Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Witnesses urge Massachusetts to require non‑animal testing for cosmetics and household products; research community raises narrow concerns
Summary
Supporters of S.640 and H.989 told the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources that modern, validated non‑animal test methods should replace animal tests for cosmetics and household products when alternatives exist; medical‑research groups urged careful drafting to preserve drug‑safety exemptions.
Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Shaw. I'm senior program manager of animal research issues at Humane World for Animals. Thank you, Vice Chair Cataldo and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in strong support of S.640 and H.989. These scientific‑driven bills require the use of non‑animal test methods for cosmetics, household cleaners, and industrial chemicals. They do not apply to testing done for medical or pharmaceutical research.
Why supporters back the bills
Supporters, including scientific program managers, students, veterinarians and cruelty‑free manufacturers, called the bills an evidence‑driven update that aligns regulations with modern non‑animal alternatives such as human cell‑based tests,…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
