(2) Review of records to be kept in accordance with legislation and regulations. (Section 2.126(a)(2)). The FD&C Act does not explicitly require the use of animals in cosmetic safety testing, nor does the law require cosmetics to be approved by the FDA before they are placed on the market. However, the agency has always advised cosmetic manufacturers to perform all appropriate and effective tests to prove the safety of their products. It is the manufacturer`s responsibility to demonstrate the safety of finished cosmetic ingredients and products before they are marketed. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) states that minimum standards of care and treatment must be established for certain animals raised for commercial sale. Use in research, teaching or testing; transported for commercial purposes; or to the public. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the federal agency responsible for monitoring and inspecting laboratories that experiment on animals, as well as those that breed and sell animals for laboratories. PHS has a policy that requires vertebrate care for laboratories that receive federal funding, but the policy is not enforced and PHS monitoring is widely criticized as inadequate. The Agency only requires written assurance of compliance from the Office of Laboratory Welfare, OLAW. If a plant is found to be defective, OLAW takes few actions, has no mandatory follow-up or on-site inspection. Can`t find what you`re looking for or need help searching the AWA rules? Use our short guides on the Animal Welfare Act.
The answer, by standards here at Logical Harmony, is no. A brand that conducts animal testing, even if required by law, is not cruelty-free. Even though the brand itself does not conduct animal testing, they are aware of animal testing done on their behalf. They have given permission to do these tests, and they are paying for it financially in one way or another. Since animal testing is often done by a 3rd party rather than the brand itself, they use this as a loophole to avoid the responsibility of animal testing. There are no regulations on the term without animals. For this reason, a trademark can claim to be cruelty-free for a variety of reasons. In some cases, brands that test on animals during production but don`t test finished items on animals even say they`re cruelty-free. The term can really mean anything. The EU and FDA only require animal testing on new ingredients.
However, what the EU ban on animal testing does not cover are the ingredients used in household items. Many ingredients in household items, such as iron oxides, glycerin, mineral oil and more, are also found in cosmetics. Brands sold in the EU can continue to test ingredients used in household items on animals and sell them in the EU. Establishments that experiment with covered animals are also required by federal regulations to convene an institutional animal care and use committee, which self-regulates experiments at their facilities. This organization must include a veterinarian and a person not affiliated with the establishment. Government-mandated testing Here are some of the common animal testing methods and non-animal testing methods that have been scientifically validated to replace them: Other regulators claim to protect laboratory animals. Companies that purchase meat, dairy, eggs and wool from farmers require them to enroll in certification programs that set standards for the humane care and treatment of livestock and poultry. Once a farmer is registered, animal welfare audits are conducted to ensure that the standards of the certification program are met. Well-known certification programs include the Certified Humane Certification Program, the Global Animal Partnership, the Animal Welfare Approved, and the Food Alliance.
According to the Federal Animal Protection Act (AWA), animals used in experiments must be provided with adequate housing, treatment, veterinary care, food and water. However, the vast majority of animals used in research are excluded from AWA protection measures. In addition, there is an exception to the protection of the TAZ if a researcher determines that it is not scientifically necessary or that it would negatively impact the results of the trials. As a result, many of the existing laws and regulations, including the LTA and many state anti-cruelty laws, are often ineffective. A brief summary describing how and why animal testing is used in the commercial products industry. The summary examines the Animal Welfare Act and its effects on animal experimentation. In addition, the summary attempts to explain the complexity of debates on animal testing and some of the arguments put forward by animal rights activists and proponents of the use of animal testing. Most countries do not keep detailed public records of the number of animals used in experiments or the tests in which they are used. Therefore, it is not possible to know the number used in government-mandated tests worldwide. However, one study estimated that more than 115 million animals were used for scientific purposes in 2005, and the authors admit that this is likely an underestimate due to incomplete records in many countries.2 Animal testing, as required by law, can take place anywhere in the world.
Almost all countries have animal testing requirements that could affect cosmetics.