I had been so happy to read that India, Israel, and the European Union had all banned cosmetic testing on animals and here we have California Senator Diane Feinstein introducing -The Personal Care Products Safety Act --S.1014 which would require animal testing be done on animals. Unbelievably backwards!
It was also co-sponsored by Senator Susan Collins of Maine and later by Senator Barbara Boxer of CA and Senator Amy Klobuchar of MN after the bill was introduced on April 29, 2015 where it now sits in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
It seems unbelievable that these four women can be so unfeeling and lacking in compassion. Years ago rabbits were shaved and had cosmetics rubbed on their bare skin. Can you imagine how painful this must have been? There was even a 50/50 test where dogs were forced to ingest cosmetics until their insides ruptured. How's that for ghoulish and cruel and completely unnecessary?
Are women dying or becoming ill by using untested cosmetics? I liked what the IDA said about S.1014: "In a world moving away from the cruel and unnecessary practice of animal testing- Feinstein's delusional proposal in mandating such outdated tests is absolutely absurd." As for me -she and the other three other women Senators supporting this bill have shaken my trust and confidence in them re their poor judgment as well as lack of compassion.
Though I happily never wore make up of any kind -- I even today check shampoos to make sure they weren't tested on animals. And I believe Peta has an internet site for those of us who don't want to buy anything tested on animals. So in my opinion, this bill is really out in left field, and I hope other legislators will think so too.
In the meantime, if you don't want to see this bill passed, please write or e-mail your two senators and ask them not to support or co-sponsor S.1014 which will increase the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulation over chemicals used in personal hygiene products and cosmetics. One of the stipulations of this bill would also require that five ingredients found in personal care products must be tested annually for consumer safety. So that would mean more annual testing and more animal suffering.
I also like this observation made by In Defense of Animals: "Without the U.S. government currently requiring animal tested cosmetics, cosmetic companies can legally choose to perform product safety tests utilizing the many HUMANE animal-testing alternatives available. If passed, this act would reverse all progress made within the U.S. towards cruelty free cosmetics by requiring companies to perform tests on animals which are BOTH physically and psychologically damaging."
