BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                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