PCPC Warns California: Animal-Testing Bill Could Be Blow To State’s Economy
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
California Cruelty Free Cosmetics Act does not properly account for the fact that cosmetic animal testing still is required in many instances under foreign and domestic regulations, posing conflicts that could shake out unfavorably for California’s economy, says PCPC head Lezlee Westine.
You may also be interested in...
California lawmakers returning Aug. 6 from summer recess will have cosmetics industry reps and animal welfare groups vying for their ears, with the legislative clock ticking on a highly contentious proposal, SB 1249, to prohibit the sale of cosmetics containing ingredients tested “for any purpose” on animals.
NGO proponents’ apparent intention is to bar companies from testing new cosmetic ingredients on animals, limiting them to existing ingredients or alternative testing methods. However, draft legislation advancing in California could pose big problems for even the most committed cruelty-free brands.
As of July 21, regulatory and legal authorities in the EU have clarified that cosmetic ingredients tested on animals to meet third-country requirements do not necessarily trigger the Cosmetic Regulation's animal-testing ban, and that animal testing on cosmetic ingredients may be needed under REACH for various specified reasons. A final important question may be left to the courts.