PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers are moving to take cosmetics developed with animal testing off the market.
Without discussion the Senate on Monday gave preliminary approval to legislation that would make it illegal for a manufacturer to knowingly sell, or offer for sale, any cosmetic in which animal testing was used in the making of the item.
Violators would be subject to a penalty of $1,000 for the first day of violation and $500 a day for every day beyond.
But the wording of , which now needs a roll call vote, does not mean all those cosmetics will suddenly disappear.
One exception is when animal testing is conducted outside of the United States and is required by a foreign regulatory agency.
People are also reading…
Also permitted are tests on animals done with a chemical that is not specifically designed to be part of a cosmetic.
And there is a broader catch-all exemption.
The measure sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, still would permit testing if requested, required or conducted by a federal or state regulatory agency if there is not a way of testing it for serious adverse human health risks without the use of animals.
How wide a loophole all of that creates is unclear.
But the fact is that not a single lobbyist for the cosmetics industry came to testify against the measure when it came up for a hearing last month in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Kavanagh said a reason for that is that the practice of animal testing has fallen out of favor among many cosmetic companies.
“It really gives the industry a bad name,’’ he said.
What lawmakers did hear were arguments by proponents on why legislation is needed.
One was Jordan Sucato, a 16-year-old from Phoenix who in 2024 was on Time Magazine’s Kid of the Year list. She got there by virtue of her work with , a nonprofit specifically designed to protect the feet of dogs in the Arizona desert from hot pavement.
“This legislation represents a crucial step forward in protecting animals from unnecessary harm and suffering,’’ Sucato told lawmakers. “Animal testing for cosmetic purposes is outdated and unnecessary in an era where safer, more effective alternatives exist.’’
That, she said, includes what amounts to artificial tissue that can mimic the reaction of human skin.
She described on how mice, rabbits and guinea pigs have compounds applied to bare skin or dripped into their eyes, often without anesthesia.
“This level of suffering is unjustifiable for the sake of beauty products,’’ Sucato said.
The measure also drew support from Karen Michael, a member of the board of Animal Defense League of Arizona and of Humane Voters of Arizona. She said 12 other states already have enacted similar legislation as well as 45 countries.
Michael said the exceptions would still allow companies to meet federal, state or foreign requirements.
She also pointed out that the proposal is prospective only, affecting only those cosmetics manufactured after the end of 2025. That means existing products already on the market in Arizona could continue to be sold as long as there is no new testing beginning in 2026.
Not everyone appeared to be convinced that a new law is necessary.
Sen. Frank Carroll, R-Sun City West, said if consumers don’t want cosmetics that have been developed using animal testing they can make that choice themselves.
How easy it is to get that information, however, remains unclear.
Some companies openly promote on labels that their products were developed without animal testing. But getting a list may not be easy.
“There’s several organizations that have seals on products that are humane, that have not had cosmetic testing on animals, Michael said. “Any consumer can find out which cosmetics have been tested on animals and which have not.’’
That, however, may not be easy to find.
The , on its website, says some companies which say they do not test on animals in the United States still pay for testing in China, where such experiments are required for many cosmetics.
In the end, Carroll voted against the legislation when it cleared the Natural Resources Committee, as did Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp, R-Surprise. Neither explained their opposition.