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