This week’s Take Action Thursday renews a call for action to end animal testing on cosmetics in the U.S.
The Humane Cosmetics Act, HR 2790, would require private and governmental entities to end their use of animals to test for the safety of cosmetics within a year of its passage. Testing cosmetics on animals is an indefensible waste of animal lives and the cause of needless suffering when reliable non-animal safety tests have been available for years. This bipartisan bill now has 172 cosponsors, but progress has slowed down considerably, with only six new sponsors coming on board in 2018. This bill needs a LOT more support to get it out of committee and onto the House floor for a vote.
Please ask your Representative to become a cosponsor of the Humane Cosmetics Act, and urge others to do the same!
Individual states have been introducing—and passing—their own laws. California, New Jersey, New York and Virginia have enacted statewide bans on testing cosmetics and personal care items on animals.
While your state does not currently have a state law or legislation promoting the use of cruelty-free methods for testing cosmetics, you can still make a difference. You can send a copy of model legislative language to your elected officials for them to use in drafting a bill to introduce in 2019.
Please contact your state Senator and Representative to ask that they introduce a ban on testing cosmetics on animals in your state.
Passage of the Humane Cosmetics Act in the U.S. may even help move similar legislation forward in other countries. Canadian animal advocates presented the largest petition in history to Parliament on May 28, with 630,436 signatures demanding passage of S-214, the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act. In testimony presented in opposition to this bill in the Parliament, Mr. Darren Praznik, President and CEO of Cosmetics Alliance, was quoted as saying, “We import 69 percent of the cosmetics on our shelves, and of that percentage, we import most cosmetics, 79 percent, from the United States. Naturally, our first question would be to see whether the U.S. has moved in any significant way to adopt a similar ban.”