Lawmakers hear HB401 seeking to ban state funds for animal product testing and require reporting; advocates press for modern non‑animal methods
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Representative Diane Kelly's HB401 would bar New Hampshire state funds for product testing that uses traditional animal methods and require annual reporting by in‑state testing facilities. Witnesses said current federal reporting hides much animal testing; advocates urged a reporting requirement and a phase‑out of non‑medical animal testing.
Representative Diane Kelly introduced HB401, a bill that would prohibit the use of New Hampshire state funds for ingredient or product testing that relies on traditional animal‑based test methods and would require annual reporting from in‑state testing facilities on animal use.
Kelly told the committee such a measure would align New Hampshire with federal trends and emerging non‑animal methods and cited the FDA Modernization Act and the EPA's plans to phase out mammal testing as reasons states should act. She also noted high public opposition to taxpayer‑funded animal testing: "We are wasting time, money, and lives," she said, urging the legislature to invest in alternatives such as organ‑on‑a‑chip and computer models.
Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society) state director Kurt Ehrenberg testified in support and explained a practical reporting problem: federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) reporting excludes the species most commonly used in testing (mice, rats and fish), and corporate reporting frequently aggregates animals under a corporate headquarters. He said those reporting gaps make it difficult to know how many animals are tested inside New Hampshire or whether state funds support product testing.
Witnesses and student testifiers urged the committee to adopt both a ban on state funding for non‑medical product testing and a reporting requirement so lawmakers and the public would have a clear, searchable record of what testing occurs in the state. Several witnesses contrasted product and cosmetic testing — which many states have banned from sale — with biomedical research at universities and diagnostic labs; the bill's language excludes biomedical research and focuses on ingredient and product testing funded by state dollars.
Ending: The committee heard extensive public testimony in favor of the bill; advocates asked the committee to require annual reporting of animal use by facilities operating in New Hampshire and to phase out state funding for products tested on animals as alternatives become available.