Pharmacy aisles as we know them are about to change. Many brands stocked today are likely to disappear over the next year or two because of two bills on animal testing in the cosmetics industry.

One of them, which prohibits animal testing in the development of detergents and cosmetics in Israel, was unanimously approved by the Knesset in second and third readings about three weeks ago. The other - a more radical one that seeks to forbid the import and distribution of animal-tested cosmetics - was unanimously approved by the Knesset's Education Committee before its first reading in the plenum.

MK Gideon Sa'ar is pushing the two bills which would remove animal-tested products from the shelves, or force companies to switch to alternative and more advanced methods.

	Advertisement

The bill dealing with imports and distribution adopts the 2004 European directive prohibiting the distribution and sale of nearly all animal-tested products from March 2009.

"This means that in less than two years it will be forbidden to sell animal-tested products in Europe, which will completely stop testing in the field," says Anat Refua, the head of the Laboratory Animals Protection Division at the nonprofit organization Let the Animals Live.

Ilan Levy, marketing vice president for the Roots brand, agrees: "We assume that most companies will fall into line with the law and stop experimenting on animals." According to Refua, although there is still no such law in the United States, most major companies rely on the European market which they cannot ignore.

In Israel, as in Europe, the new regulations will gradually take effect once they are approved to allow importers to start preparing from March 2008. In 2009 the law will take full effect, except for several products in a special category to be banned in 2013.

Opponents of the legislation say the bills will introduce huge expenses (see box), but MK Sa'ar says the intention is "to pass a responsible and balanced bill designed to prevent future animal testing because today's market has testing methods that are better and more scientifically effective."

Cosmetics companies started testing ingredients on animals several decades ago. "The development of a new shampoo may cost the lives of up to 10,000 animals," Refua says. "Every new ingredient put into a product is tested on some 2,000 to 3,000 animals, and sometimes there are also experiments with the finished product, so the numbers are appalling." Every experiment uses two types of animals: rodents such as guinea pigs, rats, mice and rabbits, and mammals during experiments' second phase, including cats, dogs, pigs and monkeys.

According to Refua, "about 60 percent of all detergents and cosmetics sold in Israel are produced by companies that practice testing on animals." She says that "the biggest distributor of these products in Israel is the U.S. firm Procter & Gamble, which still uses animal testing." Procter & Gamble's response: "The company stopped testing its cosmetic products on animals in 1999. In addition, the company does not ask its suppliers to perform tests on its behalf. Moreover, the company does not test the ingredients of its cosmetic products on animals, except for extremely rare cases when it needs to do so in order to meet regulatory or safety demands."

But Refua calls this an evasive answer. "There are no regulatory demands or any law that compel them to test on animals. Everything can be tested using alternative methods that do not harm animals, and as long as they fail to do so they will remain classified as a company that practices animal testing and shunned by the public."

Procter & Gamble: "The company is a world leader in searching for alternatives to animal testing, and as a result some 50 alternative testing methods have been developed, which were described in over 300 scientific publications. The company's policy, together with the law, obligates us to ensure that our products are safe for the consumers, our employees and the environment. In Israel, as in the rest of the world, Procter & Gamble follows and will continue to follow the letter of the law."

And what should a conscientious shopper do until the new laws take effect? At the moment, it's not that simple. The Israeli consumer will find it hard to distinguish between an animal-tested product and one that was not developed using such methods.

In most of the world it's a very simple matter: products carrying the "leaping bunny" logo have not been tested on animals. The procedure for obtaining the logo is clear; the Coalition for Consumer Information in Cosmetics (CCIC), which operates in Canada, the U.S. and the European Union, has set criteria. A product imported to Israel from one of these areas will carry the bunny logo if it meets the requirements.

The situation is much more complicated regarding Israeli detergents and cosmetics, and consumers will find various bunny symbols in different sizes and poses, none of them the CCIC bunny. The reason is simple: Israel is not a CCIC member, so Israeli companies may not use the logo.

"There is no legislation in Israel that regulates the marking of products that were not tested on animals, and there is also no voluntary body supervising the matter," says Dr. Shmuel Becher, a consumer law expert at the Peres Academic Center in Rehovot. "Therefore there is no supervision - not by the state nor by a third party. All there is, is a declaration by the company claiming that the products or the ingredients contained in them have not been tested on animals, without any external supervision or control."

According to Becher, this may mislead consumers twice. They may wrongly assume there is a controlling body behind the logo, and they might confuse an independent manufacturer's bunny with the CCIC bunny.

Can one trust the Israeli companies that stamp their products with their own bunnies? There is no definite answer, although according to the Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection: "We believe the absolute majority of companies that distribute their products in Israel and carry the bunny logo do meet the appropriate criteria."