Guest Opinion: Congress can end animal testing for cosmetics now — and it should

By Elizabeth Lopez

When I launched a beauty care line some years ago, here in Washington state, I made a commitment that I would not allow our products or ingredients to be subjected to new animal testing. I wanted the brand to stand on the principle that society should transition cosmetics testing toward more human-relevant methods and a cruelty-free future. Right now, in the U.S. Congress, there’s a chance to take a decisive step in that direction through passage of the Humane Cosmetics Act.

The HCA’s simple premise involves a prohibition on new cosmetics testing on animals in the United States as well as on the sale of cosmetics that have been newly tested on animals in other countries. In addition, the bill would place limits on a manufacturer’s ability to use information from animal tests carried out to meet safety requirements for ingredients also used in noncosmetics products. It enjoys substantial bipartisan support in the House and Senate, as well as the backing of the Personal Care Products Council, the national trade association representing 90% of the cosmetics industry.

That’s right, the regulated stakeholders support the legislation. For decades, cosmetics companies have been able to create high-quality products using the thousands of available ingredients with a history of safe use. For new ingredients, cosmetics companies have been at the forefront of developing nonanimal methods too, and these technologies provide better scientific information, rooted in human biology and more accurate in predicting human safety. In addition, these methods are often cheaper and can be completed more quickly than traditional animal tests.

However we get there, a national prohibition on animal tests for cosmetics would align the U.S. with more than 40 countries and nine states that have passed laws to end or limit them. In some respects, it is a matter of remaining competitive with other markets. But there is a moral question, too. None of us should be complacent about the routine use of animals to test such products, and we should not miss such an opportunity to show them some mercy.

In that spirit, millions of Americans, including many Washington residents, are ready to support an end to tests they consider unnecessary and inhumane, and it would be nice if Sen. Patty Murray joined Sen. Maria Cantwell as a co-sponsor of the HCA.

But there is more that Sen. Murray can do, in her capacity as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Recently, despite a strong push from animal protection advocates, the Committee declined to include the HCA’s provisions within the FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements Act, must-pass legislation that involves the five-year reauthorization of the FDA’s user fee programs for prescription drugs and biologics, medical devices, generics and biosimilar products. The case for inclusion was strong because the legislation also grants the FDA new oversight over cosmetics.

In a more ominous development, the committee choose to include language that could preempt states’ rights to pass their own laws concerning manufacture or sale of animal-tested cosmetics. That’s bad policy.

Sen. Murray is ideally positioned to insist on the inclusion of the HCA in any final Senate bill or push to amend the highly problematic preemption language from the current package. Whatever the path to passage of a ban on cosmetics testing with animals, Sen. Murray has a pivotal role to play. The same is true for Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, who as ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, is also well-positioned to shepherd the HCA to passage in the 117th Congress.

Elizabeth Lopez is the CEO and founder of rue Santé, a mindfulness-based beauty care company committed to cruelty-free and environmentally sound values.