New Cruelty-Free Legislation

The common understanding of animal testing and its specifics are outlined in California legislation as the following:

Animal testing is “the internal or external application of a cosmetic, either in its final form or any ingredient thereof, to the skin, eyes, or other body part of a live, non-human vertebrate.”

For decades, cosmetic and drug companies have used this type of testing. Instead of using human test subjects, they use animal testing as a way to prove a product’s safety and efficacy. It was believed that animal testing was the only way to understand potential side effects and reactions from a product. Animal testing is considered a method for quality assurance (QA), but its negative effects have led to a demand for cruelty-free alternatives.

Modern technology has rendered animal testing obsolete, and in actuality, only a small percentage of animal tests yield accurate results. It’s not surprising, when you consider the complex differences between animal test subjects and the human biology they’re representing. The cruel and inaccurate practices performed on test animals have become a major catalyst for change, from both animal advocates and consumers.

At Puristry, we never test any single ingredient OR finished product on animals. However, hundreds of other brands DO still use animal testing as a means for quality control and measuring product efficacy. The reason isn’t because animal testing is the only way to get results; it’s simply easier because it doesn’t require new innovation. But for every brand using archaic animal testing technology and dodging new innovations, there are also brilliant scientists working hard to develop innovations that will save thousands of animals from suffering, pain, and death.

There are numerous alternatives to animal testing available to help brands produce cruelty-free personal care products. According to PETA, these literally life-saving methods can actually be more effective than testing on animals! These new and improved testing methods include in vitro methods using human cells and tissue, advanced computer modeling, and even human volunteer testing.

Are you serious about going cruelty-free? Check out these alternative methods, and urge inhumane brands to cease animal testing once and for all! When you refuse to buy non-cruelty-free products, you send a BIG message to brand conglomerates and manufacturers: if it’s not cruelty-free, you won’t get my money! They’ll hear you loud and clear.

Recently, the state of California brought forth an advantage for animal advocates. We’ll break it down for you:

On September 28, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown approved Senate Bill no. 1249. The bill was written by Senator Cathleen Galgiani, and co-sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Social Compassion in Legislation. The bill was filed with the Secretary of State and ultimately goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Currently, existing California law is as follows:

“... prohibits manufacturers and contract testing facilities from using traditional animal testing methods within this state when an appropriate alternative test method has been scientifically validated and recommended by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) or other specified agencies.”

SB 1249 makes it “... unlawful for businesses to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this state, any cosmetic, as defined, 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”.

In summary, SB 1249 makes it impossible for non cruelty-free products to be sold in the state of CA after January 1, 2018. After that date, manufacturers will have 180 days to sell-through current inventory of non-compliant products before being fined. They’ll face an initial fine of $5,000, and $1,000 for each additional day that they continue to sell animal tested products.

There are some exceptions for regulatory requirements, for example if “the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function.” So while it would be preferable to see an end to ALL animal-testing, some protocols will take time to reverse, especially if there is no current alternative. But for a booming cosmetics market like California, this is a step in the right direction. “I’m proud of California lawmakers for moving science, industry, and ethics forward today,” Senator Galgiani said. “Cruelty-free cosmetics are good for business, safe for humans, and don’t harm animals.”

Another confusing piece of the cruelty-free puzzle is understanding which brands sell in China, and why/ if they’re still cruelty-free. Prior to 2014, China REQUIRED all products sold in the country to undergo animal testing. In 2014, the requirement to test on animals was lifted, but they enacted a new law: that any non-Chinese manufacturer would need to perform animal testing on ANY of their products sold in China. This backward-thinking practice makes it difficult for caring consumers in China to purchase cruelty-free products in their own country.

In order to continue selling in one of the world’s most lucrative cosmetic markets, most non-Chinese brands chose to adopt this new animal-testing regulation. Many already tested on animals, but some cruelty-free brands went as far as to revert to animal testing -- just to sell in China.

What most consumers don’t know is that selling in China needn’t compromise a brand’s cruelty-free status. This regulation only applies to physical/ retail stores in China. It excludes products sold only in Hong Kong, and online-to-customer sites used by Chinese consumers. Brands like 100% PURE use a third-party warehouse to ship directly to Chinese customers, to circumvent China’s international animal-testing requirements. In short, where there’s a will, there’s a way -- if a brand really wishes to provide cruelty-free products to conscious consumers in China, it can be done.