Cosmetics testing Main article: Testing cosmetics on animals Cosmetics testing on animals is particularly controversial. Such tests, which are still conducted in the U. S. , involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy,phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.  Cosmetics testing is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing.
France, which is home to the world’s largest cosmetics company, L’Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed.  The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.  Products in Europe not tested on animals carry this symbol. U. S. ederal laws regulating pain relief for animals, writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U. S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain.  In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to “prove” that animals are conscious, and to provide “scientifically acceptable” grounds for claiming that they feel pain. 91] Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support, some $critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined.  The ability of invertebrate species of animals, such as insects, to feel pain and suffering is also unclear.