Canada Moving Toward Cosmetic Animal-Testing Ban Potentially Stricter Than California Law

The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, S 214, would ban the sale of cosmetics developed with animal testing that’s conducted four years or more after enactment, ostensibly including testing undertaken to comply with foreign regulations. The sole exemption is for animal testing that is Health Canada-authorized.

Proposed legislation to ban animal-tested cosmetics in Canada raises some of the same uncertainties that California’s Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act did before late-stage, industry-driven amendments addressed the bill’s most problematic elements.

Introduced in December 2015 by Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, S 214 – also titled the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act – is currently under consideration by Canada’s House of Commons after passing the Senate in June 2018.

The bill would prohibit cosmetic animal testing in Canada, as well as the sale of cosmetics in Canada that were “developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing” that’s conducted more than four years after the legislation enters into force.

The sole exemption is for animal testing authorized by Canada’s Minister of Health – i.e., Health Canada.

Such authorizations could be granted “when there is no alternative method to evaluate substantiated specific human health problems associated with a cosmetic or ingredient of a cosmetic that is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another cosmetic or ingredient of a cosmetic capable of performing a similar function.”

Notably, prospective authorizations would be subject to public consultation, which likely would provide opportunity for animal-rights advocates to argue for an ingredient’s replacement with another ingredient deemed similar that does not require new animal testing.  (Also see "Canada’s Animal-Testing Ban Would Require Authorizations For Last Resort Studies " - HBW Insight, 22 Jun, 2018.)

Proposed amendments brought forth by industry and animal-welfare advocates “have to do with ministerial powers, responsibilities and definition of manufacturers and importers responsibilities, and a clarity for testing to sell in other countries.” – Shadow Minister for Health Marilyn Gladu

As currently written, S 214 does not address animal testing conducted to comply with foreign requirements – in China for example – and it’s unclear if animal testing of a cosmetic ingredient for non-cosmetic purposes after the cutoff date would constitute a violation.

California’s Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, signed into law in September 2018, initially threatened to ban cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients that underwent animal testing “for any purpose,” but industry succeeded in narrowing the bill’s terms to animal testing within a cosmetic manufacturer’s supply chain. (Also see "California Passes Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act: Now Friendlier To Industry, Still A Legal Minefield " - HBW Insight, 3 Sep, 2018.)

Eleventh-hour amendments to the bill also created exemptions for animal testing required by foreign regulators or conducted for non-cosmetic purposes, though data from such testing cannot be used to substantiate cosmetic safety in California. (Also see "California’s Cosmetic Animal-Testing Ban Not A Brick Wall, But Proceed With Caution" - HBW Insight, 26 Oct, 2018.)

S 214 includes a similar stipulation. Animal testing carried out four years or more after the legislation’s enactment could not serve as evidence to establish cosmetic safety under Canada’s Food and Drug Act.

It’s not clear whether Health Canada-authorized animal testing would fall in that bucket.

In her motion for a first reading in the House, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health Marilyn Gladu noted that she’s been working on the legislation with animal-welfare groups and industry advocates, including Cosmetics Alliance Canada.

“These organizations have worked to bring forward seven amendments, which would be needed as we study the bill further. The amendments have to do with ministerial powers, responsibilities and definition of manufacturers and importers responsibilities, and a clarity for testing to sell in other countries,” she said.

Like California’s ban and the European Union’s animal-testing prohibitions in full effect since March 2015, the Canadian legislation could be detrimental to cosmetics innovation given the abiding lack of alternative testing methods for critical safety endpoints.

Health Canada notes on its website that “for new ingredients, animal testing is sometimes needed to determine that the ingredient is safe,” as “new methods cannot completely replace animal testing at this time.”

Australia recently passed industrial chemicals legislation that prohibits animal testing on ingredients exclusively used in cosmetics, beginning July 1, 2020.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, 37 countries have “full or partial bans on [cosmetic] animal testing or trade bans,” including Norway, India, New Zealand, Israel and South Korea, in addition to EU member countries.