Around The Web

AGL has received a development permit from the Queensland Government to build up to 115 turbines for the Coopers Gap Wind Farm.

In Australia animal testing is currently required for some potentially toxic new cosmetic ingredients. Understanding Animal Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Last week, a bill was put before the House of Representatives that would ban animal testing of industrial chemicals intended solely for use in cosmetics.

The proposed bill would affect a wide variety of products: “cosmetics” are legally defined as any substance used on the body, or in the mouth to change its appearance, cleanse it, perfume it or protect it. This includes soaps, shampoos, moisturiser, hair dye, perfumes and deodorants.

It’s difficult to know exactly how many animals will be affected by this ban, as companies do not advertise their use of animal testing and results are often unpublished. It’s likely to be relatively small, but this ban will both improve their lives and be an important international signal.

Cosmetic testing commonly measures the reaction of animals’ skin, eyes and respiratory tracts to high concentrations of certain chemicals. Other tests determine a product’s potential to cause foetal abnormalities, cancer or genetic mutations.

The global move away from animal testing

As a practice, it has had a turbulent history. It’s increasingly opposed by the public but many governments – including Australia’s – require animal tests to be conducted for some potentially hazardous new cosmetic ingredients.

Most prominent in this arena is the European Union. After animal testing was first banned in Germany in 1986, it was extended to the entire Union in 2004. In 2009 the ban was expanded to include ingredients, not just the finished product. Then imports came under scrutiny, as Japan and the United States are major exporters to the EU, and imports of cosmetic products tested on animals were banned in 2013.

Since that time Israel, India, Norway, New Zealand, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan and parts of Brazil have all banned testing of cosmetics on animals. However, the Humane Society International estimates that globally around 100,000-200,000 animals are still used annually for this purpose.

The US is considering a ban, which would drastically diminish the market for any manufacturers still using animal testing. Until recently China required all cosmetics to be tested on animals, although this requirement has [now been relaxed for non-specialised cosmetics such as hair, skin and nail care products, perfumes and make-up.

Australia’s situation

Until July 2018, animal testing will still be required in Australia for some cosmetic ingredients, as it is considered by the Department of Health to be the best means of testing for potential toxicity. After this time industrial chemicals scheduled for use only in cosmetics may not be tested on animals. Chemicals used for other purposes may still be tested on animals, providing a potential loophole for manufacturers.

However, many ingredients have already been extensively tested on animals, and there is no need to repeat this. For others, alternative means of testing are being developed, such as clinical trials on humans and use of skin samples from cosmetic surgery to test penetration levels.

There have been major advances in alternative testing methods in recent years. As well as clinical studies and skin tests, we can, for example, use hen’s eggs to test if a product is likely to irritate human eyes. In future differentiated stem cells may be used as well.

Australia already has in place a code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. This requires research using animals to be licensed by an authority, usually associated with a university or government services. The committee evaluating applications has to be satisfied that the benefit to humans outweighs the harm to animals.

In the case of cosmetics, the harm to animals is often major and benefit to humans minor. However, my experience is that committees are likely to be persuaded that any government requirement for animal testing should be honoured.

The proposed bill will save animals from the suffering often associated with testing. Although Australia’s cosmetic industry is not large by international standards, it is growing rapidly, particularly in body and hair products, cosmeceuticals, sunscreen and anti-ageing products.

Once this ban passes, it will be noted internationally. This, together with the increasing number of other countries banning all animal testing of cosmetics, suggests an international accord could be possible.

Over the past decade the international World Animal Health Organisation – which primarily promotes animal disease control – has assumed responsibility for animal welfare standards worldwide. With 180 member states, it is in a good position to spearhead movement towards an international agreement. It already has a Code of Practice for Use of Animals in Research and Education, which recognises that:

Animals should only be used when ethically justified and when no other alternative methods are available.

This Code includes “harm versus benefit” ethical review, similarly to the existing Australian system, but without the government imperative to encourage or require animal testing. This could be used to deny companies the opportunity to conduct animal trials with cosmetics in countries still using them.

Eventually, it is clear, cosmetics will not be tested on animals anywhere in the world. Australia’s new regulations will be a small but valuable step towards this future.

Clive Phillips is on the Scientific Panel for Voiceless. He is a director of Minding Animals International.

HOT DISCOVERY: The hellish alien Jupiter-like world dubbed KELT-9b is beyond what astronomers have ever studied. It glows like a comet and is so hot it's likely that molecules break apart and atmosphere evaporates.

Every month the Geelong Disabled People's Industries recycles around 50 tonnes of what was once considered rubbish otherwise destined for landfill.

High-profile doctors say Carmichael coalmine poses a ‘grave danger to public health’, including from air pollution and black lung disease

Lending money to Indian mining giant Adani to build a rail line for the Carmichael coal project is akin to supporting big tobacco to transport hundreds of tonnes of tobacco to market, an eminent former surgeon and the chair of Doctors for the Environment Australia, Prof Kingsley Faulkner, said.

Faulkner made the comment in a letter to the chair of the government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Naif), Sharon Warburton, in which he urged her and other board members to rule out an investment loan to build the rail line from the mine at the Galilee basin in Queensland to the Abbot Point port.

Continue reading...

The aim is to find solutions to some of the toughest problems facing the oceans — that includes coral bleaching, plastic pollution, overfishing and rising sea levels.

Officers speak less respectfully to members of the public who are black than to those who are white, researchers say.

"It's beyond time the national parliament came to a view about what the long term energy framework would be."

The chief scientist Alan Finkel is widely expected to recommend the Federal Government adopt an expanded, technology-neutral version of the renewable energy target, as a way to bring certainty to Australia's climate policy. So how would such a "low emissions target" work?

With hundreds of properties around Britain set to be lost to erosion, some are arguing that historic coastal landmarks should be allowed to decay gracefully

Do all heritage sites deserve to be saved or should some be permitted to fall into natural ruin? According to Caitlin DeSilvey, a cultural geography professor at the University of Exeter, some historic landmarks should be permitted to decay gracefully through a policy of managed “continuous ruination”. In other words, thanks to a perfect storm of falling budgets, climate change, rising sea levels, and, well, loads more storms, is it time to stop viewing heritage loss as a failure but instead as a necessary, even natural process of change?

“Yes, but it’s not about abandoning stuff,” stresses Phil Dyke, coast and marine adviser at the National Trust, which owns 775 miles of coastline and cares for more than 500 coastal interests. “It’s a form of adaptation. There are 90 locations around England, Wales and Northern Ireland where we’ve got significant change that we’re going to have to deal with over time. It’s going to become increasingly difficult to hang on to structures in these locations.”

Continue reading...

Diesel sales in May are down 20% with industry insiders blaming lack of government clarity for consumer uncertainty

Demand for new diesel cars plummeted by a fifth last month amid rising concerns over air pollution.

Approximately 81,500 new diesel cars were registered in May, down 20% on the same month last year, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). This represented a fall in market share from 50% to 43.7%.

Continue reading...

The rocket will give India an edge in the satellite market and it's prompted some big comparisons.

The two lions had been removed from circuses in South America and relocated to South Africa.

How is new technology changing the face of invasive pest animal control?

There are few issues as bipartisan as public lands. They underpin American traditions and are central to the US economy. But they are now threatened like never before. Under the influence of special interests, the Trump administration has paved a path to give away 640m acres of national land, a third of US property. Limiting public access and input, this Congress has been called the worst for public lands in US history. In response, the Guardian is launching a weekly series to look at the role of public lands in American life and the threat posed by efforts to do away with them

• Follow along
• Support this project
• Let us know what you think: public.lands@theguardian.com

Continue reading...

As Congress moves to give away federal land and diminish public access, we want to hear from US public land owners. How do you use these spaces?

As Congress moves to give away national land and diminish public access, we want to hear from US public land owners. As part of our new series dedicated to public lands, we want photos of the places you visit, that feed your family, that employ you, that provide you refuge. Are you a rancher, a hunter, a ski patroller, a geologist, a federal wildlife biologist? What role do these lands play in your life?

National land makes up almost a third of the US. Across the country, 640 million acres are held in trust for all Americans. Public land is an enormous part of our history and our traditions.

Continue reading...

For over 100 years, a small minority have battled the very idea of national land. As efforts are renewed, all Americans must face the fight

The rancher came roaring up on a four-wheeler.

“Hey, you,” he shouted. “You’re trespassing!”

Continue reading...

In a divided country, support for US public lands is a rare bridge issue – yet the Republican platform has opened the door to disposing of 640m national acres

At a moment of deep political division, few issues draw as much bipartisan support from the American public as the sanctity of public lands. Yet conservative lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans’ birthright: 640m acres of national land.

Continue reading...

Exclusive: Powerful regional officials to ask administration to end 20-year ban, saying it is unlawful and inhibits economic opportunity

A coalition of influential officials in Arizona and Utah are urging the Trump administration to consider rolling back Obama-era environmental protections that ban new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon.

Continue reading...

A new report says parts of the reef can be saved from coral bleaching and death