So... only stuff that hasn't been tested on animals will be allowed in? I think we should have a five year trial period in other countries first. I don't want to volunteer as part of the beta testing on the human animal. Good thing I don't use cosmetics anyways.

This is great news. Thank you Eitan Cabal and Medinat Israel! For a list of cosmetics companies (and a few others) that DO test on animals as of September, 2012, Google http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_test.htm I'm not a vegetarian, but I cannot see the justification for tests such as the Draize just so that I can have a more wonderful eyeshadow.

That means they're gonna be testing on humans! There is a limited amount that can be deduced from computer simulated tests on data already collected. All new data, including side effects, will be collected from the results of an end-product tested on the citizens of Israel. I am not very happy about this.

Now I wish Israel will move to treat all animals more humanely and move towards a more vegetarian lifestyle.

As of September, 2010, the following countries do not allow animal testing for personal care products: UK, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Liechtenstein, San Marino AND the EU.

There are other methods of testing besides computer simulations such as in vitro screens. Do a little research. Also, keep in mind that human test subjects volunteer. Animals don't have that privilege. By the time a test gets to humans, the substance has already successfully gone through protocols for safety. If it were not so, the cruelty-free cosmetics companies, such as Israel's very own Ahava, would not be in business very long, would they. Wish I could say the same for GMO's.

And unless personal care products whose ingredients are not tested in vivo on animals are banned for use of humans, then I can guarantee you, more people who use these products will die than before. Human subjects don't 'volunteer' for toxicity testing. At least I've never heard of it. If they do, it will be for a good amount of cash, which is also unethical. There exists no good substitute for animal tests for new substances in the chemical industry. A compound behaves differently in a multi-cellular organism than in a culture. Most of the stuff we use now has been tested on humans (it's so old that we've used it without adverse effects), or on animals before the ban. To do otherwise is to expose people to new, potentially toxic compounds without testing. That is indeed what happens in Europe and US with new fire-retardants, polymers, etc... but that is also unethical. It could be argued that beauty products are a personal vanity choice though.

Speaking of unethical, the cosmetics industry can be very ugly and deceptive. There are companies that use aborted fetal tissue such as the Swiss company, Neocutis, and the French company, Sederma. These companies do not manufacture cosmetics. They make ingredients for cosmetic companies. A very popular ingredient is called "Renovage." I am not promoting the use of aborted fetus tissue but, rather, just bringing it to your attention. I find the practice to be appalling and immoral. Back to animal testing, I understand what you are saying and would ask your opinion on lab-grown skin such as is used for burn victims. And please understand that I am not opposed to necessary animal testing for medical and veterinary purposes. But cosmetics, etc.? No way.

I hope other countries follow this example!

Thank you for being such an articulate advocate for animal welfare. Also, I would add one caveat to those who think that animal-testing of drugs and cosmetics will necessarily preclude the marketing of products with potentially dangerous side effect. Consider the example of aspirin and ibuprofen...medications that are probably more widely used than almost any others and, in most cases, quite safely. Yet, all it takes is one Tylenol tablet to poison a cat...so is that an example of the efficacy of testing drugs on animals?

How great of us, we don't use perfume that was used on rabbits. Does that make me better? Maybe if we try being good to our fellow human beings instead of worrying about rabbits, we will be really better people than just showing a false goodness!

I wrote a reply to Devorah on just this, but it looks like it didn't go through. Usually toxicity is tested on several animals, but it's true that they are not perfect substitutes for humans. Still, a complete mammal organism is the best substitute as of now.

You brought up an excellent point that requires consideration. Thank you for such an interesting comment. BTW, I enjoy reading your posts. You are no-nonsense and forthright, two traits I greatly admire.

They perform unneeded experiments on animals that are basically being tortured, because the technicians have removed the animals vocal chords so that they can't hear their screaming. I say unneeded, because they already have more than enough research for the types of CHEMICALS used in commercial cosmetics. Using natural cosmetics much healthier for us anyway!!!

Thank you so much for being in the forefront of this issue and sparing animals from suffering and death for cosmetics.

Thank you Israel, maybe other Barbarian countries like Canada and the USA will follow suit

I didn't know that the one ruled out the other. Why not strive to be good to our fellow human beings and to be kind to animals? Is that so difficult? It really doesn't take much effort at all. My cats and my dog are a lot nicer than many people I know (and many I don't know).