers at risk. Again, this is a nonsense: even if a full range of valid, non-animal testing methods was not available by the time of the ban, companies still have a huge selection of existing, safe ingredients to use.
According to an article in Le Monde (63), the government’s opposition originates from Nicole Fontaine, the ministre déléguée à l’industrie; the government is accused of acting to protect major companies like L’Oréal and LVMH. Le Monde describes the EFfCI as a newly formed federation of 70 chemical companies, who develop and market chemical ingredients, many of which are used in cosmetics.
And so, after thirteen years of legislative development, now that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers finally agree to heed the majority of the European public who oppose animal testing, France and the chemical industry are taking court action to prolong the suffering of animals.
OneVoice demands that the government abandons its attempt to perpetuate animal suffering and death in the name of vanity, and withdraws its case against the European Commission. There are more than 8 000 existing ingredients which are considered safe and can be used to develop new products, until non-animal tests are available for all purposes.

Numbers of animal tests in France

For many years France has been infamous as the European country conducting the most animal tests on cosmetics products and ingredients.
Table 1 below shows the total number of animals used, in five different years between 1990 and 2001, to test substances used mainly in cosmetics and toiletries. The figures are taken from the official government statistics.

Table 1
Government statistics of animals used to test products or substances mainly for cosmetics and toiletries, 1990-2001

Table 1 shows an apparent massive decrease in animal testing between 1990 and 1997, with a further dramatic drop in 1999 and then a rise in 2001. The precise 1999 figure is unclear, as different tables in the official statistics provide different totals, i.e. either 426 or 286 animals.
Thus the 1999 figure is approximately one-hundredth of the animal use of ten years previously. No explanation has been offered by the government or the industry which could account for this change. Although similar decreases have been seen in some other European countries, these are always a result of the introduction of a national ban on cosmetics testing, such as was enacted in Britain in 1997 – but not in France. Even with the increase of 500 per cent between 1999 and 2001, the number of animals used was only 12 per cent of the number in 1993.
A major discrepancy in the 1999 figures provided by the French government emerges more clearly concerning the use of animals in the public and private sectors, shown in Table 2 below.
The government statistics for 1999 provide two different figures for animal use by the private sector: these are the numbers in italics in the columns separated by a double line in our Table 2. Clearly, the government has made a mistake. The larger of the two figures, 426, is probably the ‘correct’ one – if, indeed, either figure can be relied on.

Table 2
Government statistics of animals used to test products or substances mainly for cosmetics and toiletries, in the private and public sectors, 1990-2001

Year	1990		1993		1997		1999 (64)		1999 (65)		2001
Sector	Private	Public	Private	Public	Private	Public	Private	Public	Private	Public	Private	Public
Number of animals used per sector	26 262	1 075	20 377	404	4 803	198	164	262	24	262	2 445	146
Total number of animals	27 337		20 781		5 001		426		286		2 591

Our Table 2 demonstrates that in 1990, private sector laboratories accounted for nearly all the animals used in cosmetics testing, as would be expected. The same is true for 1993, but by 1997 the private sector appeared to be using fewer animals. And by 1999, inexplicably, it seems that public sector laboratories conducted more cosmetics tests on animals than did the private sector – which apparently used only 24 or 164 animals. This is quite nonsensical.
Even though the statistics of animal use increased again after 1999, there is still no explanation of why, in the absence of a ban on animal tests for cosmetics, the 2001 figures are only 12 per cent of those used in 1993. The government might claim the overall reduction is due to an increased use of non-animal tests in place of animal experiments. However, the official statistics show that LD50 tests were still being conducted for cosmetics testing in 2001 (see Table 3, below), despite the availability of less severe methods. If the industry has not even substituted lethal tests like the LD50 with less severe animal methods, it is highly unlikely to have implemented in vitro methods to replace animals.
Many people are deeply suspicious about the status of the official figures.
OneVoice considers it very unlikely that companies producing cosmetics ingredients have really reduced their use of animals by 88 per cent over an eight-year period, apparently without any notable technical breakthroughs or policy changes or testing ban.
If companies have indeed achieved this remarkable reduction in animal testing, during a period when the cosmetics and toiletries market continued to grow, then there is absolutely no excuse for opposing the introduction by the EU of animal-test bans. Yet the French government has done exactly this (see above).
A more likely explanation for the apparent drop in animal use is that as public opinion has turned against animal testing, tests conducted for the cosmetics industry have been submitted under a different classification. Another possibility is that, as the collection of animal test statistics is voluntary, some companies have failed to submit their figures.

Animal species used and kinds of tests conducted in France

Since 1990, no cats, dogs or primates have been used in tests for cosmetics and toiletries, according to official figures. The most commonly used species have been mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and hamsters. All these animals are sentient, i.e. they are all capable of feeling pain, distress and suffering, as is acknowledged in the European law which protects laboratory animals (66).
In 2001, government statistics list the use of 843 guinea pigs, 680 rabbits, 509 rats, 494 mice and 65 hamsters. More than seven different kinds of tests were conducted on these animals in the name of the beauty business. Table 3 illustrates these.

Table 3
Types of tests conducted on animals mainly for cosmetics and toiletries, 2001

Type of test	LD50 or LC50 tests (67)	Other lethal toxicity	tests Non-lethal toxicity	tests Skin irritation	tests Skin allergy	tests Eye irritation	tests Sub-chronic & chronic toxicity	Other tests	Total
Number of animals used	210	262	74	450	1 213	142	128	112	2 591

As explained in Chapter 4, these tests all cause suffering and distress, yet because of species differences and the unrealistic doses used, the results cannot be relied upon to protect human health.
Table 3 shows that despite the availability of valid, less severe methods – such as the fixed dose procedure – 210 animals were used in LC50 and LD50 tests, which are calculated to kill 50 per cent of the animals used in 2001. Two hundred and sixty-two were used in other short-term tests intended to cause deaths, and another 74 in tests calculated to cause toxicity (e.g. the fixed dose procedure).
One hundred and forty-two animals, probably rabbits, endured the application of test substances to their eyes – despite the fact that tests which do not using living animals have been accepted as valid by the French authorities (see Chapter 5). Four hundred and fifty animals were used in skin irritation tests.
In 2001, 1 213 animals underwent skin allergy tests. Guidelines on skin allergy testing recommend that mice should be used in a less severe test (the local lymph node assay), rather than guinea pigs in traditional, more severe tests. However, government figures suggest that only 494 mice in total were used in cosmetics testing. This indicates that guinea pigs were used in unnecessarily severe tests. One hundred and twenty-eight animals were used in repeat-dose tests, and 112 animals in other, unnamed tests.

OneVoice calls on the government to clarify and explain the unlikely dramatic decrease in animal testing for cosmetics and toiletries over the last eight years, and the discrepancies for 1999, and to publish corrected statistics.

55 - LVMH Annual Report (2002). Interview with Patrick Choël, President of Perfumes & Cosmetics Business Group at LVMH, p 60.
56 - Fourtanier, A (1996). Mexoryl SX protects against solar-simulated UVR-induced photocarcinogenesis in mice. Photochem. Photobiol. 64:688-693.
57 - Seite, S et al (1998). Mexoryl SX: a broad absorption UVA filter protects human skin from the effects of repeated suberythemal doses of UVA. J. Photochem. Photobiol. 44:69-76.
58 - Pearson, H (2003). In the eye of the beholder. Nature 424:990-991.
59 - Council Directive 2003/15/EC of 27 February 2003 (amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC), Official Journal 2003 L 66, p 26.
60 - Official Journal of the European Union (2003) C 171, 19.7.2003, p 20-21.
61 - Article XX of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) states that public concern about animal welfare may constitute a general exception to free trade.
62 - Official Journal of the European Union (2003) C 184, 2.8.2003, p 50-51.
63 - Le Monde: La France soutient les tests sur les animaux dans l’industrie cosmétique, 23 August 2003.
64 - The figures in this column are based on the official statistics for 1999, Part 2, Table 8. Enquête sur l’utilisation d’animaux vertébrés à des fins expérimentales en France. Statistiques 1999. Ministere de la Recherche.
65 - The figures in this column are based on the official statistics for 1999, Part 2, Table 3. Enquête sur l’utilisation d’animaux vertébrés à des fins expérimentales en France. Statistiques 1999. Ministere de la Recherche.
66 - Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal L 358, 24.11.1986, p 1-6.
67 - These are tests in which groups of animals are poisoned so that the dose causing 50 per cent lethality can be calculated (see Chapter 4).