Skip to main content

The UK Government’s Decision to Resume Cosmetic Animal Testing After a 25 Year Ban

by Serena Murphy

Content warning: this article contains discussions of animal abuse, which some readers may find disturbing.


Recently the UK government has made the decision to allow animal testing for cosmetic ingredients, overturning a 25-year ban. 

Animal welfare activists and cruelty free beauty brands have erupted in outrage as the government continues to take steps backwards in the fight for a cruelty-free cosmetic industry.

In theory, since 1998, testing on animals for the makeup and beauty industry has been banned in the United Kingdom, primarily thanks to large scale campaigns from The Body Shop and Cruelty Free International (CFI). 

However, the reality is far more complex, and speaks of a longer history of government attempts to resume animal testing.


It was revealed in 2023 that the ban was secretly abandoned in 2019, with a letter from the Home Office to animal welfare charity CFI in 2021 revealing the Conservative government’s plans to allow animal testing on cosmetic ingredients. 

After fierce backlash from over 80 companies, the High Court allowed the CFI to apply for a judicial review against the Home Office’s attempt to abandon the ban. On 5 May 2023, a High Court Judge ruled that the ban could be reinstated, despite the Home Office attempting to argue against it.


However, once again, the ban contained loopholes. In a statement on 17 May 2023, Home secretary Suella Braverman confirmed that the government was ‘taking action to seek alternatives to animal testing… of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients.’ 

Even so, only 20% of the chemicals used in cosmetics are ‘exclusive’ to that industry, while the previous ban had also covered substances used ‘exclusively or predominantly’ in cosmetic products. This means that the ban is only partial, and many UK beauty products cannot claim to be entirely cruelty free.


Humane society international estimates that globally around 500,000 animals suffer and die for cosmetics per year. Animals involved in cosmetic testing are brutally harmed, with chemicals forced down their throats, in their eyes, and on their skin. Many go blind, deaf, and spend their short lives in agonising pain from chemical burns, as was the fate of Humane Society International’s animated ‘spokes-bunny’ Ralph, created to inform the public of the terrors of the cosmetic lab. 

If the animals – primarily rabbits, Guinea pigs, rats and mice - do not die from these tests alone, they will be killed and dissected. A 2021 YouGov poll revealed that 85% of British people find it unacceptable to test cosmetic ingredients on animals, while 66% agreed that a target date should be set to end all animal experiments in the UK. Yet the government still cannot commit to a full-scale ban.


With the advancement of modern technology, there is no longer an ethical argument for using animals in cosmetic testing. According to Peta, the largest global animal rights organization, the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, given that other animals may react entirely differently to the chemicals than humans do. 

As noted by Human Society International, ‘Producing cosmetics without animal suffering is simple’, as companies can ‘use combinations of the thousands of existing cosmetic chemicals already established as safe, combined with available non-animal test methods.’ Many non-animal methods are also quicker, cheaper, and more reliableAlternative methods which use organisms like bacteria, or tissues and cells from humans and computer models are becoming more readily available and will become cheaper as their demand increases.


Why, then, is the UK government constantly attempting to find loopholes to the ban?


The government claims that there are some products, namely sunscreens, antidandruff shampoos and fluoride-containing toothpastes which cannot be proven safe without the use of animal testing. 

While this may be true, the vast majority of products can be safely tested with alternative methods and those products that cannot be tested safely with these methods could easily be banned in the UK.


Regardless, banning animal cruelty in the cosmetic industry is a wider issue which goes beyond the legislation of a single country. We in the UK are still supporting animal testing by buying products that are tested on animals in other countries. 

Of the top 50 beauty brands, only 6 are cruelty free. This is not to suggest that the individual consumer is responsible, but it does suggest that there should be a more global approach to ending animal testing on cosmetic products. 

Cruelty-Free Kitty noted, ‘In the beauty industry, one of the main reasons why big corporations still fund animal testing is related to their presence in China.’ Indeed, China is considered the largest market to implement mandatory testing on animals in the cosmetic industry.


Ultimately, discussions of how to oppose the UK government’s decision leads to a wider discussion of the global picture. If animal cruelty in the cosmetic industry is not banned worldwide, especially in countries like China which export cosmetic products on such a large scale, then the UK is still complicit in supporting cosmetic animal testing. 

As consumers, we can protest through boycotting certain cosmetic brands which are known to test on animals, but, ultimately, change needs to come from the government. 

First, it needs to be committed to re-implementing a full ban in the UK, then campaigning for a worldwide ban. It needs to listen to its people and represent them. When it does that, it will see just how many British citizens oppose the needless killing of innocent animals.


Edited by Emily Duff

Most Popular

Fashion For a Cause: Brands That Stand with Palestine and the history of fashion as a form of Activism

by Oana-Maria Moldovan For over two months, there has been an ongoing genocide war in Gaza. To simplify a long and horrific issue, the situation that started, on a larger scale, around one hundred years ago, and has only become amplified since October 7th 2023. Taking place around the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel–Lebanon border, the armed conflict is between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups.  The problem is about “stolen” land. Said land is seen as an important holy part of both religions involved. But really, how holy can we consider a land to be, if people kill other people for it? It’s important to remember that this genocide is about three things: forced occupation, zionism, and religion. It’s also important to remember what ethnic erasure is. This terrible expresion, also known as cultural or ethnic assimilation, refers to the process by which the distinct cultural or ethnic identity of a particular group is gradually diminished or erased, often due to ext

‘Make Tattooing Safe Again’: Sheffield Based Tattoo Artist Exposed for Indecent Behaviour

 by Emily Fletcher TW: SA, Animal Abuse, Transphobia Photo Credit: @ meiko_akiz uki Recently, an  Instagram account  has been created to provide a  ‘space to safely give a voice to those who want to speak out about the behaviour of one, Sheffield based tattoo artist’. A  total of 40+ posts have been made by the above social media account regarding  one of Sheffield's most popular tattoo artists .  Thankfully, all posts are prefaced with a Content Warning prior to sharing screenshots of the messages that have been sent anonymously to the page. The majority of Content Warnings refer to sexual behaviour, abuse, and sexual assault. It is clear that there is a reoccurring theme within each submission, as many clients appear to have had the same experiences with the tattoo artist. Women, mostly, are being made to feel uncomfortable while being tattooed. One of the most vulnerable positions anyone can be in, tattoo artists should make their clients feel comfortable and safe during the pro

Now What? The Aftermath of the 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl'

by Susan Moore Here is a bit about me: I am an open, excitable, creative AFAB who is also moderately attractive. I have a unique sense of personal style and a personality that on the surface can only be described as “bubbly” and “quirky”. For this reason, dating is a nightmare. To be sure, I do not have a hard time finding dates or potential suitors. The problems arise when said dates spend some time with me and decide that I am a rare specimen, and the connection they feel with me is “unlike anything they have felt before”. Then, things go one of two ways.  Either a) they decide I am too high maintenance and no longer palatable, or  b) they choose to never look further than the surface and are content to date the idea of me rather than the real me. There is something rather interesting, perhaps funny, about my situation. It is in no way unique. I have met so many people who constantly dealt with the same problem. Even funnier still, is the fact that there is a trope that simultaneousl