COLUMBUS, Ohio — The heiress of Procter and Gamble, a multi-billion dollar consumer goods company, is proposing legislation in the Ohio House to stop cosmetics testing on animals. P&G, although saying they are mainly cruelty-free now, continues experimenting on animals.
Plenty of makeup is tested on animals like rodents — and dogs and cats — something state Rep. Sara Carruthers (R-Hamilton) wants to change.
"Some of this stuff is just inhumane, sick and unnecessary," Carruthers said. "A lethal dose test involves forcing rats to swallow large amounts of chemicals until the subject dies, so that you can determine the dose that causes death."
She and state Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D-Cleveland) introduced House Bill 495, which would stop the majority of animal testing for cosmetics sold in Ohio.
Not only would this save animals, but it would also help the economy — since consumers want cruelty-free products, Carruthers said.
The vegan cosmetic market is growing exponentially, in part because of Generation Z's interest in "ethically sourced products," according to UNiDAYS, a popular student shopping app that conducts market research.
But Carruthers' background is what made her interested in animal rights.
"My great, great grandfather did it — they did use animal testing," she said.
Carruthers is a descendant of Cincinnati-based company Procter and Gamble, and she wants companies like hers to stop animal experimentation. Although her family still has some influence, they no longer have a vote in the company policies and have no position on the board. She says her family no longer owns any part of the corporate giant, but their Procter-side of the family continues to be a fixture in the Cincinnati area.
I reached out to P&G whose spokesperson said in a statement that their PETA cruelty-free brands are not tested on animals. However, that is a small percentage. They have 79 brands, and only 13 are on the PETA-certified list.
"P&G has invested over $480 million in non-animal test method development over decades and is partnering with groups like PETA and the Humane Society International & US, working closely with governments to end animal testing globally," the company said.
Some countries still mandate testing on animals, they added.
A significant portion of their products are made in China, according to 2018 testimony given to the U.S. Trade Representative, and Chinese regulations require testing on products like toothpaste, hair treatments and anything with sunscreen in it, like a moisturizer or foundation.
I asked for a multitude of clarifications on their "cruelty-free" policy, including data backing up their statements of being anti-animal testing. They were not addressed in their short statement.
It isn't just the United States and China that they have plants. They have factories on all continents, minus Antarctica. Some locations have rules against animal testing, some require it, and others have other types of restraints — such as Japan, which holds each "institution responsible for self-regulation," according to researchers.
"Let's go for made in America, right?" Carruthers said. "We have modern testing methods like human cell-based tests, sophisticated computer models."
But bioethics expert and law professor at Case Western Reserve University Sharona Hoffman says the change could be a huge blow to medical advancements.
"Computer modeling is not a substitute for all animal studies — and also you have to worry about the expense," Hoffman said.
Carruthers responded that data has shown that animal alternatives are actually cheaper, but Hoffman is doubtful.
"Growing tissue in labs is quite expensive," the professor said.
The bill language is broad, and it could seemingly impact research to help burn victims or patients who want reconstruction surgeries after cancer or trauma.
"If you're talking about lipstick or blush, I would probably agree that you don't need to use animals," Hoffman said, acknowledging that makeup isn't the true concern of hers. "But for other treatments, we have to remember 'cosmetic' is very, very broad."
The National Association for Biomedical Research is also concerned, stating that the bill may have a negative impact on "new compounds and molecules that are being developed for dual — cosmetic and medical — application."
NABR's full statement from spokesperson Eva Maciejewski:
"Measuring the safety and efficacy of a new molecule or compound usually involves preclinical testing with animals and adjunct methods, and then phased human clinical trials. Scientists and regulators strive to reduce the number of animals used. They also prioritize the development and adoption of refinement methods. However, scientists cannot observe the combined effects of a new molecule or compound on the body’s interconnected systems over time by relying exclusively on artificial intelligence, organ chips, and other non-animal methods. They also need to use animals to determine if the new molecule or compound is safe enough to begin human clinical trials. It is therefore unclear whether the proposed state bill HB 495 could have a negative impact on new compounds and molecules that are being developed for dual - cosmetic and medical - application."
"Animal studies do not proceed without any oversight," Hoffman added. "This isn't just some scientist collecting rats in the garage and then experimenting on them."
Carruthers argued there are exceptions, such as when there is no non-animal method available.
"This is a no-brainer," the lawmaker said.
This bill will likely be heard in the coming months. She also introduced another bipartisan bill to crack down and try to prevent puppy mills, which she said she talked to P&G about.
