Ban sought on animal testing for cosmetics |

Ban sought on animal testing for cosmetics

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Hoping to build off recent bans in Europe and India, opponents of animal testing for cosmetics plan to make a big push for a similar prohibition in the United States.

The effort, however, could be a tough sell in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., is expected to take the lead on the issue when the new Congress convenes in January. He is succeeding retiring Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who has introduced legislation that would prohibit testing cosmetic products on animals, as well as the sale of any new cosmetics if the final product or any component was developed by using animal testing.

“The United States must be a world leader and not a follower,” Beyer told supporters in a campaign email highlighting the issue.

Virginia is home to several cosmetic companies, such as Tri Tech Laboratories of Lynchburg, a custom manufacturer of personal care products.

Last year, the European Union banned the sale of new cosmetic products containing ingredients tested on animals. India followed with a similar ban.

Sara Amundson, executive director of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, called Moran’s bill a “marker” to build political support, with a sustained lobbying effort to follow next year.

To date, more than 140 cosmetic companies have endorsed the bill, including Paul Mitchell, the Body Shop and LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics.

The Personal Care Products Council referred to a statement by its executive vice president for government affairs, John Hurson. He said the legislation echoes the industry’s “longstanding commitment to ultimately eliminate the need to conduct animal testing” on cosmetics.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.