dc.rights.license | CC-BY-NC-ND | |
dc.contributor | Justine Watkins & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga. | |
dc.contributor.advisor | Ritskes- Hoitinga, Merel | |
dc.contributor.author | Gurp, Demian van | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-05T00:00:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-05T00:00:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/46113 | |
dc.description.abstract | The Symrise AG v. ECHA court case marks a pivotal moment in the European Union’s regulatory landscape concerning animal testing for cosmetics. This comprehensive review dissects the legal, regulatory, and ethical dimensions stemming from the conflict between the EU’s ban on animal testing for cosmetics under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and the REACH regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 requirements for chemical safety assessments, which may necessitate animal testing. Through an analysis of the European General Court’s rulings, stakeholder questionnaires, and comparative case studies, this review highlights the intricacies of navigating between consumer safety, workers’ safety, environmental protection, and animal welfare. It highlights the court’s stance that neither regulation holds primacy, necessitating a harmonised application to fulfil safety and ethical standards. The review also delves into the implications for future regulatory policies, emphasising the need for the development and regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods. This case sets a precedent for reconciling scientific assessment with ethical considerations, steering the cosmetics industry, regulatory bodies, and scientific community towards a more ethically conscious and safety-oriented chemical testing and safety assessment approach. | |
dc.description.sponsorship | Utrecht University | |
dc.language.iso | EN | |
dc.subject | A literature review diving into the court case between the company Symrise AG and the European Chemicals Agency of the EU. ECHA required animal testing based on the REACH regulations, while Symrise AG did not want to perform animal testing based on the Cosmetics animal testing ban, as it is about a chemical, 2-ethylhexyl salicylate, which is solely used as a UV-filter in cosmetics. | |
dc.title | Symrise AG UV-filter court case: the end of the EU animal testing ban for cosmetics? | |
dc.type.content | Master Thesis | |
dc.rights.accessrights | Open Access | |
dc.subject.keywords | Symrise, ECHA, Animal testing, EU, Court case | |
dc.subject.courseuu | Health and Environment | |
dc.thesis.id | 28816 | |