Advocates push bill to require alternatives to animal testing; AG warns enforcement duties need clearer assignment
Loading...
Summary
SB 444 would require manufacturers to use non‑animal test methods when scientifically equivalent methods exist and would restrict sale of newly animal‑tested cosmetics; humane groups urged passage, agriculture and the attorney general flagged resource and enforcement issues.
Senate Bill 444 would require the use of available alternative test methods in place of new animal testing for certain household and industrial products and would restrict the sale of cosmetics subjected to newly conducted animal tests. Supporters from humane organizations argued modern alternatives can provide better human-relevance data and that a ban on newly animal-tested cosmetics aligns with actions in other states and federal proposals.
Kurt Ehrenberg of Humane World for Animals and other witnesses described scientific advances — including non‑animal methods and "organs on chips" — and corporate support that reduces the need for animal testing. Several testifiers said the bill includes exceptions for testing required to meet federal or state regulatory requirements.
The Department of Agriculture told the committee it lacks staffing and resources to take on inspection duties contemplated in the bill and flagged that implementing a new inspection regime without funding would be impractical. The attorney general's office said it was neutral but warned that if the bill gives the AG exclusive enforcement authority it would require a significant build-out of investigative and scientific capacity and a proper fiscal note.
Committee members heard both scientific and operational testimony and closed the hearing with stakeholders indicating ongoing negotiations and possible amendments to clarify enforcement and fiscal responsibilities.
