Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare Cosmetics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge Massachusetts to ban cosmetics tested on animals, citing modern alternatives
Summary
Animal‑welfare groups and industry advocates urged the Joint Committee to pass H 426 / S 263 to prohibit sale of cosmetics tested on vertebrate animals, arguing modern non‑animal safety testing methods are more reliable and widely available.
Boston — Supporters of House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263 told a joint legislative committee that the bills would prevent Massachusetts consumers from buying cosmetics developed using vertebrate animal testing and would align the state with other jurisdictions.
"This bill would prohibit the sale of most cosmetics known to have relied on vertebrae animal testing," Drew McCormick said in virtual testimony, identifying himself as representing Bridal Defenders International. He described repeated‑dose toxicity tests, eye and skin irritation tests and reproductive and carcinogen studies and said species differences make animal tests unreliable.
The bills would not affect products already on store shelves and include limited exemptions to address regulatory realities, Prael Patel, Massachusetts state director for Humane World for Animals, told the committee. "These bills would ensure that cosmetics sold in Massachusetts are not tested on animals," Patel said.
Supporters argued non‑animal methods such as organ‑on‑a‑chip models, human tissue and 3‑D cell cultures, computer modeling and analytical techniques are faster and more predictive of human responses. Proponents pointed to existing state and international measures: they said 12 U.S. states and more than 40 countries have adopted similar limits and that dozens of companies endorse the federal Humane Cosmetics Act.
Committee members asked for details about differences between other states' laws; McCormick said he would provide written testimony with citations. Multiple witnesses said they would submit suggested clarifying amendments to align the bill with other state laws and federal guidance.
The testimony did not include any formal committee action or vote during the hearing. Supporters asked the committee to report the bills favorably and promised written follow‑up materials for technical clarifications.
