Breaking! Bill To Ban Testing On Animals For Cosmetics In Colombia Advances To The Senate

The Plenary of the House of Representatives in Colombia has unanimously approved the bill of Law 120/2018 to ban the use of animals in cosmetic testing. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it will need to pass two debates to become law.

“This is a very important advance in terms of the rights and dignity of animals in our country,” said House Representative and author of the bill Juan Carlos Losada. “The main purpose of the bill is to stop animal suffering in the cosmetics industry and enable Colombian companies to enter the European market, a region that has for years rejected such tests.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of animals in testing cosmetic products and their ingredients, both manufactured in and imported into the country, and would come into force 12 months after being passed.

“We are delighted Colombia is now a step away from becoming a leader in Latin America and banning cosmetics testing on animals,” Jan Creamer, President of Animal Defenders International, said in a statement emailed to WAN. “With advanced alternatives available and already in use around the world, we urge the Senate to now pass this historic bill at the earliest opportunity.”

Nearly 40 countries have ended the use of animals in cosmetics tests including the UK, India, Israel, New Zealand, and the EU. In the United States, the Humane Cosmetics Act seeks to phase out animal testing for cosmetics, and the sale and transport of such products.

Cosmetic tests on animals can include repeat dose toxicity tests to observe chronic, long-term effects on organs. For such tests, animals may be forced to inhale products, or have them pumped down their throats or applied to their skin. For skin sensitization tests, to assess potential allergic reactions to substances, researchers may deliberately cause painful damage to the animals’ skin.

Investigations undertaken by ADI have exposed the terrible torment endured by animals in cosmetics testing, including racks of rabbits restrained in stocks while products are dripped into their eyes, and guinea pigs suffering raw and inflamed skin lesions.

Such tests cause immense suffering and are unnecessary and unreliable. Advanced non-animal alternatives are available that avoid the fundamental differences between species in their reaction to substances and misleading results from animal subjects.