Beginning January 1, 2024, it is unlawful for manufacturers to sell or offer for sale in Washington a cosmetic that was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or its supplier. 
 

Definitions.

The following terms are defined:

• "Cosmetic" is defined as any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, but does not include soap.
• "Cosmetic animal testing" is defined as the internal or external application or exposure of any cosmetic product or cosmetic ingredient to the skin, eyes, or other body part of a live, nonhuman vertebrate.
• "Cosmetic product" means a finished cosmetic, the manufacture of which has been completed, and "cosmetic ingredient" means any single chemical entity or mixture used as a component in the manufacture of a cosmetic, as defined in Food and Drug Administration federal regulations on January 1, 2024.
• "Manufacture" has the same meaning as "to manufacture" in the Washington business and occupancy tax chapter.

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:
  
  • there is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test; and
  • 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:
  • there is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or organization;
  • 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
  • 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, 2024, even if the cosmetic or ingredient is manufactured after January 1, 2024, 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.

(In support) Cosmetics are an unnecessary luxury, but basic rights for animals are not.  The Food and Drug Administration does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and many of these animals are not covered under animal welfare laws.  These animals are subject to painful tests, have cream rubbed into their eyes, are impregnated, and hurt in other ways.  There are 10 other states that have banned cosmetic testing on animals and 42 countries, including the European Union.  This legislation mirrors the federal Humane Cosmetics Act.  The banning of cosmetic testing on animals is becoming accepted across the world.  Many in the cosmetic industry back this legislation.  Animal testing is an unreliable predictor of human response as the physiology is different, there are already thousands of ingredients that have been approved as safe, and there are more up-to-date testing options available, like human cell testing.  These alternatives are quicker, less expensive, and more accurate.  Washington's values are growing and the state is becoming a more humane place for animals.  Love animals and move beyond cruelty. 

(Opposed) None.