trump-animal-testing

As you know by now, Donald Trump is the new president of the United States. In addition to this, Republicans are forming the majority party in the senate.

I want to take a moment to consider what this means when it comes to the issue of animal testing. This is based on my own speculation, so please feel free to add your own comments below.

Republicans and Animal Testing

According to this poll, Republicans are considerately more likely to view medical animal testing as morally acceptable than Democrats are. We can assume that the numbers would be similar when it comes to animal testing for cosmetics as well.

The issue of animal testing is also less likely to be important to the Republican members of the senate, which form a majority.

Humane Cosmetics Act: Less Likely To Pass

The Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced in June of 2015, but nothing has happened so far.

This is a wonderful bill because it aims to ban animal testing for cosmetics in the US — from ingredients to finished products.

Since this bill has had little luck so far under Obama, it’s looking even less promising under a Republican majority.

Personal Care Products Safety Act: More Likely To Pass

The Personal Care Products Safety Act was introduced in April of 2015, but it’s been brought to the surface in September 2016.

Unfortunately this bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It sounds good as it aims to make cosmetics safer, but it encourages animal testing. It adds the clause that every ingredient has to be tested for safety, without specifically prohibiting animal tests.

Another problem is that this bill is said to benefit big corporations. Giants like L’Oreal are supporting it, which makes me guess that it would be more likely to pass under a Republican majority.

Trump’s VETO

Let’s also consider that Trump, as the president, has a veto over any law that passes. This means that if a law passes and Trump doesn’t agree with that law, he can oppose it and it won’t pass. This isn’t likely to happen in the case of a law involving animal testing, but it’s something to consider (especially when it comes to other important issues like abortion or gay marriage).

What do you think?

The next 4 years look grim for animal testing in the US as far as I’m concerned. Without getting too political here, the US are taking a step backwards and it’s sad to witness. Any thoughts?

  • Gina

    Definition of irony: the belief that animal testing is wrong but that aborting a human at the hour of birth if okay.

    • There’s no such thing as an “abort at the hour of birth” (??)

      • Jill Melcher

        Yeah…wouldn’t that just be a c-section?

  • Child Rabbit

    Another definition of irony is when a brand calls themselves “cruelty free” just because they don’t test on animals and think “oh, we’re ethical just cause of that” BUT their ingredients contain mica, WHICH HAS CONNECTIONS TO ILLEGAL MINING AND CHILD LABOR!

    • Kitty

      Yeah I am glad you brought that up. A lot of people, even vegans, ignore the mica issue. Are human children not animals too? And I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. Exploitation of both humans and animals in the cosmetic industry should be important to vegans, imo.

  • Child Rabbit

    Oh, and one more thing! The term “cruelty free” MUST ALSO MEAN “NO CHILD LABOR WAS EVER INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF OUR PRODUCTS”. I’m SO glad my favorite brands are TRULY ethical.

  • I hadn’t even thought about this :-O

  • Jill Melcher

    Yeah, this is depressing. I was thinking that the silver lining of a trade war with China would be that American cosmetic companies wouldn’t export there anymore (and would therefore be able to stop using animal testing). I didn’t think about the fact that we might impose the same absurd/inhumane regulations on goods in our own country:(

  • Hayley Elizabeth Swinamer

    Just keep voting with your money, with every purchase, and encouraging everyone else to as well, and brands will realize without legislation that cruelty isn’t the way.

  • Jennifer Fisher

    I have to disagree with your premise. I am a conservative who understands the necessity for medical testing, regardless of how loathsome I find it. But, I believe testing cosmetics on animals to be frivolous in in the extreme and “cruel” isn’t a strong enough word. There is no reason to think conservative legislators and business people will not respond positively to practical alternatives to animal testing.

  • Mustang

    you cant assume what anyone will do. just saying. And anyway i don’t know why they test makeup on animals the shit still is bad for you clogs your pores.. why you want to pretend to be someone your not. I hate make up its a waste of money. and it doesnt help anything either. And as far as animal testing for medical purposes, i do agree with that, we have come a long way and have saved many lives with that! The first triple bi-pass surgery was on an animal. so im pretty sure that is going to continue. to many advantages for that one. but make up testing. that should stop, we dont need make up. period.

  • Pam Lewellen

    I don’t know why but I am still amazed at people thinking Trump or anyone he has picked gives a crap about anyone but themselves. He LOVES that his sons go hunt and kill defenseless animals like Cecil the lion. To them, it’s a sport like swimming or fencing. He has straight out said he plans the frack wherever he can as long as he can make money off of it. And on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body…it’s her right. Not one of us dies with her and goes before God, just her. It’s ironic that so many don’t want their gun rights taken away but have no problem taking away the rights of others. And the gun law that should have passed had nothing to do with that anyways if anyone had bothered to read it. Just like having to do homework on which brands are safe for us and animals, don’t just assume some Facebook video of late term abortions says it all or is even true. Here’s some basic stats and don’t forget to highlight and search the things you question. If people had done that, the next four years wouldn’t be hell but alas…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/the-inconvenient-truths-f_b_210821.html
    http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/truth-late-term-abortions/

  • Madison Flicker

    You know I joined this page as a young republican who voted for Trump, and loves this country. I am tired of seeing pages who assume republicans are careless. I have been cruelty free for years and I hate that you took this page and made it political and once again made an assumption that republicans are less moral. Lost a follower.

  • TalesFanGirl

    I’m sure sure why it’s a big deal that Suzi wrote this article speculating about what the new administration will mean for animal testing.

    No matter who became elected, I think it’s natural for people (whether it’s a blog or a column in a newspaper) to speculate the future of certain topics based on what the president-elect has said in the past.

    To be completely honest, I think the progress to ban animal testing under the Trump administration will be exactly like the progress under the Obama administration: almost zero. I don’t think it would have mattered who was elected into office, I just don’t think the either candidate cares enough about animal testing to try to ban it :/