|
IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals |
This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. |
|
IN - Animal Testing - The Breeding of And Experiments On Animals (Control And Supervision) Rules, 1998 |
The Rules were drafted by the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals through the powers delegated to it by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Rules do not ban scientific experiments on animals. However, they impose registration requirements for facilities that conduct experiments on animals, list out the conditions under which the animals must be stocked by the breeder and the establishment, and the methods by which the experiments must be conducted. |
|
IN - Animal Testing - THE BREEDING OF AND EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS (CONTROL AND SUPERVISION) RULES, 1998 |
The Rules, drafted under the powers conferred by section (1)(1-A) and (2) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulate the breeding and testing of animals in laboratories. It sets up an 'Institutional Animal Ethics Committee' that ensures the performance of experiments of animals in an establishment in a humane manner. The Rules specify the conditions that breeders are allowed to raise these animals in for testing, and the manner in which these animals must be treated in establishments where they are used for testing. |
|
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University |
A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.
|
|
IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER |
Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute.
|
|
IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc. |
Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic:
US Animal Welfare Act.
|
|
Julie Marie Grizzel v. James William Hickey d/b/a S & S Farms; Ron Lee Omara and S & S Farms, Inc. aka S.S. Farms Linn County, I |
The plaintiff in this Oregon case brought an action alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, who was a licensed animal dealer. Plaintiff owned “My Girl,” a purebred cocker spaniel, whom plaintiff cared for and enclosed in a secure, fenced backyard. While My Girl was secure in her backyard, two other individuals seized her and transported her to defendant Hickey (who was known to be engaged in the business of selling animals to research laboratories).
|
|
Keeping Bad Science Out of the Courtroom: Why Post-Daubert Courts Are Correct in Excluding Opinions Based on Animal Studies From Birth-Defects Cases |
This Comment argues that courts should keep animal studies out of the courtroom in birth-defects toxic-torts cases. Part I sets forth the evidentiary standards used to determine the admissibility of evidence and then presents background information on birth defects and how they are studied. It also discusses the problems inherent with animal tests and the contrasting value of human data. Part II explores the admissibility of animal studies in post-Daubert birth-defects cases and argues that exclusion is warranted. Part II then urges redirection of resources to human studies and promising alternatives to animal tests, and it discusses the impact of excluding expert opinions based on animal tests from court cases. Part III concludes by summarizing the case against admission of animal studies and the positives that would result from exclusion.
|
|
LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 |
This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. |
