Report - 2024 02 20 A31985 D271770 Bill Report 1097 S E Sbr Bfgt Ta 24

Summary

A Senate Bill Report on ESHB 1097, as of February 15, 2024, prepared by non-partisan staff of the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade, for an act relating to the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. The bill is sponsored by the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business and passed the House 90-3. The report gives background on the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and lists eleven states with laws prohibiting sale of cosmetics developed using animal testing. It summarizes the bill, which prohibits manufacturers from selling such cosmetics beginning January 1, 2025, sets out exceptions, and provides fines up to $5,000 for each violation. The four-page report ends with a staff summary of public testimony in favor of the bill.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                             SENATE BILL REPORT
                                  ESHB 1097

                                     As of February 15, 2024

Title: An act relating to the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.

Brief Description: Concerning the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.

Sponsors: House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business (originally sponsored by
    Representatives Walen, Goodman, Leavitt, Ramel, Peterson, Fitzgibbon, Macri, Simmons,
    Reeves, Thai, Gregerson, Stonier, Pollet, Kloba, Santos and Ormsby).

Brief History: Passed House: 1/25/24, 90-3.
     Committee Activity: Business, Financial Services, Gaming & Trade: 2/15/24.


                                     Brief Summary of Bill
           • Establishes that it is unlawful for manufacturers to sell a cosmetic
             developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was
             conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or its supplier, subject
             to exceptions.
           • Establishes fines for manufacturer violations up to $5,000 per violation.


SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, GAMING & TRADE

     Staff: Clint McCarthy (786-7319)

     Background: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) directs the Food and
     Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that cosmetics are safe and properly labeled. The
     FDCA does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety nor
     does the FDCA subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. The FDA does not certify
     claims such as "Cruelty-Free" or "Not Tested on Animals" on cosmetic labeling.

     To date, eleven states have enacted laws prohibiting manufacturers from selling cosmetic




     This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
     members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it
     constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Senate Bill Report                              -1-                                       ESHB 1097
     products that were developed or manufactured using animal testing:
        • California;
        • Hawaii;
        • Illinois;
        • Louisiana;
        • Maine;
        • Maryland;
        • Nevada;
        • New Jersey;
        • New York;
        • Oregon; and
        • Virginia.

     Washington State statute is silent on the manufacture or development of cosmetics that use
     cosmetic animal testing.

     Summary of Bill: Manufacturers are prohibited from selling or offering for sale a cosmetic
     if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing beginning
     January 1, 2025.

     A cosmetic is defined as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on,
     introduced into or otherwise applied to the human body for the purpose of cleansing,
     beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering one's appearance.

     Exceptions. Manufacturers may sell a cosmetic developed or manufactured using cosmetic
     animal testing conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or its supplier when such
     cosmetic animal testing is:
        • conducted outside of the United States to comply with a foreign regulatory authority's
          requirement, if evidence derived from the testing was not relied upon to substantiate
          the safety of the cosmetic ingredient or cosmetic product sold by a manufacturer in
          Washington;
        • conducted for any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to regulation under
          applicable portions of the FDCA;
        • conducted for a cosmetic ingredient intended to be used in a noncosmetic product,
          and is conducted under a federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority regulation, if
          evidence derived from the testing was not relied upon to substantiate the safety of a
          cosmetic sold in Washington, unless:
              1. there is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test; and
              2. there is history of the ingredient's use outside of cosmetics at least 12 months
                 before the reliance; or
        • requested, required, or conducted by a federal or state regulatory authority and the
          following additional criteria are satisfied:
              1. there is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal
                 or state agency or organization;


Senate Bill Report                            -2-                                     ESHB 1097
                2. the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent poses a risk of causing a
                   specific human health problem that is substantiated, and the need to conduct
                   animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol; and
                3. the cosmetic ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another
                   cosmetic ingredient capable of performing a similar function.

     The prohibition on manufacturers selling a cosmetic developed or manufactured using
     cosmetic animal testing conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or its supplier does
     not apply when:
         • a cosmetic in its final form, or ingredient in a cosmetic, was tested on animals before
           January 1, 2025, even if the cosmetic or ingredient is manufactured after January 1,
           2025, provided that no new animal testing occurs after that date by or on the behalf of
           the manufacturer; or
         • a cosmetic manufacturer reviews, assesses, or retains evidence from a cosmetic
           animal test.

     Enforcement and Preemption. Manufacturers in violation of these regulations commit a civil
     violation punishable by a fine up to $5,000 for each violation.

      No political subdivision may establish or continue any prohibition on or relating to
     cosmetic animal testing that is not identical to the prohibition established.

     Appropriation: None.

     Fiscal Note: Not requested.

     Creates Committee/Commission/Task Force that includes Legislative members: No.

     Effective Date: The bill takes effect on January 1, 2025.

     Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: This bill has received bipartisan support and
     represents progress in the cosmetics industry. There are more options for testing that are
     effective and do not require animal testing. Legislation like this is being implemented
     worldwide. Oregon is the newest state among the 12 states that have enacted laws similar
     to this. The unreliability of animal testing does not justify the extreme tests on animals.
     Animals do not share physiology with humans, and the testing is not effective. More
     accurate technology already exists. These methods cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
     less and they are more accurate. This is the fourth year that we are working on this bill,
     please schedule the bill for executive session. Cruel and archaic practices like smearing
     ingredients on the skin of animals should not be allowed. Let's make Washington a more
     caring and compassionate place. Not only is animal testing unnecessary, it is not a sure way
     to ensure safety for humans. There is a global demand for products not tested on animals.
     Manufacturing animal cruelty free cosmetics has been part of Lush Cosmetics vision for a
     long time. We believe in funding better science. This bill has been drafted to mirror the


Senate Bill Report                             -3-                                     ESHB 1097
     Federal Humane Cosmetics Act.

     Persons Testifying: PRO: Brenna Anderst, Pasado's Safe Haven/Education & Advocacy
     Director; Amanda Fox, Animal Rights Initiative; Wendy Linton; Hannah Thompson-
     Garner, Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN); Hilary Pickles, Lush Fresh Handmade
     Cosmetics; Dan Paul, The Humane Society of the United States; Wendy Linton.

     Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: No one.




Senate Bill Report                         -4-                                ESHB 1097


File and source

File

2024-02-20_a31985_d271770_bill-report-1097-s-e-sbr-bfgt-ta-24.pdf

Size

11,115 bytes

SHA-256

72b52d81754a5576de54e17bb99e666c7e585206e1114aae5dab0b49f45d65c0

Our copy

2024-02-20_a31985_d271770_bill-report-1097-s-e-sbr-bfgt-ta-24.pdf

Original

app.leg.wa.gov