Call To Action Needed By End Of Day On Tuesday August 7th.
SB 1249 (Galgiani) CA Cruelty-Free Cosmetic Act
HEARING DATE AUGUST 8TH – ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS
Need Calls, Tweets and Attendance!
The opposition (lead by PCPC, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Estee Lauder) to SB 1249 has “lobbied up.” As one of their lobbyist told us, the big corporations “do not want to be told what to do.” They just want to keep going along – same ole, same ole, needlessly allowing the torturing and killing of over 500,000 animals per year.
They have hired over four lobbying firms in just a few weeks to oppose SB 1249. Their ramped-up efforts will not deter us from our goal to end the cruelty of cosmetic animal testing. SB 1249 is a paramount bill, and we are determined to see it signed into law.
Below is a list of “Myth vs Facts” regarding the opposition’s talking points.
SB 1249 is good for people, business, and the animals!
We need you to do 4 things to help us NOW!
1) Call the Appropriations Committee Members and ask them to vote “YES” on SB 1249.
Appropriations Committee Members:
Richard Bloom (916) 319-2050 (coauthor-thank him)
Ed Chau (916) 319-2049 (voted yes in Judiciary Committee, thank him)
Eloise Gómez Reyes (916) 319-2047 (voted yes in Judiciary Committee, thank her)
2) Please Tweet out the following:
Make California’s Cosmetic Market Cruelty-Free by Supporting SB 1249! Animal testing is antiquated, unreliable, and not necessary for safe cosmetics! Stop the torture! Tell @LorenaSGonzalez and @FrankBigelowCA that you want #Crueltyfree #Cosmetics and #YesOnSB1249!
3) Attend the hearing on Wednesday, August 8th at 9am, State Capitol, Room 4202.
4) Share this email, post, etc. and get others involved
MYTHS vs FACTS ABOUT SB 1249
MYTH #1 – SB 1249 will take away my favorite shampoo because it was tested on animals.
False! – Because we are aiming for a cruelty-free cosmetics market in the future, the bill only affects products tested on animals after 2020 or, to meet international requirements, after 2023. All products and ingredients tested on animals before the bill takes effect can still be sold. If a product is found to have been tested on animals after 2020 (or 2023 for testing conducted to meet international requirements) and it is not covered by one of the listed exemptions in the bill, the manufacturer will be fined until it is removed from the market.
MYTH #2 – SB 1249 will impact medical testing and development of new therapies.
False! – NO. The bill disallows the sale or marketing of new cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients which are tested on animals. It has no jurisdiction over the development or testing of pharmaceuticals, which are governed by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and requirements specific to those products. SB 1249 does not govern any medical testing taking place at universities, research institutes, or the National Institutes of Health. Just to be safe, the bill specifically exempts products or ingredients tested as a result of a requirement by the FDA or by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control.
MYTH #3 – SB 1249 will pose an economic burden on California companies.
False! – California companies have access to worldwide markets in a number of different ways that do not require animal testing. Specifically regarding China, one of California’s largest cosmetic manufacturers, John Paul Mitchell Systems, a cruelty-free company from inception and one of California’s leading cosmetic manufacturer based in Santa Clarita, negotiated to sell their products in China using alternative testing. Other companies opt to open storefronts in Hong Kong or sell via the internet usingAlibaba.com, the world’s largest online retailer. SB 1249 will not lead to job loss. In fact, there is evidence that SB 1249 could
be a job creator. Alternative methods of testing, not only for cosmetics, but for other industries is a growing sector. SB 1249 will make California the epicenter of alternative testing in the United States.
MYTH #4 – A cosmetic manufacturer will be punished because an ingredient in their product is also used in a pharmaceutical product subject to animal testing.
False! – SB 1249 has 2 major exceptions which make this a false claim. Subdivision c(1) of SB 1249 creates an exemption for any cosmetic testing required by the Federal Drug Administration or California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Further, subsection c(3) allows for testing that is required by a state, federal, or foreign regulatory body so long as that testing is not for cosmetic purposes and the ingredient is already in use for cosmetics. Thus, testing required by a governmental authority for pharmaceuticals, drugs, pesticides, etc. will not punish cosmetic manufacturers.
MYTH #5 – This bill would ban the sale of a product if someone, somewhere in the world, unknown and unknowable to the manufacturer, tested it on an animal.
False! – That is patently false. SB 1249 creates a “knowingly” standard in subsection (a) of the law, which states, “…it is unlawful for a manufacturer to knowingly import for profit, sell at retail, or offer for sale or promotional purposes at retail in this state, any cosmetic if the final product or any component thereof was tested on animals for any purpose afterJanuary 1, 2020.” Thus, manufacturers are not liable when they had no knowledge of the animal testing that took place outside of their scope of influence. Further, the exceptions discussed above are another layer of protection for cosmetic manufacturers for testing done for non-cosmetic purposes even when all parties are aware of the testing.
Thank you for helping with our grassroots campaign. Please help us to continue to save animals. Please donate today, we need additional financial resources to get this done!