Cruelty-free Cosmetics Legislation Gains Momentum In North America

Proposed cruelty-free legislation under consideration in Canada’s House of Commons likely will die on the order paper, but animal-welfare advocates are encouraged by strong parliamentary support shown to the bill. In the US, Nevada recently became the second state after California to ban the sale of animal-tested cosmetics beginning Jan. 1, 2020, and Illinois is next in line.

It appears that the clock will run out on proposed legislation in Canada to ban the sale of cosmetics tainted by animal testing, but there clearly is high interest in Parliament in aligning Canada’s regulations with other cruelty-free jurisdictions.

The proposed Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, S-214, received a second reading in the House of Commons June 3 after passing the Senate in June 2018.

The bill was first introduced by Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen in December 2015.

Canada’s Parliament will break for summer recess 21 June and reportedly is not expected to sit again until after the federal general election, which is slated for 21 Oct. under statutory fixed-date procedures but likely will occur earlier by writ of the governor general, online sources say.

In her motion for S-214’s second reading and referral to committee, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health Marilyn Gladu noted, “We are very close to the end of the session. It does not appear that this bill will actually be passed in this parliamentary session because there is a polarity of views and there are some other discussions to be held.”

Monica Engebretson, North American campaigns manager at non-profit Cruelty Free International, affirmed in an 18 June email that the bill is likely to be unfinished business when Parliament is prorogued for the election.

She added, “However, at the bill’s second reading this month, all three major parties spoke in its favor, leading us to be hopeful that it will be brought forward again after the election by whichever of these parties form(s) the government.”

“We expect that the Nevada bill language will inform a way forward for federal legislation.” – Cruelty Free International’s Engebretson

SB-214, as passed by the Senate last year, would prohibit the sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that is conducted more than four years after the legislation’s enactment.

The sole exemption would be for testing authorized by Canada’s Minster of Health, who oversees agencies including Health Canada. Authorizations only would be granted when an animal-tested ingredient “cannot be replaced by another … capable of performing a similar function,” among other exemption criteria, and prospective authorizations would be subject to public consultation. (Also see "Canada Moving Toward Cosmetic Animal-Testing Ban Potentially Stricter Than California Law" - HBW Insight, 19 Apr, 2019.)

The bill does not address animal testing required by foreign regulatory authorities or animal testing of ingredients for non-cosmetic purposes.

According to Gladu, those were among issues that gave rise to extensive stakeholder debate in fall 2018 and a number of negotiated amendments. “We have now all come to the place where we believe we could improve the bill,” she said.

The amendments would align Canada’s ban more closely with Californian and European cosmetic animal-testing prohibitions.

Nevada The New Template?

California’s SB 1249, signed into law in late September 2018, exempts animal testing conducted after 2019 that is mandated under regulatory programs abroad, in China for example, as well as testing conducted after the cutoff for non-cosmetic purposes.

While animal testing in those cases would not necessarily prohibit a tested ingredient from being used in a cosmetic sold in California, the legislation stipulates that data derived from the animal testing cannot be used to substantiate product safety as required under the state’s Sherman Law, which parallels the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (Also see "California’s Cosmetic Animal-Testing Ban Not A Brick Wall, But Proceed With Caution" - HBW Insight, 26 Oct, 2018.)

Nevada became the second US state to ban cosmetic animal testing with legislation approved by Governor Steve Sisolak June 1.

The Silver State's SB 197 is similar to California’s law, with the same Jan. 1, 2020 cutoff, with some notable differences, including added buffers for industry.

Under Nevada’s legislation, “a manufacturer shall not import for profit, sell or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer.”

That language could provide companies with an out in instances where animal testing was conducted on one of their ingredients post-2019 without their knowledge.

Moreover, the statute offers some wiggle room for using data from foreign or non-cosmetic animal testing to substantiate cosmetic product safety in Nevada, provided that:

• documentary evidence exists of the intent of the test which was unrelated to cosmetics; and

• the ingredient that was the subject of the testing has been used for purposes unrelated to cosmetics for not less than 12 months before the earliest date of the testing.

It appears that Illinois will follow Nevada, with both houses of its legislature having passed SB 0241 as of 30 May. The Illinois bill closely mirrors California’s law.

“We expect that activity at the state level will continue on this issue until federal legislation is passed,” CFI’s Engebretson said, adding, “Unfortunately, federal legislation in the US has to date been slow to advance.”

In the previous Congress, the proposed Humane Cosmetics Act, H.R. 2790, garnered 186 cosponsors but failed to advance out of committee.

“This issue is of great interest and importance to constituents who frequently contact their legislators about it,” Engebretson continued. “We expect that future state laws will largely mirror Nevada, at least in their final form. We also expect that the Nevada bill language will inform a way forward for federal legislation, either in stand-alone legislation or as part of larger cosmetics regulation bills or both.”