BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SJR 22
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SJR 22 (Block)
As Introduced March 24, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-0
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 11-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonilla, Jones, | | |
| |Dickinson, Eggman, | | |
| |Gordon, Hagman, Holden, | | |
| |Mullin, Skinner, Ting, | | |
| |Wilk | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 resolution :
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
SJR 22
Page 2
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, 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.
SJR 22
Page 3
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 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 nonanimal
alternatives before resorting to animal tests. Modern nonanimal
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 nonanimal 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
SJR 22
Page 4
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
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. 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. House Resolution 4148
has been referred to the House Commerce Manufacturing and Trade
Subcommittee.
In 2000, Congress passed the Interagency Coordinating Committee on
the Validation of Alternative Methods (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 use
of animals in testing while maintaining and promoting scientific
quality and the protection of human and animal health and the
environment.
SJR 22
Page 5
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 [Association
of Southeast Asian Nations], 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."
7)Arguments in Opposition. There is no opposition on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Elissa Silva / B., P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301
FN: 0003946