What Does Trump’s Win Mean For 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.

    • http://yo-lolita.blogspot.com/ Nadia Avila

      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!

  • 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.

  • http://www.kissandmakeupsbeautyblog.com/ Kiss & Make-up

    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.