Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Testing Cosmetics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge Massachusetts to ban cosmetics tested on animals as sponsors tout non‑animal methods
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263 told a joint committee the measures would prohibit most cosmetics that rely on vertebrate animal testing and align Massachusetts with other states and international markets that have restricted such testing. Industry and advocacy witnesses said modern non‑animal tests are more predictive for humans;
Supporters of legislation that would bar the sale of most cosmetics tested on vertebrate animals told the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure on Tuesday that Massachusetts should join other states and countries that have moved away from animal testing.
"This bill would prohibit the sale of most cosmetics known to have relied on vertebrate animal testing," said Drew McCormick, with Animal Defenders International, in virtual testimony. He described repeated‑dose, skin‑sensitizing, carcinogen and reproductive‑toxicity tests on animals and argued such methods are scientifically unreliable for predicting human reactions.
The bills—House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263—would not affect products already on store shelves and include exemptions intended to address federal regulatory realities, witnesses said. "These bills were drafted to mirror provisions found in the federal Humane Cosmetics Act," said Prael Patel, Massachusetts state director for Humane World for Animals, asking the committee to report the measures favorably.
Advocates cited alternatives to animal tests, including computer modeling, organ‑on‑a‑chip systems, and human tissue and three‑dimensional cell cultures. "Modern alternatives now make the suffering unnecessary," said Allison Balak of the Animal Rescue League of Boston, adding that some of the alternative technologies have been developed in Massachusetts.
Witnesses pointed to polls and industry backing to argue consumer demand favors cruelty‑free products. McCormick told the committee that prior ADI investigations documented painful tests on rabbits and guinea pigs; Patel and Balak said companies that sell into markets that ban animal testing already comply with comparable standards.
Committee members asked for written follow‑up details on legislation passed in other states and on differences in drafts. McCormick said he would submit detailed written testimony with state comparisons; Patel said supporters would provide small clarifying amendments in writing to align Massachusetts language with other states' laws.
The hearing record included no formal vote. Proponents said the bills are narrowly focused on cosmetic testing and include limited exemptions for regulatory and safety reasons.
Supporters asked the committee to advance the bills so Massachusetts retailers and manufacturers have clear, state‑level guidance matching federal and interstate markets. If reported out, the measures would move to further legislative consideration and potential amendment in committee.
