BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SJR 22
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Susan A. Bonilla, Chair
SJR 22 (Block) - As Introduced: March 24, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 31-0
SUBJECT : Cruelty-free cosmetics.
SUMMARY : Urges the United States Congress (Congress) to enact
legislation that would establish reasonable guidelines for the
prohibition of cosmetic product testing on animals, and further
urges the federal government to mandate alternative methods to
animal testing of cosmetic products. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes the following declarations:
a) For more than 50 years, animals have been used in
painful tests to assess the safety of certain chemicals
used in cosmetic products;
b) Modern alternatives to harmful animal testing are
increasingly less expensive, faster, and more accurate at
predicting human reactions;
c) Mandating and promoting the use of accepted alternative
methods to animal testing has, and will continue to have, a
huge positive impact on animal welfare;
d) Careful evaluation of alternative methods to animal
tests ensures that their proper use supports the equal or
better protection of people, animals, and the environment;
e) In 2000, California became the first state in the nation
to pass a law restricting the use of animals in product
testing by making it unlawful to use animals for testing
when an appropriate, validated, alternative method is
available;
f) Our nation's largest trading partner, the European
Union, which accounts for nearly half of the global
cosmetics market worth an estimated $90 billion a year,
SJR 22
Page 2
prohibits the importation and sale of cosmetics that have
been tested on animals as of March 2013;
g) Norway, India, Israel, and the State of Sao Paulo,
Brazil have also banned all animal testing for cosmetics;
h) Harmonizing international laws that encourage modern
science and respond to consumer expectations benefits
businesses and consumers in today's global market place;
and,
i) Polls show that the American public overwhelmingly
supports alternatives to testing cosmetics on animals, and
a recent poll conducted by ORC International, a leading
global market research firm, found that 72% of American
adults surveyed believe that testing cosmetics on animals
is unethical.
2)Resolves jointly, by the Senate and the Assembly of the State
of California (Legislature):
a) That the Legislature urges Congress to enact legislation
that would establish reasonable deadlines for the
prohibition of the testing and marketing of cosmetic
products that have been tested on animals;
b) That the Legislature urges the federal government to
mandate alternative methods to animal testing of cosmetic
products, whenever those scientifically satisfactory
methods are available, and to prioritize the validation and
acceptance of additional nonanimal tests; and
c) That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this
resolution to the President and the Vice President of the
United States, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to each Senator
and Representative from California in Congress, to the
Governor of California, and to the author for appropriate
distribution.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that manufacturers and contract testing facilities may
not use traditional animal test methods within this state when
an appropriate alternative test method has been scientifically
SJR 22
Page 3
validated and recommended by the Inter-Agency Coordinating
Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)
and adopted by the relevant federal agency or agencies or
program within an agency responsible for regulating the
specific product or activity for which the test is being
conducted. (Civil Code Section (CC) 1834.9(a))
2)Clarifies that there is no prohibition against the use of any
alternative nonanimal test method for the testing of any
product, product formulation, chemical or ingredient that is
not recommended by ICCVAM. (CC 1834.9(b))
3)Clarifies that there is no prohibition against the use of
animal tests to comply with requirements of state agencies, or
federal agencies when the federal agency has approved an
alternative nonanimal test, as specified, and the federal
agency staff concludes that the alternative nonanimal test
does not assure the health and safety of consumers. (CC
1934.9(c))
4)Defines "animal" to mean, "vertebrate nonhuman animal." (CC
1834.9(f)(1))
5)Defines "traditional animal test method" to mean "a process or
procedure using animals to obtain information on the
characteristics of a chemical or agent. Toxicological test
methods generate information regarding the ability of a
chemical or agent to produce a specific biological effect
under specified conditions." (CC 1834.9(f)(6))
6)Defines "validated alternative test method" to mean, "a test
method that does not use animals, or in some cases reduces or
refines the current use of animals, for which the reliability
and relevance for a specific purpose has been established in
validation studies as specified in the ICCVAM report provided
to the relevant federal agencies." (CC 1834.9(f)(7))
FISCAL EFFECT : None. This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this resolution . This resolution urges Congress to
enact legislation that would establish reasonable guidelines
for the prohibition of cosmetic animal testing in the United
SJR 22
Page 4
States, and also urges the federal government to mandate
alternative methods to animal tests to promote equal or better
protection of people, animals and the environment. This
resolution is sponsored by Cruelty-Free International.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "Despite the
modern advances in product testing and bans on animal testing
for cosmetics in other countries, in the United States there
is no national law prohibiting the use of animals for
cosmetics testing or even requiring that companies look first
to available non-animal alternatives before resorting to
animal tests. Modern non-animal alternatives are often
cheaper, faster and more predictive for humans. Our nation's
largest trading partner, the European Union, now prohibits the
marketing of cosmetics that have been tested on animals. India
and Israel have also banned the practice. Moving away from
animal tests will allow the American cosmetics industry to
remain competitive in a changing global market that
increasingly requires non-animal safety tests."
3)Animal testing . According to the Humane Society of the United
States (Humane Society), testing on animals for cosmetic
products is not required under federal law. However, several
tests are commonly performed by exposing certain animals such
as mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs to cosmetics
ingredients.
These tests can include skin and eye irritation tests where
chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the
eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief; repeated
force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for
signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as
cancer or birth defects; and, widely condemned "lethal dose"
tests, in which animals are forced to swallow large amounts of
a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death. The
Humane Society further notes that at the end of the tests, the
animals are killed, normally by asphyxiation, neck-breaking,
or decapitation.
While a number of countries have banned the use of animal
testing for cosmetic purposes, including the European Union,
other countries, such as China, require products manufactured
outside of the country to be tested on animals.
4)Alternatives to current animal testing practices . There are a
SJR 22
Page 5
number of practical issues regarding the use of animals in
cosmetic product testing, in addition to the ethical concerns.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society, which is a national
animal advocacy organization dedicated to ending the use of
animals in research and testing, reports that many of the
current toxicity tests were developed decades ago and are
based on old science. Further, animal tests are not always
predictive of human health effects, and the speeds at which
some of the animal tests are conducted are often slow and
costly.
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society reports that scientists
have developed and validated alternative methods shown to lead
to safer and more effective products and drugs for humans than
animal testing. For example, skin corrosivity and irritation
can be measured using three-dimensional human skin equivalent
systems such as EpiDerm and SkinEthic. Additional
alternatives include EpiSkin (a model of reconstructed human
epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models that
predict skin corrosivity and irritation by means of
correlating a new drug or chemical with its likely activity,
properties, and effects.
This resolution urges Congress to enact legislation that would
establish reasonable deadlines for the nationwide prohibition
of animal testing and urges the federal government to mandate
testing alternatives which appear to be readily available and
effectively utilized.
5)Federal legislation : Representative Jim Moran (D-VA)
introduced House Resolution 4148 on March 5, 2014, which is
titled the Humane Cosmetics Act. The legislation aims to
phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetics
tested on animals by prohibiting an entity from contracting or
conducting cosmetic animal tests and prohibits selling,
offering for sale, or transporting any cosmetic if the final
product or any component thereof was developed or manufactured
using cosmetic animal testing. H.R. 4148 has been referred to
the House Subcommittee on Commerce Manufacturing and Trade.
In 2000, Congress passed the ICCVAM Authorization Act and
established ICCVAM, which is charged with the development,
validation, and regulatory acceptance of new and revised
regulatory test methods that reduce, refine, and replace the
SJR 22
Page 6
use of animals in testing while maintaining and promoting
scientific quality and the protection of human and animal
health and the environment.
6)Arguments in support . Cruelty-Free International writes in
support, "Prohibition of animal testing for cosmetics is an
area where the United States has fallen behind other countries
including our largest trading partner, the European Union,
which has completely banned the importation and sale of
cosmetics that have been tested on animals. Norway, India and
Israel have also banned animal testing for cosmetics;
Australia, ASEAN, Brazil and [South] Korea are also making
strides toward ending cosmetic testing on animals. With [this
resolution], California can continue to lead by sending a
strong message to Congress and the President that it is time
to modernize [the United States'] cosmetic industry regulation
to match consumer expectation and international progress for
safe and humane cosmetics."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Cruelty-Free International (sponsor)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA)
Animal Welfare Institute
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Elissa Silva / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301