H.R.1385 - Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013

To amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 12:35am

    Animal testing will not make cosmetics safer. Animal testing is pseudoscience as it is pure observation on how much diarrhea and pus is produced or pain an animal is in until it dies after being forced fed gallons of products such as mascara and eye irritation tests for 24 hours a day, each hour for 2 weeks straights. These animals such as dogs, mice, guinea pigs and rabbits are not given any pain killers even as their eyes are being cut out. These tests are cheaper but not safer.

    These cheap tests prevent real scientific tests from being developed such as long term observation on a computer model or cellular level using synthetic human cells. Not only that, a human may get sick by a chemical that dogs can easily process. The anatomy of a dog is smaller than a human’s. THIS IS NOT REAL SCIENCE. THIS WILL NOT MAKE PROVEN SAFE CHEMICALS SAFER.

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 12:44am

    By making animal testing mandatory FAIR TRADE companies that import to the USA will be required to test their products on animals. Many FAIR TRADE companies are natural based farmers who farm ingredients such as rose petals to make essential oils. By making animal testing mandatory, these fair trade companies would not be able to afford pay a 3rd party lab to test their already proven safe NATURAL ingredients on animals. This in turn will hurt FAIR TRADE IMPORTERS as well as FAIR TRADE EXPORTERS to export their goods outside of the USA.

    This law will drive up costs for Fair trade companies thus causing a trickle effect to those who buy from them. NATURAL (non-synthetic) based products will be forced to raise their prices making it even more expensive for the consumer. Thus the consumer will be forced to buy cheap synthetic lab made chemicals for their families.

  • SongSparrow 02/07/2014 12:45am

    ANIMAL TESTING WILL NOT MAKE INGREDIENTS SAFER. IT ELIMINATES THE DRIVE TO DEVELOP ARTIFICIAL CELLS AND COMPUTER MODELS FOR LONG TERM TESTS.

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 12:48am

    Making animal testing mandatory will drive up the cost of natural based companies that do not rely on cheap synthetic chemicals to make household cleaners. By driving up the costs of natural based ingredients, small business and independent companies in the USA will go out of business while companies that use proven toxic and synthetic ingredients will thrive because the cost of their ingredients will be cheap as they can already afford to pay a 3rd party to test. This law will only help already wealthy companies and not the consumer.

    DO NOT LET FANCY WORDS MISGUIDE YOU.

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 1:17am

    If you are an animal lover please oppose this law. Animal testing is torture. This is not a solution to the dog overpopulation situation nor will it actually help consumers. The European Union, India, Brazil and Israel have already banned animal testing in order to pursue safer long term models for how a cosmetic ingredient effects a cell. This includes looking at artificial cells and computer models in the long term instead of immediate results. Even China, a country that required animals to be tested on will be changing its stance and is already using non-animal tested techniques. Why? Because the real solution to seeing if a chemical is safe is for real scientific studies that do not require animals at all.

    By having the USA require animal testing would be a step backwards for both the scientific community and hurt small business. As a country, we can afford this morally and even more financially. Please OPPOSE this bill.

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 1:23am

    If this law is passed, Fair Trade companies who produce the natural ingredients such as essential oil, rose water, gel aloe vera and so on would be driven out of business from the rising cost for 3rd party testing. Not only that, independent businesses and small businesses would suffer because they will not be able to afford natural ingredients as well as be able to resell it. If the consumer can not afford to buy the REAL proven safe ingredients as in the NATURAL based ones then how is that safer?

    As consumers we would be forced to purchase cheap synthetic lab made chemicals such as parabens which disrupt hormone re-uptake for those on Hormone Replacement Therapy. However, it is a dirt cheap preservative. This is not okay.

    THIS LAW DOESN’T HELP ANYONE BUT BIG BUSINESSES WHO CAN AFFORD THE PROPOSED $9,000,000,000 on ANIMAL TESTING.

  • sarahighsmith 02/07/2014 3:13pm

    TYPES OF ANIMAL TESTING & WHY THEY DO NOT WORK TOWARD HUMAN SAFETY

    http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.6457299/k.82D0/Types_of_Animal_Testing.htm#.UvU9mPldXnE

  • JMeow 02/07/2014 9:13pm

    This is so embarrassing considering other countries have recently banned animal testing on beauty products. Maybe I should do all my shopping from those countries and let the US economy suffer.

  • Comm_reply
    sarahighsmith 02/08/2014 12:30am

    I agree! In the meantime, have everyone you know OPPOSE this bill by writing to their political representatives. This is especially important to small businesses and independent companies as this bill could put them out of business.

  • sarahighsmith 02/09/2014 12:00am

    A true summary of the impact of this bill.

    http://leapingbunny.org/SafeCosmeticsAct.php

  • sarahighsmith 02/09/2014 4:42am

    This bill states that yes, a business is allowed to use alternative methods of testing their ingredients and products (624a), approved by the Secretary, that do not require animals but there aren’t any actual alternative tests listed as of yet. (624c) These ingredients that would be retested will include already FDA proven safe ones. Not to forget to mention, the awaiting alternative methods do not necessarily mean that animals will not be used at all.(624 1ac) It could possibly mean that perhaps more animal testing methods could be made, however just with less than 350 animals per test. Either way, an animal had to suffer because painkillers are not used in these tests as they could disrupt the study. A study that does not accurately depict an animal’s anatomy to one of a human. Therefore a business has two choices, change from cruelty free to animal tested or pull out of the market.

  • kishi 03/30/2014 1:59pm

    I’m a vegan consumer and I’m disappointed on this situation were brands that are completely cruelty free all the way down to ingredient suppliers have to worry about there ethic believes and not only the brand but the costumer that are now obligated to buy a product that is not in agreement with our believes. I do not support this action at all.


Vote on This Bill

7% Users Support Bill

3 in favor / 42 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments