- Target:
- The Massachussetts Cosmetic Manufacturing Industry
- Region:
- United States of America
The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.
That life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social needs. The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways, the nonhuman animals in labs and on farms, for example, are the same as human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them, and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral principles.
At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect.
The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally, too.
It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths, it insists upon and justifies them.
But this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us.
Once this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer.
It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, not "more humane" testing, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
Sec. 1 Purpose.
To prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals by manufacturers and to require manufacturers to adopt non-animal testing methods (some already developed) in order to end the cruelty to animals and to bring more reliability and consistency to the process of testing cosmetics for safety.
Sec. 2. Regulation
A. Except as specifically required by federal law or regulation, no cosmetic manufacturer shall conduct or have any other person conduct on its behalf, any test which involves the placing of a cosmetic in an animal's eye or on an animal's skin to measure its irritating effects, nor use any other traditional animal test method for which an appropriate industry accepted alternative test method exits.
B. The appropriate remedy for enforcing this section shall be either a civil action for injunctive relief and a fine proportional to the profit made from these products or a criminal penalty of imprisonment.
C. An action for relief may be brought by the Attorney General of Massachussetts, the district attorney of the county in which the violation is alleged to occur, a city attorney, an animal advocacy group or a private individual.
Sec. 3 Definitions.
For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Animal" means any warm-blooded or cold-blooded vertebrate creature, and any other sentient being.
(2) "Cosmetic" means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.
(3) "Traditional animal test method" includes but is not limited to tests which expose the skin or eyes of animals to irritants or tests in which animals are fed lethal doses of toxic chemicals to the point that 50% of the animals expire, commonly referred to as the Draize Test and Lethal Dose 50 Test respectively.
(4) "Manufacturer" means any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal relationship that produces chemicals, ingredients, product formulations, or products in this state.
Additional Commentary
An abundance of evidence proves that animal testing does not contribute to consumer safety, nor does it provide information for the effective treatment of injuries that may result from the use or misuse of a product. In fact, testing on animals does not accurately predict an allergic reaction in some humans, and some products that have been found to be safe on animals have caused serious problems when used by humans. Animal testing is not required by the U.S. Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, and cosmetic manufacturers are encouraged to use test techniques that do not use whole living animals.
There are many alternatives to animal tests now in use by the cosmetic industry. Some of these tests have been validated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, while others have been in use by the cosmetics industry for more than a decade. Major manufacturersof cosmetics and personal care items have ceased testing on animals altogether, while others have substantially reduced their reliance on animal tests.
Sources
Cal.Civ.Code § 1834.8
2001 NY A.B. 264
Stacy E. Gillespie, A Cover-Girl Face Does Not Have to Begin with Animal Cruelty: Chapter 476 Gives Legal Force to Alternative Testing Methods, 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 461.
Vasanth R. Shenai, If Animal Rights Activists Could Write Federal Research Policy, 4 Animal L. 211.
You can further help this campaign by sponsoring it
The End the testing of cosmetic and personal care products on animals petition to The Massachussetts Cosmetic Manufacturing Industry was written by Douglas Richard and is in the category Animal Rights at GoPetition.