Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 28 - Evidence - September 28, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 28, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, we have quorum and I’m calling the meeting to order.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I’m Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee. I’m going to start by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. To put this meeting on the record, we are here to deal with Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics).
The sponsor of the bill is the Honourable Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen. We have witnesses surrounding her at the end of the table, and I’ll identify them initially because it’s my understanding that we will proceed by starting to have Senator Stewart Olsen speak, then each of the other three groups will present and then we will open the floor and have a go at them all together.
As witnesses, from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, we have Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer. From Humane Society International, we have Troy Seidle, Senior Director. From LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, we have Tricia Stevens, Charitable Giving and Ethical Campaigns Manager; and Hilary Jones, Global Ethics Director.
Now, in terms of broad strokes, the bill amends the Food and Drugs Act. I mentioned the sponsor. It was tabled in the Senate on December 10, 2015, and has been referred to our committee.
So with that, colleagues, we will begin the study of this bill, and I invite the Honourable Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, sponsor of the bill, to present to us.
Hon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, chair, and thanks everyone for being here. Many thanks for being here to present evidence as well.
I’m pleased to be here today to present to you Bill S-214, known by its short title as the “Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act.”
Animal testing for cosmetics purposes is a backward practice that has no place in Canada in 2017. Many of you have seen the disturbing investigation broadcast by CTV in March of this year. We know that the process of testing substances on living animals, despite assurances from drug and cosmetics companies, is often tortuous and cruel.
With that said, Bill S-214 is not designed to demonize Canada’s cosmetics industry. In recent decades, cosmetics companies in Canada and around the world have been voluntarily reducing their use of animal testing. The industry will tell you in the course of this study that very little animal testing actually occurs in Canada. We don’t have exact numbers for Canada, but if we look at the European Union, prior to their legislated ban, only 0.0125 per cent of animal tests were related to cosmetics.
Major companies, including L’Oréal, have voluntarily ceased animal testing unless required by law. Others, like Unilever, have publicly committed to reducing animal testing as much as possible.
New and innovative tests are being developed every day to reduce and eliminate the necessity for animal testing. Many of the new tests are much more accurate and more effective than animal testing, some of which is rooted in the sciences of the 1930s and 1940s.
There is nothing in Canada’s Food and Drugs Act or the Cosmetic Regulations requiring the use of animal testing for cosmetics or their ingredients. I have been assured of this by health ministers in both Liberal and Conservative governments. I also have that in writing from the Department of Health.
With that reality in mind, I believe it is timely and relevant for us to join the more than 30 countries that have banned this practice.
Bill S-214 was not developed in a void. I worked closely with Humane Society International and other animal welfare organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, which, by the way, sits on the Animal Welfare Committee of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. The Animal Welfare Committee deals directly with the use of animals in science.
I’ve received support from well-known companies like LUSH, The Body Shop and H&M, which are substantial producers of ethically produced cosmetics in Canada and abroad. I have also consulted with industry organizations like the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, which represents companies both large and small in Canada.
Bill S-214 has substantial public support. I’m sure you have all received many emails and phone calls that have been sent to politicians across the country.
Polling done by the Strategic Counsel on behalf of Humane Society International found that 88 per cent of Canadians believe it is not worth causing this kind of suffering to animals just to test the safety of cosmetics, especially when there are safe ingredients readily available. Further to that, 81 per cent believe the practice should be outlawed entirely as proposed in Bill S-214.
I want to be clear with my intentions for this bill. I am not an animal rights activist. I have no desire to interfere with the practice of law-abiding hunters or farmers. I support Canada’s sustainable seal hunt. These issues are unrelated to the matters addressed in Bill S-214.
Scientifically, I understand that there are circumstances in which animal testing is necessary for protecting human safety. There are no reliable alternatives when testing for things like full system toxicity. I’m also aware there’s regulatory confusion built into the Food and Drugs Act; some cosmetics are regulated as drugs and vice versa.
Concerns of this nature were raised by the critic of the bill at second reading and by the industry when I consulted them. I have listened to these concerns, and as a result, I will be introducing an amendment at clause-by-clause consideration next Wednesday that will narrow the scope of the bill to animal testing done within Canada and relax some of the restrictions placed on data obtained from animal testing done in the past.
I believe Bill S-214 can be a Canadian success story that we all can be proud of. It will bring our cosmetics industry in line with the world’s largest beauty market, the European Union, and other countries like Norway, Switzerland, Israel, India, New Zealand, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan and several states in Brazil. It will drive Canadian science innovators to think outside of the box and develop new tests that do not rely on testing on animals.
With the Canada-Europe free trade agreement now in force, Bill S-214 will gain Canada access to the whole of the European market, which has banned products developed through animal testing since 2013.
More than 500 cosmetics companies have been certified as cruelty-free. They rely on the thousands of already existing ingredients combined with a growing list of products being tested using state-of-the-art alternative testing.
The cruelty-free cosmetics market is growing. A recent report from Market Research Future indicates that the market share owned by cruelty-free manufacturers will expand by 6.1 per cent over the next five years. It is possible to be a strong Canadian manufacturer and retailer and compete in the global market without relying on animal testing.
I hope you will join me and help make the year 2017 the year that Canada ends this horrible practice. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. I’m going to call the witnesses in the order they appear on the agenda. That means I’m going to turn to Ms. Cartwright first from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Please.
Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies: Thank you. Good morning. I want to start by thanking the committee for their attention to this important work and, of course, for their hard work on behalf of Canadians.
My name is Barbara Cartwright, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. I’m appearing before you today to bring the support of humane societies and SPCAs, along with their millions of public supporters across this country, for Bill S-214.
We are the national organization that represents humane societies and SPCAs in Canada, the very organizations that Canadians depend upon not only to care for the abused and abandoned animals in our communities but also to enforce the law, advocate for greater care and protection of animals, and provide resources, research and humane education. These local and provincial organizations have served the Canadian public for the last 148 years, making them one of the oldest and most trusted social institutions in our country.
The CFHS was founded in 1957 in part right from this chamber, as one of our three founders was Senator Frederic A. McGrand from New Brunswick. We represent 55 diverse members from all 10 provinces and two of the territories, from the largest urban centres to the smallest coastal communities.
We are proud to represent the largest SPCA on the continent, the BC SPCA, and some of the smallest, like Happy Valley - Goose Bay SPCA and Charlotte County in New Brunswick.
For the last 60 years, CFHS has worked on behalf of our members to end animal cruelty, improve animal protection and promote the humane treatment of all animals. CFHS and our members believe that each animal possesses intrinsic value, remarkable complexity and inherent dignity and as such, is deserving of respect and moral concern. CFHS advocates for the universal humane treatment, care and protection of all animals and insists that all animals used by humans be provided with the highest levels of care to ensure their health, welfare and behavioural standards are met.
Based on this, CFHS opposes the use of animals for the testing of inessential substances such as cosmetics, which can cause unnecessary pain, suffering and death and is not legally required in Canada. CFHS also seeks to reduce animal testing in biomedical and other scientific research, which is currently a legal requirement in Canada. CFHS supports the development and use of non-animal alternatives for all testing and believes that testing companies have a responsibility to aid in the development of such non-animal alternatives.
Our goal is to restrict the use of animals in research to those areas that do not jeopardize their physical, mental or emotional well-being while working towards a time when animal research and testing become obsolete or unnecessary.
Animal welfare and the potential for pain and distress to be experienced by animals used in research, testing and teaching have concerned the general public and thoughtful researchers for a long time. Sadly, Canadian policy on this issue lags behind public opinion, scientific and research community opinion and other jurisdictions.
A word about public opinion. Senator Stewart Olsen already mentioned one of the polls recently done by Strategic Counsel, which found that 88 per cent of Canadians agree that testing new cosmetic products is not worth the animals’ pain and suffering. I would also like to point out another poll done by Nanos, a national research firm. They performed a poll on animal testing in scientific research and medical testing, in which the majority of Canadians agreed that the welfare of the animal is important in determining what is an acceptable or unacceptable use of animals. It’s clear that the Canadian public is concerned about this issue and about animal welfare.
The scientific community in Canada has long recognized the ethical concerns and considerations of using animals in their research, testing and teaching, evidenced by the establishment of the Canadian Council on Animal Care in 1968 to address ethical concerns regarding the use of animals in scientific research, regulatory testing and teaching in Canada.
The CCAC is responsible for setting standards of care and use of animals in science, assessing and certifying participating institutions and providing education and training to meet best practices. A Certificate of Good Animal Practice is required to receive funding from major research bodies in Canada, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, otherwise known as NSERC.
CFHS is a founding member of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, sits on its standards and guidelines committee and participates in assessment panels conducted by the CCAC. Through our work with the CCAC, CFHS works alongside industry and understands and appreciates the animal welfare principles associated with animal research and testing, the most important one being the application of the 3Rs framework, first published in 1959 and now the widely accepted ethical principles that are embedded into the core of the CCAC and in the conduct of animal-based science research in Canada.
The 3Rs stand for replacement, reduction and refinement. For the purpose of this statement and the relevance to Bill S-214, the first “R” is the most important — replacement — which refers to using methods that avoid and replace the use of animals in an area where animals would otherwise have been used.
At the heart of this framework, as described on the CCAC website, is the concept and the quote that:
Each animal is an individual and should be treated as such. We must be careful that they are not subjected to needless pain or suffering. Excessive numbers should not be used just because they are there. They should not be used at all if an equally suitable model system could be used to obtain the same results.
While we fully support the 3Rs and CCAC’s adoption of them, there are weaknesses to the CCAC that must be mentioned and that are why Bill S-214 is important, including that private organizations or corporations are not required to belong to or adhere to CCAC guidelines, there is not full transparency of the process, the CCAC has undergone significant funding cuts and now in part relies on the institutions it is monitoring to fund it, and most importantly, while it embraces and advocates for the 3Rs, there are no regulatory powers behind it that allow it to compel institutions to comply.
In other sister jurisdictions, we’ve already heard where they’ve moved, so I’ll focus on the part of my statement that focuses on Canada.
Canada lags behind sister jurisdictions when it comes to animal welfare legislation in general. We have no comprehensive animal welfare legislation that would govern the use of animals in Canada. Rather, it is piecemeal, sorely out of date and often out of step with current animal welfare science.
With the case of cosmetics testing on animals, it’s no different. Canada’s Food and Drugs Act prohibits the sale of any cosmetic containing harmful ingredients or contaminants but does not require animal testing, yet it is still happening. Canada lags behind other jurisdictions, as Senator Stewart Olsen pointed out.
So what’s the alternative? There are an increasing number of non-animal alternative testing methods available. Many are based on computer models that simulate human responses. Others involve in vitro alternatives, such as artificial skin or corneas made from human cells. Dozens of large cosmetics companies, such as LUSH, whom you will be hearing from now, have eschewed animal testing of their own accord and still manage to produce new, safe and highly successful beauty products. They are able to do this by choosing from more than 20,000 existing raw ingredients for cosmetics that have been tested in the past instead of developing new variations of chemicals that may be tested on animals.
In closing, CFHS supports the ongoing and significant global shift toward eliminating the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Bill S-214 is an important step forward in this shift toward protecting the welfare of animals, generating innovation and reducing and ending needless pain and suffering associated with cosmetics testing.
It bears taking a moment just to remind you of what those tests can look like. They can involve dripping a chemical substance into the eye of typically rabbits, which are placed in restraining stocks, and their eyelids are held open with clips, in some cases for days at a time, to keep them from blinking away the test solution. Or skin tests, where animals’ fur is shaved and then several layers of skin are removed with sticky tape before technicians apply test substances and cover over the abraded area with plastic sheeting, often causing intense burning, itching and pain and can leave the patient ulcerated and bleeding.
Cosmetic testing on animals is not required, it is not necessary, and it causes pain, suffering and death for what amounts to a beauty product. We support Bill S-214. We look forward to a progressive future for the welfare of animals in Canada. Thank you for considering this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll now turn to Mr. Seidle from Humane Society International.
Troy Seidle, Senior Director, Humane Society International: Thank you very much and good morning, honourable senators. I am the global head of research and toxicology with HSI based in Toronto. My organization has been at the forefront of the global shift in public policy away from animal testing for cosmetics, working with policy-makers, regulators and the regulated industry across the globe to extend the cruelty-free model pioneered in the European Union to other major cosmetics markets.
As you have already heard, more than 37 major economies have enacted laws prohibiting or restricting cosmetic animal testing and/or trade, and similar bills are under discussion now in the United States, Australia, Brazil and Latin America and, of course, here in Canada with Bill S-214, which HSI wholeheartedly supports and thanks Senator Stewart Olsen for her leadership in introducing.
Barbara has already introduced some of the drivers for why this bill and this issue are important to Canadians, so my remarks will delve more into the weeds of the bill itself.
Bill S-214 does not alter the definition of a cosmetic under the Food and Drugs Act, and this is important. The scope of the ban in Canada would be narrower than in the European Union and in other countries that have already taken this action. As such, it would not impact products such as sunscreens, which in Canada are legally defined either as natural health products or as drugs.
The bill, however, does define cosmetic animal testing as distinct from animal testing for other regulatory purposes.
The bill then introduces a restriction on cosmetic animal testing within Canada to govern corporate testing activities within our borders. However, a testing ban on its own does not prevent new animal testing from being carried out outside of Canada and the circumvention of the test by importing newly tested ingredients or products back across our border. For this reason, a companion sales restriction is introduced in the bill to prevent the circumvention or abuse of the testing restriction and importantly to ensure a level playing field for the Canadian beauty industry in the global marketplace.
However, the testing and sales restrictions on their own do not prevent the sale of products or ingredients that have been subject to new cosmetic animal testing after the point of manufacture; so that creates one loophole. Nor does it prevent the use of new animal data that have been claimed to have been conducted for non-cosmetic purposes, be it chemical testing, pharmaceutical testing, any other purpose. To address these two substantial loopholes, the bill includes a further restriction on the use of evidence derived from animal testing after coming into force of that section to establish the safety of cosmetic products or ingredients under Canadian law or regulations.
I’m often asked why Bill S-214 contains three layers of restriction when the European cosmetics regulation has just two. Having been involved in this area for close to 20 years, call it a lesson learned from watching the legal challenges unfold, in the European Union in particular, where the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients has led to a judicial review challenging or questioning the criteria for the sales restriction in the EU.
The European Court of Justice, in its December 2016 ruling, confirmed:
. . . the fact of having relied . . . upon the results of animal testing concerning a cosmetic ingredient in order to demonstrate the safety of that ingredient to human health must be regarded as sufficient to establish that that testing had been carried out to meet the requirements of . . .
To meet the requirements of the cosmetics regulation.
. . . for obtaining access to the EU market.
In other words, a company’s choice to rely upon new animal test data to argue for the safety of an ingredient or cosmetic product is the trigger for the EU ban. As such, preservation of the subsection within Bill S-214 is important, not only to provide similar clarity here in Canada and hopefully pre-empt similar legal challenges, but also to close the loopholes that I alluded to before.
Bill S-214 also introduces a derogation similar to EU law whereby Canada’s health minister may authorize new animal testing in exceptional situations for existing ingredients where there is no alternative method, where there is a specific substantiated human health problem associated with a cosmetic or ingredient that is in wide use and that cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function.
It should be noted that in the nearly decade since the European testing ban for ingredients came into force in 2009, there hasn’t been a public health emergency. There’s been no need to call upon that derogation to address a public health issue.
My academic background is in the health sciences. I’ve been inside Canadian labs, as Barb alluded to. I’ve seen the rows of rabbits in neck restraints with inflamed and weeping eyes and skin. I have seen animals being force fed megadoses of a test chemical, sometimes daily for weeks, months or years on end. Classical toxicology from the last century is chemical poisoning and there is nothing humane about it. There is no pain relief.
Most of these tests were developed more than half a century ago in the 1950s or some as far back as the 1920s. Most have never been scientifically validated according to modern standards to confirm they are actually accurate at predicting health effects for you or me out in the real world. What we do know from published literature over the decades is that even closely related species like rats and mice only predict each other on average with 60 per cent accuracy. Animal-to-human concordance is typically lower.
Ten years ago, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report entitled Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. This report again acknowledged the limitations of using animals to predict human safety and called for a paradigm shift in toxicology.
The NRC articulated its vision of “. . . a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines . . .” and noted that “These advances should make toxicity testing quicker, less expensive, and more directly relevant to human exposures.”
Thanks to these advances in science, a future without any animal testing may soon be within our grasp, but for the cosmetic sector, that future is already here. Through Bill S-214, Canada can end cosmetic animal testing and trade immediately without harm to consumers, industrial profitability or international trade. Thirty-seven countries have already done this action; now it’s our turn. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll now turn to LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics.
Tricia Stevens, Charitable Giving & Ethical Campaigns Manager, LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. On behalf of LUSH and as a fellow New Brunswicker, I’d like to thank Senator Stewart Olsen for her leadership on ending cosmetic animal testing in Canada.
LUSH is happy to be here to support Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cruelty-free cosmetics).
Manufacturing and selling cruelty-free cosmetics and transparency into our supply chain have been core values since the inception of LUSH over 20 years ago. Those values have allowed us to grow our business exponentially over the last two decades. We currently have 49 stores in Canada and over 200 stores in the United States that are supplied from our manufacturing facilities in Toronto and Vancouver. In the last 24 months alone, we have more than doubled our sales in North America, resulting in $680 million in sales, and have growth plans to triple that by the end of 2020, resulting in just shy of $2 billion in sales.
Not only are we looking to add shops to our portfolio, but we are also increasing the square footage of those shops to handle the volume of people wanting to shop and experience LUSH. This trend is the opposite to what we’re seeing now with other brick-and-mortar retailers who are closing down of flagship stores and locations and moving their businesses to be predominantly online.
In North America, we currently employ 7,000 staff year-round, and that number will grow to 13,000 over the busy holiday season. In terms of our customer reach and engagement, last year we saw 50 million people come and visit our shops, over 34 million unique visitors to our online channels and over 6 million followers across seven social media channels.
We strongly believe that creating cruelty-free products has contributed greatly to that growth and will continue to do so in the future, and certainly that is most likely true for the 600 North American cosmetics brands that are already certified as cruelty-free.
Let me be clear: The measures proposed in Bill S-214 will have no impact on LUSH’s ability to be competitive trade partners in those regions that have already taken action to end or ban animal testing. Canada needs to consider that with a lack of legislation on our part, Canadian companies will face trade barriers as increasing numbers of countries pass similar legislation — for example, H.R.2790, the humane cosmetics act currently pending in the U.S. Congress. We believe the bill as written will set Canada apart as a leader and will allow for the cosmetics industry to thrive and provide consumers with the products they are wanting. It is time to add Canada to that list and pass the cruelty-free cosmetics act. Thank you for your time.
Hilary Jones, Global Ethics Director, LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics: Good morning. My name is Hilary Jones. I’m the LUSH Global Ethics Director, and I’d like to thank you all for allowing a Brit to speak to you on this important matter.
LUSH cosmetics invents, manufactures and retails a range of hair, skin, bath and body products, and also colour cosmetics makeup. We started 20 years ago with one small shop in the U.K., and we’re now in 49 countries, with 931 shops, 38 websites shipping worldwide, and a global network of apps, broadcasting channels and digital communications in over 30 languages. Last year our brand sales were £723 million, which is approximately $1.2 billion Canadian. That’s an increase of 26 per cent on the previous year. This year we’re expecting to hit our first year £1 billion sterling mark.
While we’re by no means one of the bigger players in the global cosmetics market, we’re no longer a small presence. The Canadian wing of our business is no small part of this, with more shop fronts and a greater turnover than the original U.K. part of the business.
I’ll come clean with you, which is probably a good thing for a soap company to do, and say right from the start that LUSH opposes animal testing with every fibre of our being. We have been active participants in the popular movement in Europe that eventually led to the introduction of the world’s first cosmetic animal testing ban. But we’re also business people with a need to fill our shops with products that we can sell at a profit and the need to maintain innovation and growth.
We hope that the figures prove to you that a company can grow and scale up to a global level without ever resorting to animal testing.
We have always believed that animal testing is a crude Victorian model that is not fit for modern times. Sections of the cosmetics industry and those scientists that service them are wedded to this outdated practice despite overwhelming public opinion and the consumer desire for cruelty-free products. The only way to turn this business-as-usual section around is for forward-looking governments to legislate and thereby create the incentive to switch to modern non-animal alternatives. The public can apply pressure, but it’s government that provides the pace.
With our company being born from the cruelty-free movement, we know too well the arguments others in the industry use to justify animal use. Our very presence on the global market gives lie to all that they say. We know that many companies mask their cosmetics ingredient testing under the cloak of chemical or drug testing, so when we wrote our company non-animal-testing policy, we excluded not just testing on animals for cosmetic purposes but testing on animals for any purpose. Our policy also excludes testing carried out anywhere in the world in order to eliminate the danger of offshore testing.
When it comes to creativity, we have not been limited by our refusal to animal test. If you visit our shops, you will see a full range of products to meet all needs. More than this, our refusal to believe that innovation must involve newly developed animal-tested chemicals and preservatives has meant that our R&D effort has all been to work with natural materials to find ways to stabilize and preserve our products.
For example, we reduce water, the primary environment for bacteria to grow, and we include things like glycerin, salt, clays and other ingredients that don’t just inhibit bacteria and mould growth but are ultimately kinder to the human using it and to our environment. An insistence of relying on old animal testing models and a misunderstanding that the consumer is only attracted by scientific claims of newly developed chemicals is holding back not only the progress of this new science of non-animal testing methods but also not meeting the public’s desire for cruelty-free products. It’s also not meeting the environmental needs of our future planet.
LUSH strongly supports Canada’s proposed Bill S-214 as it is currently written, and we highly commend you for your leadership on this issue.
The Chair: As you can see, we have five witnesses. I am going to appeal to my colleagues to direct your questions to a specific witness in the first instance. If that occurs, other witnesses can signal through me that they would like to add to the response.
Please do not simply repeat the original response. If you agree, say you agree and move on.
If one of my colleagues should lob a question in your direction, would the person who would like to respond please signal, and I will invite you to respond first. We will then proceed with others, but I’m going to try to twist the arms of my colleagues to direct their questions in the first instance.
With that, I’m going to begin with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you all for being here. I’ll direct my question to the sponsor of the bill, our colleague Senator Stewart Olsen.
The second reading speech that was given by our colleague Senator Lillian Dyck raised a number of issues. She concluded by saying:
. . . I agree in principle with the bill, with the proviso that human safety concerns are adequately upheld.
I think you’ve somewhat repeated that in your remarks today. I don’t think anyone in this room would want to do anything less than stop cruelty to animals.
The question she raised at her second reading speech on the matter was whether there is animal testing that is not cruel. Animal testing is not being banned by this. It’s being banned with respect to cosmetics in Canada, but there is still animal testing in the medical field, for example, which is considered still necessary for human safety. That point was included in her statement. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies points out how that is governed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care and that there are attempts to keep them within certain boundaries to eliminate then to reduce any possible cruelty.
It’s said that these animals shouldn’t be tested for cosmetic purposes, but the animal doesn’t know it’s being tested for cosmetic purposes. If it’s in pain, suffering and dying, regardless of the purpose, if it’s cruel, it’s cruel. Why are you undertaking to ban all animal testing, since little of it is done in Canada, and not focusing on the cruelty to animals?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I’m asking for a ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes. I’m not a scientist, but there are many overlapping needs; for instance, testing on animals is still being performed for medical purposes. I haven’t gone there, and I’m not going to go there with this bill, but this bill is looking at cosmetics and saying do we really need to continue this practice to produce cosmetics? I think not.
As we move forward, we’re developing new systems and a new way of testing. In our study on robotics, we have seen new innovations. We saw a great number of things. They can now make corneas and grow skin in petri dishes. I believe we have to take things in increments. I think Canada is ready for this. I don’t think our scientific and educational communities are ready to go to no animal testing at all. I understand our critic. She apparently worked in a testing lab, so she can speak from first-hand experience. She mentioned that they try not to be cruel, but, unfortunately, if an animal has an adverse reaction to a test product, it hurts and it is cruel.
We can take small increments, and I think this is the way we can go about it. We can deal with Canada and try to stop these practices, but I can’t go further. I don’t know the industry. I trust that there are people who inspect, but I do know there are labs that are difficult to find. We don’t have numbers on cosmetics testing in Canada. I have to accept that, too, namely, that there is testing going on that we don’t know about. I think we have to take first steps here.
Mr. Seidle: I would be happy to augment what the senator has said.
In relation to toxicology as distinct from biomedical research, in health research often you will see pain relief provided because you’re not concerned about an interaction between an analgesic chemical and the chemical you’re testing. That is a fundamental difference with toxicology, where we are talking high dose studies, no pain relief. Some of the tests — I can name them for you — lethal dose 50 per cent. The intent of it is to dose the animals up to the point that half of the test group will die. This is the kind of test we’re talking about.
Whether we’re talking about banning for other purposes, this is something that my organization, I think across the board, we’re not talking about medical product testing or even about industrial chemical testing. This is an area where innovation is possible through the use of thousands of ingredients with histories of safe use. So it’s not that we need an alternative method to retest 20,000 ingredients. They’ve already been tested. That has happened in the past. It would not impact the use of these ingredients going forward.
The cosmetics sector is unique from other regulated product areas in that new animal testing largely doesn’t happen. With this bill, as with its counterparts worldwide, the intent is really to legislate what for the vast majority of companies is the status quo.
Senator Eggleton: The bill, at least in its original form, also deals with importation and sale within the country. I would be interested in knowing whether that’s also part of what the countries in Europe are doing.
I’m also interested to know how you deal with the fact that 75 per cent of the cosmetics in this country come from the United States, which doesn’t have a ban. I don’t know what their practice is, but they don’t have a ban, and that’s where most of the product comes from. What is going to happen to the product that’s sitting on the shelves out there?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I’m assuming that was directed to me, but as I said, I am going to introduce an amendment because I’d like to deal with Canada first before we take on the world. I think that many companies now, by attrition almost, are not doing animal testing because people are saying they don’t want this anymore.
As you’ve heard, there is a bill before Congress, the same kind of thing, but we here in this particular bill can deal with our country and hopefully set an example.
Senator Eggleton: Show an example, yes.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Stewart Olsen, for sponsoring this piece of legislation. I’m sure, as Senator Eggleton just said, we all can’t help but support its intent.
My question would be directed to Mr. Seidle. Perhaps the representatives from LUSH might also have something to say, but I’ll start with Mr. Seidle, if I might, particularly because material you submitted to us included this world map with an indication of what countries in the world have bans in place currently, where legislation is being discussed, and there is a very big black section of the map where animal testing is actually required and that would be China.
According to one of the largest American financial services firms, China is set to become the world’s largest market for beauty products, and clearly if this ban applies to Canadian manufactured products, would that reduce the opportunities for Canada to export their products to the largest market in the world, which will be China? Might you have some comment about that?
Mr. Seidle: Sure. At the moment I would say the European Union is the largest market, so we’re dealing with the market standards as they exist today. I believe with China change is happening. At the moment, animal testing for cosmetics as a pre-market condition is required for most types of products. It’s not because China is opposed to alternative methods; it’s because there has been very limited infrastructure investment in the country and very high turnover within the China Food and Drug Administration, so they’re behind the curve.
Other countries have had a greater amount of lead time to develop their infrastructure and competencies in modern alternatives. These methods are adopted as OECD test guidelines. China is not part of the OECD, so they’re behind the curve, but they are working to catch up. As non-animal test methods are adopted within China, the switch will happen. I believe it’s a question of time rather than a black or white oppositional type of situation.
In relation to the language of the bill itself, the issue of what would trigger the test, we wouldn’t be testing in Canada; the testing happens in China to access the Chinese market, so the testing ban would not apply. The sales restriction, these products would be exported from Canada or other countries to China. Again, if these products were developed without animal testing in the first place, the sales restriction under Bill S-214 would not apply because it only applies to cosmetic animal testing conducted for development or manufacture. So it’s the initial point of introduction.
The data-use restriction, 18.1, would also not apply because if these products are being marketed and regulated by Health Canada in our country without new animal testing, there wouldn’t be a need for the companies to then rely on data generated for China and bring that back into Canada.
So the bill is written in a very intelligent way, understanding what data are required for Canadian regulatory purposes while not closing the door on exports to other countries such as China.
So my short answer is no, I don’t see the bill having any deleterious effect.
Senator Seidman: I’m just trying to understand, though. I’m new to this, and you’ve been working with this for a long time. So if I could try to understand what you’re saying, if a cosmetic is manufactured here in Canada without animal testing, can it be imported to China for sale in China?
Mr. Seidle: Any import from any country outside of mainland China would be subject to a pre-market animal testing requirement by the Chinese government.
Senator Seidman: Right. So how would it be tested on animals, then? Would that be after it was exported from Canada to China? China itself would do animal testing on the product? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Seidle: Yes. If I am a company and I want to export this to China, I have to provide a sample to the government. They have registered facilities that they recognize. Those facilities in China, on behalf of the government, would do the testing.
The Chair: Just to interject, that is exactly the same as all human drugs are tested in all countries with regard to regulations. The drug is imported to be tested to meet the requirements of the country.
Senator Seidman: Right. But if we’re playing a leadership role, then would some attempt be made, or can you see some attempt being made, domestically or globally, to change that approach in China?
Mr. Seidle: Efforts are taking place on both the corporate and the NGO side, but I think one of the key drivers in speaking with Chinese officials — off the record, obviously — is the fact that these national legislative measures are being introduced and China is being bracketed. It’s the bookend. It used to be a free for all. Then Europe went first. Now we’re at 37, and we have China over here. They don’t want to be the odd man out. They want “Made in China” to be a sign of honour. They’re trying to catch up, and the more countries create a trade barrier for them that anything that is animal-tested in China can’t get out — They can’t get into Europe and other countries. If Canada and the United States and other markets continue that trend, we’ll get there faster.
Ms. Jones: Just to emphasize what Troy is saying, the European ban created a huge ripple across the cosmetics market. Places like China. Japan is also running hard to catch up because they don’t want to lose the European market. It’s about the goods coming into Canada and into Europe from those animal-testing companies that this bill will hopefully, if you leave your marketing ban intact, provide the leadership on. Those countries then have to fall into line with you to sell to your nationals.
But as regards products going out, absolutely. There are European cosmetics companies selling into China, and they are perfectly legally able to do that because it is the Chinese government that is doing the testing on their shores, not on ours.
I will say on the record that LUSH takes a leadership role, so we absolutely refuse to trade in China while that’s happening. That is a company decision by us. We do not have a physical presence in China. We speak to the Chinese authorities, and alongside organizations such as HSI, which does lots of work in China, because the Chinese public want us. They bulk buy on holiday in America, Canada and Europe, and take the goods back, because we are very popular in China. But we cannot have a physical presence while their government is doing that.
All of this applies pressure to China to lift their game.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. I want to follow up on my colleague’s questions. You talked about products manufactured here, in Canada, that are intended for China and must be tested. But what happens with products from China that are sold online? I speak from experience. Some skin products I am familiar with have been ordered from China because that is by far the best market, and they are sent here. Who tests those products? They come from a manufacturer or a store and get to the consumer without going through any screening. What happens? Can consumers complain if the product hurts them or causes a reaction? To whom can they complain, since the product has not been tested at all? Is there a control Canada could exercise to avoid that? I don’t know of any, but if you do, it could help us.
[English]
Mr. Seidle: E-commerce is not addressed in this bill, so that is an independent question for Health Canada in terms of how the department, which is responsible for the regulation of safe cosmetics within our borders, would address that.
If we’re talking about the example of a cosmetic that is manufactured in mainland China by a Chinese company — these are typically very small operations that are using 1950s toxicology, so the ingredients and finished products have been animal-tested, so they’ve been tested.
Whether that testing is predictive of human safety is an overarching science question. We’re discovering that some ingredients that have been animal-tested and appear okay are causing skin allergies today, and they’re being systematically pulled off the market. Animal testing is not necessarily predictive of what we need to ensure consumer safety.
But I would have to refer your question to Health Canada. If I purchase something online, buyer beware, but if there are other government initiatives above and beyond that, that’s important to consider.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Mr. Seidle again. You said that industry can do better in terms of avoiding animal cruelty in experiments. For example, there is a way to grow skin in the laboratory. Do you think that laboratory-grown skin could be used to experiment on a skin product instead of the product being tested on animals? Is that possible?
[English]
Mr. Seidle: Absolutely, yes. The non-animal-test methods that are available today have been validated for hundreds of chemicals, so we know how these chemicals react in human beings —volunteers — skin cell culture, rabbits and other animals. Being able to compare the test predictivity side by side, we know that using human three-dimensional skin models —cultures — is more predictive of humans in the real word, unsurprisingly.
So, yes, the tests are not only available, but they’re faster, cheaper and more predictive.
Senator Raine: Thank you all. In particular, I’d like to thank Ms. Jones for coming from the U.K. to appear before us.
I just would like a clarification about the end of your statement where you said you approved of the bill in its current form. I would like you to comment on the amendment to the bill. In your mind, will that change the bill significantly?
I would also like to ask Senator Stewart Olsen to comment on the amendments in particular, why she put them in and what their impact would be.
Senator Stewart Olsen: In fairness, we haven’t seen the amendments. They’re not finished yet from legal.
I did explain in my notes that, based on what I’d heard from the critic and from the cosmetics industry, I’m trying to move this legislation forward in the best way I can to ensure that it has a chance to pass through the House of Commons. If we try to push too much, in all seriousness, we’ll lose the bill. I would rather have the bill and work within our country and present an example. I think things will evolve — the world pressure from organizations and everyone.
But we have to start in our country. It was made clear by some of the speeches here that we are very far behind the curve. We have to start, and this is a good way to start. The amendments are to essentially make the bill more palatable and actually less regulatory. It’s a very difficult thing to introduce a bill that includes importation from other countries. That is a whole other difficulty. With your experience with your own bill, you understand that even our Food and Drugs Act is confused in some areas.
These are all things that are going to have to be worked over. I had to look at what I could accomplish and what I probably couldn’t.
In fairness, I don’t have the amendments to show people, but we have to start somewhere.
Senator Raine: Further to that, could you clarify? I understand that one of your amendments will be to clarify whether past testing on animal products that created this pool of ingredients that we know are safe will not be impacted by this legislation. So what has already been tested and approved won’t be changed?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I don’t think it will be changed. I honestly have had to leave a lot with legal to see what we could do and what we can’t do, but I can’t see a reason for products that have already been tested and approved — why we would impact on anything. But I have to wait until they say what goes through our Food and Drugs Act and be effective. Please just hang on. Thanks.
Ms. Jones: Probably the easiest way to describe it is that we’re really proud members of the cosmetics industry at LUSH. There is a lot to be ashamed of in the cosmetics industry. One of those things is the endless wriggling out of the legislation as passed. It took 20 years to fully enact the European legislation, between it being passed and being finally enforced, because the cosmetics industry found umpteen ways to try and say that it shouldn’t go through at the pace it was going through.
As I said, our very existence is in that period, and we’ve proved that it can go through and that you can exist without it. The two main ways I mentioned in my thing: testing offshore wasn’t protected for a while with our legislation. It was one of the second bits to be; it was in three stages. So testing ingredients offshore became something that cosmetics companies did to get round it.
Sorry, I’m going to have to refer back to my notes. Troy will pick up for me because he was wanting to speak as well.
Mr. Seidle: Sure. Thank you. In our experience, as Hilary said, the decades-long process to achieve the European regulation was subject to numerous delays as a consequence of lobbying by the industry that, on the one hand, says, “We do almost no animal testing for cosmetics,” and yet you see this disproportionate amount of pushback to say, “Then, what’s the problem?” The nature of the situation is that product testing happens in China, but virtually nowhere else. Ingredient testing is the issue, and it’s the fact that very few things are exclusively cosmetic ingredients. They are chemicals. They could be used over here in pharmaceuticals, food packaging, you name it. It’s the game of, if cosmetics animal testing is banned, I’m just going to say this new whatever has been tested for chemical legislation and then try to slip it under the rug. That’s the game that’s being played. That’s the reason the European sales restriction exists. That’s the reason the data-use interpretation exists because, if you can’t use the data from new animal tests, the incentive to conduct the tests goes away. That’s the fundamental truth of the matter.
I’m a pragmatist. I’ve been doing this a long time, and getting something across the finish line matters. But getting something that is going to really have an impact — We have the EU, India, Israel. Countries have already gone quite far, so I see no reason for Canada to stop short of that. It’s not just about idealism; it’s about global trade and regulatory alignment. Why wouldn’t we harmonize up to the best standard?
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. We will deal with the issue when the amendment actually comes up, and the appropriate place is at clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Stewart Olsen, for your work on this. I appreciate your strategy of incrementalism because I will take good over perfection any day.
But I do have a question. On the one hand, I hear all the witnesses say this is a problem. Canada has to catch up to where other nations are. The EU has already done this. Other jurisdictions have already done this. On the other hand, I’ve heard you say that very little animal testing is actually being done in Canada.
So is it a matter of legislation catching up to practice? I’m not clear about the scope of the problem today. How much animal testing is being done for cosmetics? By whom? You mention in your note that you’ve spoken to industry organizations like Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, et cetera, but what has their response been? It’s a bunch of questions.
Senator Stewart Olsen: You will have them before you at the next meeting. What I found was that it’s extremely difficult to get an answer about animal testing in this country. There are no figures, but it wasn’t very hard for W5 to find a lab.
I don’t like to say, “Well, we know it’s happening.” Perhaps I could turn that over to the people from the humane societies. I think we have some statistics. I think they do say that 99 point some per cent is not tested on animals. We’re not sure, but, in order to have entry into the markets of the European Union, which was one of my main things for our fairly vibrant, small cosmetics industry in Canada, and offer more markets, then you have to actually have laws in place that say, “We don’t test cosmetics on animals in Canada.” That was the main reason for me to proceed with this, other than the fact that I hate animal testing. That was one of my main reasons, to offer markets for our own companies here in Canada.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for your presentations. Thank you so much, senator, for sponsoring this very important bill. I think we both agree that even a small amount of testing is too much testing.
The question I have — and forgive me if it has been answered in pieces because there was a lot of information — I’m trying to understand if, in your opinion, this bill is written well enough to make sure that there will be no loopholes. What I’m thinking is, if someone wants to test apart from the cosmetic world and then bring it back in somehow, is there protection? Is the bill conceived in a way that they won’t be able to do something like that, in your view?
Mr. Seidle: Thank you for your question. I think that’s exactly the reason for proposed section 18.1. That’s the loophole closer because, if we only have 16(d), that still allows some traffic if you do the testing after market or if you claim that the testing was for a different purpose or if, indeed, it was for a different purpose but you then want to apply it after the fact. That section 18.1 is essential for closing those loopholes. The only way it would be activated would be if a company voluntarily submitted data that were generated after the amendment came into force, so there would be no expensive oversight system for Health Canada to have to go through all the lists of ingredients to detect it. It’s very much a company making a choice, so it’s a very elegant way of closing loopholes, in addition to being effective.
Ms. Jones: I would just say that that’s why we’ve had to write our policy that way, to close those two loopholes that the European legislation and its slow progress to being in force left. Our customers are asking us to close those loopholes. They’re looking to people like us to do it, and you have the chance here, with this legislation, to not have those loopholes in there in the first place.
Senator Hartling: Thank you, Senator Stewart Olsen, for bringing this bill to our attention. Very interesting for all of you to be here and explain the various aspects of it. My question is just a simple question. As a consumer, I’m going shopping for some products. I’m here in Ottawa, and I’m trying to find a place to shop. So I go to the mall.
Ms. Jones: Please, shop with us. Animal testing aside, we want your dollar.
Senator Hartling: Is it everywhere in Canada, all across the country?
Ms. Jones: Animal-tested products or our company?
Senator Hartling: No, your company.
Ms. Jones: Oh, yes. I can get you some right now if you like.
Senator Hartling: Send me some products. Anyway, my question is —
The Chair: Put your question on the record so that everybody clearly understands the question and the answer.
Senator Hartling: Repeat the question?
The Chair: Please.
Senator Hartling: I’m going to shop for some products — and, obviously, I know about your company now — is there a way for me to know whether they’ve been tested on animals? Is there anything written on any products or any advertising done, a campaign, on this?
Ms. Jones: Yes. There are various voluntary schemes that you can join as a cosmetics company and be licensed to carry a logo from organizations that have a policy and a licence logo that will reassure customers that you meet these criteria for that organization. So you’ll see the leaping bunny logo being the one that everyone looks for internationally.
But beyond that, what it has required from consumers that are concerned is endless letters to cosmetics companies. I’m picking the almost weasel-like words “only for regulation” and “only where required by governments.” It’s hidden behind layers of technical speak. So the consumer is incredibly confused, and that’s where government legislation makes all the difference.
Senator Hartling: I will look for the leaping bunny.
Ms. Jones: You can look for the leaping bunny.
Senator Hartling: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Frum: Just from a compliance point of view, when a new Canadian cosmetic product goes to market, does Health Canada or the Food and Drugs Act have to assess whether it is safe for humans now? Why actually test at all in any fashion, animal or otherwise, if there’s no requirement to test for safety?
Mr. Seidle: It’s a loaded answer. Let me try and be succinct.
If it’s an ordinary cosmetic and I want to register it, I have to notify Health Canada, which includes providing certain basic information, including a list of ingredients. That’s an online notification process.
If it’s a completely new to the world ingredient or new to Canada, that will create a flag for Health Canada to say, “We haven’t seen this before; what are the implications?”
Within the Cosmetics Regulations, Health Canada has the authority to dig deeper and require companies to submit information to substantiate the safety of an ingredient or a product. Legally the way it works around the world, outside of China, is that companies gather all the information about their raw ingredients and then they’ll do a product risk assessment where they look at the toxicity. Say I have 20 different ingredients; what’s the concentration of those ingredients in the product? Am I confident that if you rub this on your face three times a day you’re not going to have irritation or an allergic reaction or what have you? The companies have a legal obligation under the Food and Drugs Act and its counterparts in other countries to ensure that products are safe if used as directed. That’s the statutory overarching requirement.
Companies have now a very effective system of ensuring product safety themselves. The question, then, is do you need a further drill-down within the regulations? At the moment it’s case by case, and it seems to be working well in Canada.
Senator Eggleton: My question is for Ms. Jones. I’d like to understand what the U.K. or European Union does about the importation of cosmetics that may or may not be part of an animal-testing procedure.
In Canada, as I pointed out, the vast majority of cosmetics are imported, 75 per cent from the United States, which doesn’t have a ban, but that doesn’t mean the cosmetics being imported are necessarily animal-tested. I just don’t know what percentage are and what percentage are not. There is no restriction on it. What does the U.K. or the European Union do about importation, or does it have largely domestic manufacturing?
Ms. Jones: No, we don’t. We largely import, which is why the third part of our European legislation was so important, which was the marketing ban on goods coming in. At LUSH, we’re exporting out, so it doesn’t affect us in that sense, and we’re outside the legislation because we’ve already got our own more than stringent policy that exceeds the European legislation.
I think Troy can probably talk more about how that’s policed by the European Union because he’s worked within the European Union in the past.
Mr. Seidle: Thank you. Legally all companies within marketing in the EU have to maintain a product information file that has all of the information for all of the ingredients that a company is aware of. On the basis of the product information file, they do a product safety report, and that is the demonstration or the assertion to a regulatory authority such as Health Canada or a European member state that this in fact is a safe product if used as directed.
The data that a company puts in its product safety they can cherry-pick from the information file. The information file is a filing cabinet. Your safety assessment is your analysis of that data. So if there’s a new animal test that’s conducted on one of your ingredients that you had nothing to do with, you have to acknowledge that that’s happened, but if you’re not profiting from it, taking that test result, handing it to a regulator to say, “Look, my product is safer than we thought,” you’re fine. Does that make sense?
Senator Eggleton: I’m trying to understand. Do they have to admit whether they had animal testing? Is that part of the verification they have to provide? If it was animal-tested, is it banned from importation in the European Union?
Mr. Seidle: It’s only a problem if the importing company uses or relies upon the new animal test data.
Senator Eggleton: New animal test?
Mr. Seidle: Yes. So it’s anything after in this case March 11, 2013, in the EU. If a test was done after that point in time and a company uses that for regulatory purposes, they have a problem. Say this is baking soda; I may use that in my supply chain, LUSH may use that, there could be a thousand companies that used this. Somebody decides to do new animal testing of it, but the other 999 had nothing to do with it. They’re not going to be penalized unless they take the animal test result and use it for their benefit.
So the European law and Bill S-214 are designed very much to ensure that only a company that uses and seeks to profit from new animal test data after implementation has an issue.
Senator Eggleton: I see. Okay.
The Chair: That’s very clear. The new animal testing after 2013. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: In the document provided by Humane Society International, I read that the Minister of Health could authorize animal testing when no other way to test a specific product is available. However, elsewhere in the document, it is noted that, so far, under European law, no request of exemption has been submitted.
Let’s consider the scenario where, in Canada, a product would absolutely require animal testing. Have you heard of any such cases? Do you know of any products that required animal testing because no alternative was available to verify their safety?
[English]
Mr. Seidle: I’m not aware of any such example. I’ll give you a practical example of a preservative. The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has recently prohibited a very widely used preservative which was demonstrated to be causing severe skin allergies. So this is something that had been on the market and had been animal-tested in the past. Essentially you have a choice. If you have consumer complaints, if you know there is a problem at the ingredient level, what do more tests do for you? If you have humans lined up with eczema, doing more testing isn’t the solution. You need to either reduce the concentration of that ingredient, or get rid of it and substitute it with something else. So it’s an indirect answer to your question, but that is the real world situation. If we have a problem, one option could be to generate additional test data. But that’s not the only option available. Often if we really want to protect consumers, we need to be moving away from ingredients that are found to be dangerous rather than continuing to test them.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question was about the period preceding the product’s use by humans. Health Canada would receive the product and would be aware that tests have been conducted on animals and, following investigation, could decide that there is no alternative, that it is the only way to test the product’s safety, before it even gets to the consumer. Has that ever happened? What could Health Canada do in a case like that? The law gives it the option to accept the product and put it on the market. That is sort of what I wanted to discuss.
[English]
Mr. Seidle: It’s understood. Section 18.2 is intended to model the European derogation, which is post-market. For existing ingredients that have a history of widespread use, it doesn’t consider a pre-market situation, so testing for a new ingredient or new to Canada. The intent there is very much to address things that have been released in the past but to make it clear that continuing to develop new chemistries for beauty products when there are already tens of thousands of ingredients available is a choice. If that choice involves new animal testing for cosmetics purposes, the 28 countries of Europe have said that’s not good enough. So that is a public policy decision rather than a regulatory one. The law would say no, sorry.
Senator Seidman: I might ask this question of Mr. Seidle.
We’ve heard about the great scientific advancements that would offer better alternatives and alternatives to animal testing to determine how humans could react to a particular chemical substance. Are there aspects of health and safety that cannot be satisfied by other than animal testing? Are you aware of anything?
Mr. Seidle: Yes. For most of the systemic toxicity tests, anything you would swallow, inhale, absorb through the skin, we don’t have replacement methods for those types of end points, we call them. So academically yes, there are animal tests for which we don’t have direct one-to-one replacements today. That doesn’t preclude companies from using non-testing types of strategies, such as looking at the physical chemical properties of a new substance, and through computational modelling it’s possible in some cases to do what’s called a read-across to say we know this chemical has these functional groups, and if these cause birth defects, as a case, we’re concerned this other chemical could have something similar.
So there are non-testing strategies that are widely used within the chemical as well as cosmetics industries. I won’t get into all of the details. There’s an approach called Threshold of Toxicological Concern, which looks at how much human exposure we are expecting, and if it’s very low, do we need to invest, for instance, in a two-year cancer test that’s going to take $3 million to $4 million to run and three years to analyze? It’s a cost-benefit, so the industry has a number of strategies that are in place particularly for these expensive tests that we don’t have alternatives for, but they’re almost never conducted because they’re very expensive and long-term.
The counterpoint to your question is we don’t have alternatives for everything, but how often are these tests conducted in the first place?
Ms. Cartwright: Just as far as here in Canada goes, I think it’s timely to mention, based on what Troy was saying, that there’s continued innovation in the Canadian market to find more and more alternatives. I just wanted to mention, also very germane to this conversation, on Monday a new centre will be opening up at the University of Windsor, the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods. It’s a new initiative based in Windsor. It will focus on research development and models based on human biology as well as creating academic programs in science of animal replacement. It’s also going to work with Canadian regulatory bodies to accelerate development validation and acceptance of alternative models of animal testing in Canada. We are seeing Bill S-214 help drive this innovation and the desire to find new alternatives where new ones may not already exist.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate this is very futuristic, but you are saying that currently there is no alternative to animal testing for certain kinds of health and safety aspects to cosmetic products. Inhaling, you said, for example, there is no alternative to inhaling.
Mr. Seidle: Right. But if you asked the industry when the last time was that you’ve ever done an inhalation test, it never happens. You can say, “Here is a list of 50 animal tests from decades ago. How many of them happen for cosmetics or for ingredients and how frequently do they happen?” The testing for a finished product is going to be looking at local effects, eye, skin, and we have alternatives for those. The most frequently required tests are replaceable. The exceptional case, does this new chemical cause cancer? It’s a valid question, but ask them if they’ve seen a cancer test in the last 10 years. It doesn’t happen.
Senator Frum: It probably should happen. I understand better how Bill S-214 will help Canadian cosmetics manufacturers make their products available in the EU. I’m just curious to know, for companies like LUSH that take this ethical position that you will not sell your products to China, are there counterfeit LUSH products in China, or do you see copycat products there?
Ms. Jones: There are not only counterfeit LUSH products; there are counterfeit LUSH shops. There are whole shopfronts that are counterfeiting us. And it’s a real problem for us. It’s heartbreaking when you’ve built your brand deliberately to be cruelty-free to see your name displayed in a country where animal testing is mandated. So it is a problem for us, which is why we’re so keen to work with the Chinese authorities to try and speed up the process. And it will happen. Everyone on the ground thinks it will happen. It’s just an incredibly difficult train to turn around once it’s steaming along, and there are so many variations there.
Certainly it’s consumer desire, as always. Even in China, consumers are looking for non-animal testing. They’re looking for the same things that all of us are looking for. They’re just stuck in a system that isn’t moving terribly quickly for them. So yes, it is a problem.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. I believe we have exhausted the questions for sure. I’m just double-checking here. I want to thank you all for being here. First of all, I want to thank Senator Stewart Olsen for her presentation in bringing this bill forward. Thank you to the witnesses for your contributions to this.
I think to my colleagues, as we go forward, we need to focus on this bill and what it will do with regard to the nature of its regulations and the restrictions it will place as opposed to the hypothetical situations that will not be covered by the bill or be absolutely prevented by the bill, and we’ll look to the sponsor of the bill to clarify if there are further issues along that line.
Senator Eggleton: To make one point, I think we should get Health Canada here. At the next meeting we should be hearing from them as well because they’ve been raised a number of times and they’re the responsible entity.
Senator Omidvar: They would be doing the monitoring.
The Chair: Thank you all.
(The committee adjourned.)