Protecting Animals in Democracy


       

Rabbit

EDM 1215 'Household Products'

In 1997 the Government decided to stop granting licences for cosmetics tests on animals, because the suffering caused was "not justified"[1] given the trivial nature of the products tested. There is, however, no such prohibition for household products such as washing-up liquid or disinfectant, yet the arguments are very similar.

EDM 1215 calls upon the Government to extend its existing policy ban on cosmetics testing using animals to also include household products [2]. It is still perfectly legal for UK companies to test such products on animals in the UK. It is very hard to argue that developing another variety of washing up liquid or floor cleaner justifies causing pain and suffering to sentient animals.

Since the cosmetics testing ban, according to Home Office figures 7,184 animals have been used in 7,325 procedures to test household products . The Home Office's Annual Statistics of Procedures on Living Animals for 2006 [3] recorded for the first time that the number of toxicological procedures listed as being for "substances for use in the household" was - for the first time - zero. This figure seems encouraging but must be treated with extreme caution as it relies upon those doing the testing to categorise their tests for household products and their ingredients.

Many Parliamentary Questions have been answered in the last five years [4] during which the Government has failed to take the opportunity to commit itself to a ban on household product and ingredient testing. This is unacceptable: it is clear that a line must be drawn in the sand which commits the Government to ending animal tests for household products, as a matter of policy.

EDM 1215 has been tabled by David Drew MP. It reads:

"That this House notes the Government's 1997 policy prohibition on the use of animals to test the safety of cosmetic products and their ingredients, which was said to have been introduced on the basis that the suffering caused was not justified given the nature of the product; notes with regret that the Government has not implemented a similar prohibition on the use of animals to test household products, such as washing-up liquid or floor cleaners, and their ingredients; supports the campaign of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection to end the suffering of animals in tests for household products and their ingredients; and calls on the Government to implement a policy prohibition on issuing licences to test household products and their ingredients on animals as a matter of urgency."

Click here to lobby your MP on EDM 1215 now!

 

REFERENCES:

  1. Home Office, 6 November 1997: Supplementary Note to the Home Secretary's response to the Animal Procedures Committee - Interim report on the review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  2. UK Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Home Office - 1997-2006
  3. Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2006: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/spanimals06.pdf
  4. For example, 16 April 2002; 10 January 2005; 18 June 2007

^

Are you supportive of our mission and methods? Have you found the information on this site useful, enlightening and/or inspiring? Is this website valuable at all? If the answer is 'yes' to any of these questions, then please make a contribution to the PAD campaign today.

Protecting Animals in Democracy, 5th Floor, Alliance House, 9 Leopold Street, Sheffield, S1 2GY, UK
phone +44 (0) 114 272 2220, fax +44 (0) 114 272 2225, email pad@vote4animals.org.uk