An Act to Prohibit Animal Testing for Cosmetic Manufacturing.
Sec. 1 Purpose.
To prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals by manufacturers and to require manufacturers to adopt non-animal testing methods (some already developed) in order to end the cruelty to animals and to bring more reliability and consistency to the process of testing cosmetics for safety.
Sec. 2. Regulation
A. Except as specifically required by federal law or regulation, no cosmetic manufacturer shall conduct or have any other person conduct on its behalf, any test which involves the placing of a cosmetic in an animal's eye or on an animal's skin to measure its irritating effects, nor use any other traditional animal test method for which an appropriate industry accepted alternative test method exits.
B. The appropriate remedy for enforcing this section shall be either a civil action for injunctive relief and a fine of _______ or a criminal penalty of _______.
C. An action for relief may be brought by the Attorney General, the district attorney of the county in which the violation is alleged to occur, a city attorney, an animal advocacy group or a private individual.
Sec. 3 Definitions.
For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Animal" means any warm-blooded or cold-blooded vertebrate creature, and any other sentient being.
(2) "Cosmetic" means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.
(3) "Traditional animal test method" includes but is not limited to tests which expose the skin or eyes of animals to irritants or tests in which animals are fed lethal doses of toxic chemicals to the point that 50% of the animals expire, commonly referred to as the Draize Test and Lethal Dose 50 Test respectively.
(4) "Manufacturer" means any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal relationship that produces chemicals, ingredients, product formulations, or products in this state.
Additional Commentary
An abundance of evidence proves that animal testing does not contribute to consumer safety, nor does it provide information for the effective treatment of injuries that may result from the use or misuse of a product. In fact, testing on animals does not accurately predict an allergic reaction in some humans, and some products that have been found to be safe on animals have caused serious problems when used by humans. Animal testing is not required by the U.S. Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, and cosmetic manufacturers are encouraged to use test techniques that do not use whole living animals.
There are many alternatives to animal tests now in use by the cosmetic industry. Some of these tests have been validated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, while others have been in use by the cosmetics industry for more than a decade. Major manufacturersof cosmetics and personal care items have ceased testing on animals altogether, while others have substantially reduced their reliance on animal tests.
Sources
Cal.Civ.Code § 1834.8
2001 NY A.B. 264
Stacy E. Gillespie, A Cover-Girl Face Does Not Have to Begin with Animal Cruelty: Chapter 476 Gives Legal Force to Alternative Testing Methods, 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 461.
Vasanth R. Shenai, If Animal Rights Activists Could Write Federal Research Policy, 4 Animal L. 211.