NY Senate and Assembly pass ban on cosmetic sales tested on animals
06 Jun 2022 --- As ethical concerns on animal testing gain awareness, the New York Senate and Assembly have passed the bill “prohibiting the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.”
The bill outlines a punishable fine of “not more than US$5,000 for the violation, and not more than US$1,000 per day if the violation continues” – with further implications if the attorney general wishes to investigate actions.
Manufacturers in the state that import and sell any cosmetic that they knew or “reasonably” should have known that was tested on animals are outlined as “unlawful.”
If the bill gets signed by the governor, New York will join the other eight states, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Virginia, Nevada, California and Hawaii, which have already banned animal testing.
The law is to be effective in January 2023. New York state has been noted for first pushing the ban on animal testing in 2015.
Manufacturers in the state that import and sell any cosmetic that they knew or “reasonably” should have known that was tested on animals are outlined as “unlawful.”
Meeting consumer demands
The bill is justified through an emphasis on changing consumer demands.
Consumers have been demanding cosmetic companies prohibit the use of animal testing on cosmetic products for over 20 years. Additionally, the bill outlines the consumer demand for “no tests on animals” labels.
Cosmetic in this context means “articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body” used for cleansing, beautifying and promoting attractiveness, including altering the appearance and personal hygiene products.
The bill acknowledges that some companies in the US and abroad have already complied with consumer demands against animal testing. However, the passing of the New York bill showcases a firmer need for legislation.
Joining a larger movement
The bill urges New York to join 30 other countries which have outlawed animal testing for cosmetics. Since US companies conduct businesses in these countries, they must also use non-animal testing methods.
Views on animal testing are based on concerns about causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals and that animal testing is not enough to ensure human safety. This is because “modern” non-animal testing is reportedly more accurate and also follows the guidelines set by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Alternatives include using bacteria, tissues, human cells, computer models or chemical methods. 
Views on animal testing are based on concerns about causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals and that animal testing is not enough to ensure human safety.
“There’s no excuse for testing on animals,” Dr. Julia Baines, science policy manager at PETA, previously told PersonalCareInsights.
The bill is only applicable to animal testing for cosmetics, with cases of exceptions outlined in the bill. Examples of exceptions include if the federal or state regulatory agency requires testing, if the cosmetic (ingredient) in wider use has no other equal replacement or if the cosmetic threatens human health (protocol for research is needed).
The passing of the bill comes as Unilever flags slow progress on banning animal testing in Europe. The EU chemicals regulatory body, Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), still requires animal testing despite the EU’s cosmetics ban on animal testing, implemented in 2013.
Edited by Venya Patel
