[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E540-E541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           H.R. 3173--THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS SAFE TESTING ACT

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 16, 1996

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my 
colleagues the

[[Page E541]]

Consumer Products Safe Testing Act which I recently introduced, along 
with thirty-two of our colleagues. This long-overdue legislation aims 
at scaling back outdated and burdensome federal regulations used by the 
FDA and other Federal agencies regarding toxicity testing of cosmetics, 
corrosives, and other substances. The bill calls on all Federal 
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over toxicity testing to review 
and evaluate their regulations concerning animal acute toxicity 
testing. The bill establishes no new mandates regarding animal toxicity 
testing. For many years, the Federal Government has used animals to 
test the toxicity of consumer products. This bill seeks to establish, 
wherever possible, non-animal acute toxicity testing as an acceptable 
standard for Government regulations without compromising human safety.
  Development of new technology has achieved substantial gains in the 
field of non-animal alternatives for acute toxicity tests. Many 
cosmetic companies, including Avon, Revlon, Redken, Paul Mitchell, The 
Body Shop, and Nexxus, already use alternatives to animal testing for 
screening and developing their products. In addition, many 
biotechnology firms are developing non-animal tests to determine the 
safety of various consumer products they produce. These tests include 
Skintex by InVitro International and Testskin by Organogenisis, Inc., 
which use human skin equivalent to measure irritancy. InVitro has 
actually developed a series of non-animal test kits which evaluate and 
rank irritancy and toxicity of a wide variety of substances.
  Despite these advances, the Federal Government still relies 
on animals for toxicity testing. The result is that many companies at 
the cutting edge of non-animal technology are forced to market their 
products overseas. If the United States is to remain a world leader in 
biotechnology, we must reexamine our Federal regulations to reflect the 
advances in testing methods already in progress. If we fail to 
encourage developments in this field and continue using outdated 
federal regulations, we run the risk of falling behind the rest of the 
industrialized world and losing our position as a world leader in 
science. By calling on the Federal Government to reevaluate its 
regulations on toxicity testing to include non-animal tests wherever 
possible, the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act will encourage U.S. 
companies to develop and market non-animal testing products in the 
United States.

  Non-animal alternatives to toxicity tests, in addition to being more 
humane, produce better data and reduce costs over the long term. 
Scientists agree that, despite the usefulness of animals for testing 
purposes, human cells and tissue produce more accurate results. As 
technology progresses to develop an acceptable battery of tests, non-
animal toxicity testing can provide a more cost effective method of 
testing products. Savings can be realized from reduction in animal care 
and storage, in addition to time saved.
  Time involved in product testing remains a crucial factor. Many 
product development companies spend large amounts of time and resources 
in the government regulatory process. Animal testing often takes 
several years to complete. If acceptable alternatives are developed, 
this would save the producer, as well as the regulatory agency, time 
and money during the lengthy and cumbersome approval process. In asking 
the Federal Government to review its regulations concerning toxicity 
testing, the bill takes a bite out of federal regulation, while 
ensuring consumers' safety.
  In recognition of the contribution animal tests make to the medical 
community, the bill specifically exempts all medical research. Only 
regulations regarding toxicity testing are affected.
  I am delighted to sponsor the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act. 
This legislation will move towards ensuring that the Federal Government 
treats non-animal acute toxicity testing as an acceptable standard and 
that outdated and cumbersome regulations are reviewed and reevaluated.

                          ____________________