The EU's Proposed 8th Amendment

Jun 3, 2008 | Contact Author | By: David C. Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates
Contact the Author
Save
This item has been saved to your library.
View My Library
(click to close)
Save to My Library
Title: The EU's Proposed 8th Amendment
  • Article

Just as the industry began to comply with the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetic Directive, the European Union (EU) Commission proposed the new 8th Amendment. After confusion surrounding the old rules, the commission attempted to correct matters, only making them worse. Governments seem to continually make life more complicated for citizens by “simplifying” everything.

Before headway can be made on the proposed 8th Amendment, attention should first be turned to the damage caused by the 7th Amendment. The 7th Amendment was necessary because under Article 4, Section 1, Part I of the 6th Amendment, the marketing of cosmetics incorporating ingredients or combinations of ingredients that were tested on animals was prohibited after June 30, 2000, in order to meet the safety requirements for cosmetics. If alternative methods were not available by Jan. 1, 2000, an “escape” clause required the EU Commission to submit draft measures by that date. No alternative methods were available by that date; thus arose the need for the 7th Amendment.

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article that appeared in the June 2008 issue of Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine. If you would like a copy of the complete article, please contact us at customerservice@cosmeticsandtoiletries.com.