Legal Battle Over Alleged Secret Changes to Testing Regulations

An animal welfare organisation, Cruelty Free International (CFI), has lost its High Court challenge regarding the UK Government’s alleged abandonment of a ban on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients. The court’s decision has raised concerns about transparency and regulatory practices in the realm of animal welfare.

CFI accused the Home Office of secretly altering its long-standing policy, which historically prohibited testing cosmetic ingredients on animals. The organisation claimed that the public had been left “in blissful ignorance” regarding these changes, which reportedly occurred after February 2019. CFI argued that ministers were now willing to approve licenses for animal testing, asserting that this shift undermined a ban first established in 1998 and was unlawful.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, Mr Justice Linden dismissed CFI’s claims, stating that the Home Office had not acted unlawfully. He expressed regret that the Government had not announced this policy change publicly, acknowledging that it was concerning that “inaccurate” guidance was available online. However, he concluded that there had been no breach of legal duties, and neither CFI nor the public had a “legitimate expectation” to be informed of any changes.

The court’s deliberations focused significantly on CFI’s assertion that the Home Office had misinterpreted EU legislation concerning cosmetics safety. Mr Justice Linden clarified that while regulations aimed at consumer safety prohibit animal testing for cosmetics, separate rules regarding chemical evaluation are more permissive. These rules allow for animal testing only as a “last resort” to meet safety regulations.

The judge noted that the Home Office’s policy was lawful and compatible with existing regulations, which stipulate that animal testing may occur only when no alternative methods are available. He stated that the Government had modified its policy for pragmatic reasons rather than due to any legal obligation, and it was reasonable to interpret the two sets of legislation as compatible.

CFI’s chief executive, Michelle Thew, expressed disappointment with the ruling, claiming that the Home Office appeared to prioritise the interests of contract-testing companies over those of animals and public sentiment against cosmetics testing. She described the Government’s actions as “outrageous,” asserting that the ban had been abandoned without proper disclosure.

Following the ruling, CFI announced its intention to appeal the judgment. In response, a Home Office spokesperson reaffirmed that it remains illegal to test cosmetic products or their ingredients on animals for market approval, stressing that the marketing of such products is also prohibited.