Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Animal Testing Cleaners topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to restrict sale of household cleaners newly tested on animals after 2030
Summary
SB 167 would bar the importation and sale in Nevada of household cleaning products tested on animals after Jan. 1, 2030, with exemptions when regulators require animal testing; proponents said the law provides a five-year runway and follows Nevada's earlier cosmetics law.
Senator Melanie Scheibel told the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor that SB 167 is intended to encourage household-products manufacturers to use non-animal testing methods as alternatives become available.
"We really just want to make sure that when non animal tests are available, they are actually utilized and so that animals are not needlessly being harmed," Monica Ingebretsen, head of public affairs for North America at Cruelty Free International, said while describing the bill's goals.
SB 167 would prohibit the importation and sale of household cleaning products in Nevada if the final product or any ingredient of the product was tested on animals after Jan. 1, 2030. Supporters said the bill is forward-looking and would not pull existing products from store shelves because it applies only to new animal testing performed after the effective date. The bill includes limited exemptions that allow animal testing if a regulator requires it to satisfy a regulatory requirement or to address specific, serious human-health concerns.
Rebecca Goff, Nevada state director for Humane World for Animals, told the committee the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency already encourage use of non-animal methods when available. She and other proponents cited advances in human cell–based tests and computational models as less costly and more human-relevant alternatives to animal testing.
Opposition testimony came from Christopher Finerelli of the Household and Commercial Products Association. Finerelli said the association does not oppose the goal of reducing animal testing but warned that SB 167 as drafted may conflict with the federal regulatory framework governing cleaning products and could lead to loss of access to EPA-approved products without further federal guidance. "We do not oppose the broader objective of moving away from animal testing," Finerelli said, and urged continued negotiations with the bill sponsor.
Committee members questioned details about the bill's scope and enforcement. Senator Daley asked about inclusion of cephalopods in the definition of "animal;" Ingebretsen said the bill's definition intentionally aligns with EU and UK statutes that include cephalopods. Senator Flores asked whether products already tested on animals could be subjected to future testing and whether a re-test could force a product off shelves; Ingebretsen said the bill allows animal tests when a regulator specifically requires them but that the bill's intent is to require non-animal alternatives when regulators accept them.
Presenters said the bill allows a five-year runway to 2030 to permit manufacturers and supply chains to adapt and that retailers are not responsible for compliance; the obligation would fall primarily on manufacturers. Supporters also pointed to Nevada's earlier law restricting newly animal-tested cosmetics, which went into effect after a 2019 enactment and has been followed by other states, as precedent for a transition without removing existing products from shelves. No formal committee vote on SB 167 was recorded during the hearing.
