Last updated on: 3/18/2021 | Author: ProCon.org

State-by-State Cosmetics Animal Testing Bans

 StateDate PassedDate EnactedBill(s)Law
1.CaliforniaSep. 28, 2018Jan. 1, 2020SB 1249California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act
2.IllinoisAug. 9, 2019Aug. 9, 2019SB 0241Public Act 101-0303
3.NevadaJune 1, 2019June 30, 2020SB 197Chapter 598 of Nevada Revised Statutes</a
4.VirginiaMar. 17, 2021Jan. 1, 2022HB 2250
SB 1379
Humane Cosmetics Act
[Code of Virginia 59.1-571 - 574]

California

“Notwithstanding any other law, it is unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this state, any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020.”

Exceptions:

“(c) The prohibitions in subdivision (a) do not apply to the following:

(1) An animal test of any cosmetic that is required by a federal or state regulatory authority if all of the following apply:

(A) The ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function.

(B) A specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

(C) There is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or state regulatory authority.

(2) An animal test that was conducted to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in California by the manufacturer.

(3) An animal test that was conducted on any product or ingredient subject to the requirements of Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).

(4) An animal test that was conducted for noncosmetic purposes in response to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in California by the manufacturer. A manufacturer is not prohibited from reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from an animal test conducted pursuant to this paragraph.”

Penalties:

$5,000 fine, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.

Illinois

“Notwithstanding any other law, it is unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020.”

Exceptions:

“(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) do not apply to the following:

(1) An animal test of any cosmetic that is required by a federal or State regulatory authority, if each of the following apply:

(A) an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;

(B) a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and

(C) there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority.

(2) An animal test that was conducted to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic being sold in Illinois by the manufacturer.

(3) An animal test that was conducted on any product or ingredient subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

(4) An animal test that was conducted for noncosmetic purposes in response to a requirement of a federal, State, or foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in Illinois by the manufacturer. A manufacturer is not prohibited from reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from an animal test conducted under this paragraph.”

Penalties:

$5,000 fine for the first day of each violation, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.

Nevada

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, a manufacturer shall not import for profit, sell or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer if the animal testing was conducted on or after January 1, 2020.”

Exceptions:

“2.  The prohibition in subsection 1 does not apply to animal testing that is conducted:

(a) To comply with a requirement of a federal or state regulatory agency if:

(1) The cosmetic or ingredient in the cosmetic which is tested is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient which is capable of performing a similar function;

(2) A specific human health problem relating to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated and the need to conduct animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed protocol for research that is proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; and

(3) There does not exist a method of testing other than animal testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by the federal or state regulatory agency.

(b) To comply with a requirement of a regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction, if no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within this State by the manufacturer.

(c) On any product or ingredient in the cosmetic subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, for purposes unrelated to cosmetics pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state or foreign regulatory agency provided that no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within this State by the manufacturer. If evidence from such testing was relied upon for that purpose, the prohibition in subsection 1 does not apply if:

(1) Documentary evidence exists of the intent of the test which was unrelated to cosmetics; and

(2) The ingredient that was the subject of the testing has been used for purposes unrelated to cosmetics for not less than 12 months before the earliest date of the testing.”

Penalties:

NRS 598.0999  Civil and criminal penalties for violations

Virginia

“A. Except as provided in subsection B, no cosmetics manufacturer shall:

1. Conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing that occurs in the Commonwealth on or after January 1, 2022;

2. Manufacture or import for profit into the Commonwealth any cosmetic or ingredient thereof, if the cosmetics manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that the cosmetic or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted on or after January 1, 2022; or

3. Beginning July 1, 2022, sell or offer for sale within the Commonwealth any cosmetic, if the cosmetics manufacturer knows or reasonably should know that the cosmetic or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted on or after January 1, 2022.”

Exceptions:

“B. The prohibitions in subsection A shall not apply to cosmetic animal testing or a cosmetic for which cosmetic animal testing was conducted, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted:

1. To comply with a requirement of a federal or state regulatory agency and (i) the tested ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; (ii) a specific human health problem related to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated that justifies the need to conduct the cosmetic animal testing, and such testing is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; and (iii) there does not exist a method of testing other than cosmetic animal testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by the federal or state regulatory agency;

2. To comply with a requirement of a regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction, so long as no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within Virginia by the cosmetics manufacturer;

3. On any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.); or

4. Pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory agency for a purpose unrelated to cosmetics, provided that either no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic or there is (i) documented evidence of a noncosmetic intent of the test and (ii) a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics for at least 12 months prior to such reliance.”

Penalties:

A fine up to $5,000, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.