The federal Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring cosmetics are safe and properly labeled through enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The FDCA does not require cosmetics to be tested on animals, and advises cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the product's safety. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to substantiate safety.
Washington regulates intrastate commerce in drugs and cosmetics under Title 69 RCW, which includes regulations prohibiting adulterated or misbranded cosmetics.
The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce; the formation of contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce; and monopolies. Persons injured by violations of the CPA may bring a civil action to enjoin further violations and recover actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
The Attorney General may also bring an action against any person to enjoin violations of the CPA and obtain restitution. The prevailing party may, at the discretion of the court, recover costs and attorney's fees. The Attorney General may also seek civil penalties up to the statutorily authorized maximums against any person who violates the CPA. Civil penalties are paid to the state.
Beginning January 1, 2025, 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:
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:
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:
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.