IT SHOULD now be possible to buy anything from a lipstick to an anti-wrinkle cream anywhere in the EU safe in the knowledge that its production no longer involves animal cruelty.

Following a new directive from the European Commission earlier this month – after decades of campaigning by pressure groups – a total ban on the animal testing of cosmetic products and their ingredients has come into force.

There has been a collective sigh of relief from animal-rights charities and those who despaired that the ugly side of the beauty industry would ever meet its end.

Dr Laura Waters, a senior lecturer in pharmaceutical science at the University of Huddersfield and a supporter of ending animal testing, has welcomed the move but sees it as a trailblazer. She wants the campaign to continue for all laboratory animals, including the 12m used every year in the EU.

She said: “This ban is a really big step forward in the right direction. But now we need to look at medical research and animal testing.”

Laura’s particular field of expertise includes looking at ways for medicines to penetrate the skin – a mechanism that is surprisingly difficult to achieve. No animals are used in research or for teaching purposes at the university. “Although there are still some universities that do use animals,” says Laura.

“I think there’s still no need to test using animals in the pharmaceutical industry, but that’s controversial,” she added.

“My philosophy is that if you want to know how a drug works in humans why would you be interested in how it reacts in animals. There are lots of drugs, for example, that have been released on the market and had to be recalled. And all of them will have made it through animal testing and clinical trials. ”

Researchers around the world are working on alternatives to animal testing – the EU itself put €238m into such research between 2007 and 2011 – including the use of computer modelling and artificial skin or human tissue grown in the laboratory.

Laura and her team use artificial silicon membranes that mimic skin. She is currently working with a major company to develop ways of using computer simulations to predict how new pharmaceutical ingredients will behave.

Such innovation, she says, readily translates for use by the cosmetic industry.

What the EU ban has effectively done is make it much more difficult for cosmetic companies to develop and market radically new products.

Laura explained: “How it works is that when a cosmetic company decides it wants to make a new product it can use existing ingredients that have already been used and tested. You won’t need to do animal testing again.

“But that’s not going to give them a unique product with a selling point. If you want to make something different then you have to add new ingredients – and prove that they are safe. As the law stood animal testing was the only option.

“If you take away animal testing you need to have a clear way of proving that new ingredient is safe, so there will now be no new ingredients.”

The cosmetics industry has spoken out against the ban. Cosmetics Europe, which represents the interests of 4,000 European cosmetic companies, says the legislation “ignores the reality that science is not yet ready to bridge existing knowledge gaps and that non-animal alternatives cannot address all ingredient safety questions.”

“ By implementing the ban at this time, the EU is jeopardising the industry’s ability to innovate,” adds Bertil Heerink, the organisation’s director general.

But, as Laura points out, cosmetic houses have access to thousands of ingredients that are already tried and tested. “You could ask, do we really need any more?” she says. They can also test on human volunteers.

Technically, there are very few cosmetic products that can claim to have a totally cruelty-free history. Laura explains: “Companies such as Lush and The Body Shop, for example, have sold themselves on non-animal testing but they are using ingredients that have been tested on animals in the past, just not by them and not recently.

“It all depends on when your cut-off date is.”

However, she is heartened by the fact that the EU went ahead with a total ban despite resistance from the cosmetic industry.

The industry was warned a decade ago that the total ban was on its way. Animal testing on finished cosmetic products was banned as far back as 2004 and ingredient testing was outlawed in 2009, but there were exceptions, including tests for toxicity, skin sensitisation and carcinogenic properties. “The cosmetic industry said they weren’t ready and didn’t have the alternatives in place,” said Laura. “But they had 10 years to think about it, and there are alternatives that have been validated within the EU.”

By the time the total ban came into effect only a few thousand animals a year were being used to test cosmetics in the EU. “The amount of animals used was low,” said Laura, “but it still added to the total.”

Unfortunately, according to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, millions of animals are still used in medical testing around the EU every year – every species from guinea pigs to higher apes.

And the cosmetic testing ban only applies to products sold in the EU – although the European government is encouraging other parts of the world to follow suit.

In one of the world’s fastest-growing consumer economies – China – it is still a requirement for companies to carry out animal testing on cosmetics.

“This is a huge market and cosmetic companies are going to have to decide whether they want to go there,” said Laura. “If someone from the EU wants to sell a product there they will have to have it animal-tested in China.”

Researchers like Laura want to see more investment in alternatives to animal testing. She said: “We should now be putting more time and money into this, but I think one of the biggest problems is convincing the public that it’s needed.

“What is the point of testing something on an animal if it’s going to be used by people. Animal testing gives a false sense of security and that’s what we need people to understand”.