Pro Quotes
The National Association for Biomedical Research
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was enacted in 1938 after the drug sulfanilamide, marketed for strep throat in the U.S. without human or animal research data establishing its safety or its efficacy, killed and sickened hundreds of people due to toxic levels of antifreeze it contained. Additional animal research safety and efficacy data became required under the Act in 1963 to prevent incidents like the thalidomide incident in Europe and other parts of the world.
Animal testing followed by human clinical trials currently remains the best way to examine complex physiological, neuroanatomical, reproductive, developmental and cognitive effects of drugs to determine if they are safe and effective for market approval.
The overwhelming majority of drugs on the market today relied on safety and efficacy data from multiple animal models before being allowed to move to human clinical trials as demonstrated by the Foundation for Biomedical Research’s Top 25 Drugs and Animal Model study. [176]
Tara Rabin, Public Affairs Specialist at the Food and Drug Administration
While the F.D.A. is committed to doing all that it can to reduce the reliance on animal-based studies, there are still many areas where animal research is necessary. Without the use of animals, it would be impossible to gain some of the important knowledge needed to prevent human and animal suffering for many life-threatening diseases. [177]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means,” according to Humane Society International. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in 2024 that research facilities used over 300,000 animals in activities involving pain in just one year. [47][102][178]
Plus, most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded U.S. and UK animal studies using rodents and primates: “Only 59 percent of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used.” A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies, including “incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud.” [64][128]
Only 5 percent of animals used in experiments are protected by U.S. law. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95 percent of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but only includes data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act. [1][2][26][28][135]
Even the animals protected by the AWA are mistreated. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [68]
Con 2: Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.
Some 94 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after succeeding in animal trials. Plus, nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. While roughly the same percentage of drugs not tested on animals also fail in human trials, the failure rate of animal tests highlights the lack of need for them. If non-animal clinical trials are just as successful as animal testing, there is no need for animal testing. [57][58][59]
Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug caused more than 27,000 human heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [5][55][56][109][110]
Plus, animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.” [105][106][127]
Con 3: Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals.
Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15][16][50][51]
As reported by Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at the biotech company MatTek, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.” The Environmental Protection Agency is so confident in alternatives that the agency intends to end chemical testing on mammals altogether by 2035. [61][134][140]
Scientists are also able to test vaccines on human volunteers. Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code. [142][143]
Con Quotes
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, added to the omnibus spending bill, was just passed and has been signed into law by President Biden.
This signals a radical shift in the way drugs and treatments are developed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be allowed to consider superior, non-animal drug testing methods, instead of requiring deadly and scientifically bogus animal tests. It’s a change that mirrors a request that PETA scientists made of the FDA in 2020….
PETA’s undercover investigation into laboratory supplier Envigo’s dog-breeding factory led to the release of 4,000 beagles to be adopted into loving homes. But this massive victory is where the real work begins. We must put an end to tests on animals—or else more dogs, cats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, and others will suffer and die in laboratories. [179]
Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing. [180]
U.S Animal Testing Regulations
A public outcry over animal testing and the treatment of animals in general broke out in the United States in the mid-1960s, leading to the passage of the AWA in 1966. An article in the November 29, 1965, issue of Sports Illustrated about Pepper, a farmer’s pet Dalmatian that was kidnapped and sold into experimentation, is believed to have been the catalyst for the rise in anti-testing sentiment. Pepper died after researchers attempted to implant an experimental cardiac pacemaker in her body. [74][75]
Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the AWA, which was amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. The AWA defines “animal” as “any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded animal.” The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes. [3][27]
The AWA requires that each research facility develop an internal Institutional Animal Committee (more commonly known as an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or IACUC) to “represent society’s concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects.” The IACUC must comprise at least three members. One member must be a veterinarian and one must be unaffiliated with the institution. [3][27]
While the AWA regulates the housing and transportation of animals used for research, it does not regulate the experiments themselves. The U.S. Congress Conference Committee stated at the time of the bill’s passage that it wanted “to provide protection for the researcher . . . by exempting from regulations all animals during actual research and experimentation. . . . It is not the intention of the committee to interfere in any way with research or experimentation.” [66]
Animal studies funded by U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are further regulated by the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [27]
All PHS-funded institutions must base their animal care standards on the AWA and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (also known as “the Guide”), prepared by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research at the National Research Council. Unlike the AWA, the Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Guide cover all vertebrate animals used for research, including birds, rats and mice. The Guide “establishes the minimum ethical, practice, and care standards for researchers and their institutions,” including environment and housing standards and required veterinary care. The Guide stipulates that “the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative.” [71]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reports the number of animals used for research each year, though it excludes animals not covered by the AWA. For fiscal year 2023 (the latest year for which data are available as of March 27, 2025), 774,065 animals were reported. Since the data excludes cold-blooded animals, farm animals used for food, and birds, rats, and mice bred for use in research, the total number of animals used for testing is unknown. Estimates of the number of animals not counted by APHIS range from 85 percent to 96 percent of the total of all animals used for testing. [1][2][26][65][72][152]
The USDA breaks down its data by three categories of pain type: animals that experience pain during their use in research but are given drugs to alleviate it; animals that experience pain and are not given drugs; and animals that do not experience pain and are not given drugs. [26]
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the development of new medications, states that “At the preclinical stage, the FDA will generally ask, at a minimum, that sponsors . . . determine the acute toxicity of the drug in at least two species of animals.” [73]
On December 29, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the FDA Modernization Act 2.0. Sponsored by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the law updates the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by eliminating the requirement that pharmaceutical companies test new drugs on animals before human trials. The amendment does not prevent companies from performing animals tests, but it makes the tests the choice of the company. [151]
Number of Animals Used for Testing in the United States
The table below lists the animals used for testing in the United States during the 2023 fiscal year. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service collected the data in the “Research Facility Annual Usage Summary Report.”
The animals are listed as the research facilities reported them to the USDA; some are listed “species unknown,” or an animal called by two names may appear twice in the list.
The list is divided into a few categories:
- animals held but not used for testing,
- animals used for testing that experienced no pain as a result of the test,
- animals used for testing that may cause pain but the animals were given pain medication or other management before, during, and/or after the test, and
- animals used for testing that may cause pain but the animals’ pain was not mediated.
Animals not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) were excluded by the USDA, including cold-blooded animals (such as reptiles and most fish), farm animals used for food, and birds, rats, and mice specifically bred for use in research.
In the table below, ARS stands for Agricultural Research Service. Part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the ARS is the department tasked with “finding solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day from field to table.”
State-by-State Cosmetics Animal Testing Bans
California
“Notwithstanding any other law, it is 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.”
Exceptions:
“(c) The prohibitions in subdivision (a) do not apply to the following:
(1) An animal test of any cosmetic that is required by a federal or state regulatory authority if all of the following apply:
(A) The ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function.
(B) A specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.
(C) There is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or state regulatory authority.
(2) An animal test that was conducted to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in California by the manufacturer.
(3) An animal test that was conducted on any product or ingredient subject to the requirements of Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).
(4) An animal test that was conducted for noncosmetic purposes in response to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in California by the manufacturer. A manufacturer is not prohibited from reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from an animal test conducted pursuant to this paragraph.”
Penalties: $5,000 fine, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.
Hawaii
“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, and except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in the State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that an animal test was conducted or contracted, by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2022, in a cruel manner, as identified in section 711-1108.5(1)(a).”
Exceptions:
“This section shall not apply to: (1) An animal test of a cosmetic that is required by a federal or state regulatory authority if all of the following apply:
(A) The cosmetic or an ingredient in the cosmetic that is being tested is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another cosmetic or ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(B) A specific human health problem relating to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; and
(C) There is no non-animal testing method accepted for the relevant purpose by the applicable federal or state regulatory authority
(2) An animal test that was conducted to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from that test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within the State by the manufacturer;
(3) An animal test that was conducted on any product or ingredient subject to the requirements of subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 United States Code 351 et seq.), as amended;
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an animal test that was conducted for purposes unrelated to cosmetics pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory agency; provided that no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within this State by the manufacturer; provided further that if evidence from such testing was relied upon for that purpose, the prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply if:
(A) Documentary evidence exists of the intent of the test that was unrelated to cosmetics; and
(B) The ingredient that was the subject of the testing has been used for purposes unrelated to cosmetics for not less than twelve months prior to the reliance;
(5) A cosmetic if the cosmetic in its final form was tested on animals before January 1, 2022, even if the cosmetic is manufactured on or after that date;
(6) An ingredient in a cosmetic if the ingredient was sold in this State and tested on animals before January 1, 2022, even if the ingredient is manufactured on or after that date; or
(7) A manufacturer reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from animal testing as defined in this section.”
Penalties: $5,000 fine, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.
Illinois
“Notwithstanding any other law, it is 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.”
Exceptions:
“(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) do not apply to the following:
(1) An animal test of any cosmetic that is required by a federal or State regulatory authority, if each of the following apply:
(A) an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(B) 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
(C) there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority.
(2) An animal test that was conducted to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic being sold in Illinois by the manufacturer.
(3) An animal test that was conducted on any product or ingredient subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
(4) An animal test that was conducted for noncosmetic purposes in response to a requirement of a federal, State, or foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic sold in Illinois by the manufacturer. A manufacturer is not prohibited from reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from an animal test conducted under this paragraph.”
Penalties: $5,000 fine for the first day of each violation, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.
Louisiana
“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, it is 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.”
Exceptions:
“The provisions of this Part shall not apply to the following instances of cosmetic animal testing:
(1) Cosmetic animal testing conducted outside of the United States as required by a foreign regulatory authority, provided that no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic ingredient or cosmetic product being sold by the manufacturer in this state.
(2) Cosmetic animal testing conducted for any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to regulation under 21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.
(3) Cosmetic animal testing conducted for a cosmetic ingredient intended to be used in a product that is not a cosmetic product and conducted pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority, provided that no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold in this state by a cosmetics manufacturer, unless all of the following apply:
(a) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent.
(b) There is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test.
(c) There is a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics at least twelve months prior to reliance.
(4) Cosmetic animal testing requested, required, or conducted by a federal or state regulatory authority if all of the following apply:
(a) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent.
(b) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent poses a risk of causing a specific substantiated human health problem and the need to conduct cosmetic animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent.
(c) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent is in wide use and, in the case of a cosmetic ingredient, cannot be replaced by another cosmetic ingredient capable of performing a similar function.”
B. The provisions of this Part shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) A cosmetic in its final form, which was tested on animals before the effective date of this Part, regardless of whether the cosmetic is manufactured on or after the effective date of this Part.
(2) An ingredient in a cosmetic, which was tested on animals before the effective date of this Part, even if the ingredient is manufactured on or after the effective date of this Part.
(3) A cosmetic manufacturer reviewing, assessing, or retaining evidence from a cosmetic animal test.”
Penalties: A fine up to $1,000 for the first day of each violation, with an additional $500 per day for each additional day of violation.
Maine
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in the State a cosmetic if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer on or after November 1, 2021.”
Exceptions:
“This section does not apply to:
A. Cosmetic animal testing:
(1) Conducted outside of the United States and in order to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority as long as no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic ingredient or cosmetic product being sold by the manufacturer in the State;
(2) Conducted for any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to regulation under Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 United States Code, Section 351;
(3) Conducted for a cosmetic ingredient intended to be used in a product that is not a cosmetic product and conducted pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state or foreign regulatory authority as long as no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold in this State by a manufacturer, unless all of the following apply:
(a) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the International Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or its successor organization for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent;
(b) There is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test; and
(c) There is a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics at least 12 months prior to the reliance; or
(4) Requested, required or conducted by a federal or state regulatory authority and all of the following apply:
(a) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the International Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or its successor organization for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent;
(b) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent poses a risk of causing a specific human health problem that is substantiated and the need to conduct cosmetic animal testing is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent; and
(c) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent is in wide use and, in the case of a cosmetic ingredient, cannot be replaced by another cosmetic ingredient capable of performing a similar function; [PL 2021, c. 160, §1 (NEW).]
B. A cosmetic if the cosmetic in its final form was tested on animals before November 1, 2021, even if the cosmetic is manufactured on or after that date as long as no new cosmetic animal testing in violation of this section occurred on or after November 1, 2021; [PL 2021, c. 160, §1 (NEW).]
C. A cosmetic ingredient if it was tested on animals before November 1, 2021, even if the ingredient is manufactured on or after that date as long as no new cosmetic animal testing in violation of this section occurred on or after November 1, 2021; or [PL 2021, c. 160, §1 (NEW).]
D. A cosmetic manufacturer reviewing, assessing or retaining evidence from a cosmetic animal test.”
Penalties: A fine up to $5,000 for the first day of the violation, with an additional fine of up to $1,000 for each additional day of violation.
Maryland
“(1) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person may not conduct or contract for animal testing in the development of a cosmetic.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, beginning July 1, 2022, a manufacturer may not sell or offer for sale in the State a cosmetic if the manufacturer knows or reasonably should have known that the final product or any individual component of the final product was developed or manufactured using animal testing that was conducted or contracted by or for the manufacturer or any entity that supplies, directly or through a third party, any ingredient used by a manufacturer in the formulation of a cosmetic on or after January 1, 2022.”
Exceptions:
“(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section do not apply to animal testing that is:
(1) Conducted or contracted to comply with a requirement of a federal or state regulatory agency if:
(i) The cosmetic or ingredient in the cosmetic that is tested is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient that is capable of performing a similar function in the product;
(ii) A specific human health problem relating to the cosmetic or an ingredient in the cosmetic is substantiated and the need to conduct animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed protocol for research that is proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient in the cosmetic; and
(iii) Animal testing is the only method of testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by the federal or state regulatory agency;
(2) Conducted or contracted to comply with the requirement of a regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction if: (i) No evidence derived from the testing was relied on to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold by the manufacturer within the State; and (ii) The testing was not conducted in the State; (
3) Performed on a cosmetic or an ingredient in a cosmetic subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
(4) Conducted or contracted to comply with a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory agency for purposes unrelated to cosmetics testing if:
(i) No evidence derived from the testing was relied on to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold by the manufacturer within the State; or
(ii) 1. Documentary evidence demonstrates that the intent of the test that was performed was unrelated to cosmetics testing; and 2. The ingredient that was the subject of the testing has been used for purposes unrelated to cosmetics for at least 12 months; or
(5) Performed on:
(i) A cosmetic that, in its final form, was tested on animals before January 1, 2022, whether or not the cosmetic is manufactured on or after January 1, 2022; or
(ii) A cosmetic ingredient that was sold in the State and tested on animals before January 1, 2022, whether or not the ingredient is manufactured on or after January 1, 2022, if any animal testing of the cosmetic ingredient after January 1, 2022, is conducted or relied on in accordance with this section.”
Penalties: A fine up to $5,000 for the first violation, with an additional fine of up to $1,000 for each additional violation.
Nevada
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, a manufacturer shall not import for profit, sell or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer if the animal testing was conducted on or after January 1, 2020.”
Exceptions:
“2. The prohibition in subsection 1 does not apply to animal testing that is conducted:
(a) To comply with a requirement of a federal or state regulatory agency if:
(1) The cosmetic or ingredient in the cosmetic which is tested is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient which is capable of performing a similar function;
(2) A specific human health problem relating to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated and the need to conduct animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed protocol for research that is proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; and
(3) There does not exist a method of testing other than animal testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by the federal or state regulatory agency.
(b) To comply with a requirement of a regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction, if no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within this State by the manufacturer.
(c) On any product or ingredient in the cosmetic subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, for purposes unrelated to cosmetics pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state or foreign regulatory agency provided that no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within this State by the manufacturer. If evidence from such testing was relied upon for that purpose, the prohibition in subsection 1 does not apply if:
(1) Documentary evidence exists of the intent of the test which was unrelated to cosmetics; and
(2) The ingredient that was the subject of the testing has been used for purposes unrelated to cosmetics for not less than 12 months before the earliest date of the testing.”
Penalties:NRS 598.0999 Civil and criminal penalties for violations
New Jersey
“No person or manufacturer shall sell or offer for sale in the State any cosmetic that was developed or manufactured using an animal test, if the test was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer on or after… the effective date” of P.L. 2021, CHAPTER 272 [November 8, 2021].
Exceptions:
c. The prohibitions in subsection b. of this section do not apply to cosmetics developed or manufactured using an animal test if:
(1) The animal test is required by a federal or State regulatory authority and:
(a) the ingredient that requires an animal test is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient,
(b) a specific human health problem is associated with the ingredient and the need to conduct an animal test on the ingredient is justified and supported by a research protocol, and
(c) there is no non-animal test 1method or strategy1 that is accepted by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority as a means to gather the relevant data; (
2) The animal test is conducted 1outside of the United States to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, if no evidence derived from the test is relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic pursuant to federal or State regulations; or
(3) The animal test is conducted on a product or ingredient subject to the requirements of chapter V of the federal “Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” 21 U.S.C. s.351 et seq. 1; or
(4) The animal test is conducted for non-cosmetic purposes pursuant to a requirement of a federal, State, or foreign regulatory authority. No evidence derived from animal testing after the effective date of [P.L. 2021, CHAPTER 272] may be relied upon to establish the safety of a cosmetic pursuant to federal or State regulation unless:
(a) there is no non-animal method or strategy recognized by any federal agency or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the relevant safety endpoints for the ingredient;
(b) there is documented evidence of the non-cosmetic intent of the test; and
(c) there is a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics at least one year prior to the reliance on the data.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection b. of this section do not apply to cosmetics that were sold in the State or tested on animals prior to January 1, 2020, even if the cosmetic is manufactured after that date The provisions of this section shall not apply to animal testing conducted on an ingredient or cosmetic if the testing took place prior to January 1, 2021 the effective date of [P.L. 2021, CHAPTER 272].
This section shall not prevent a manufacturer from reviewing, assessing, or retaining data resulting from animal testing.”
Penalties: A fine up to $1,000 for the first violation. “If the violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it continues constitutes an additional, separate, and distinct offense.”
New York
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell or offer for sale in the state, any cosmetic which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer if the animal testing was conducted after the effective date of this section.”
Exceptions:
“This section does not apply to animal testing that is conducted:
(A) as a requirement of any federal or state regulatory agency if:
(I) the cosmetic or an ingredient in the cosmetic which is being tested d is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient which is capable of performing a similar function; and
(Ii) a specific human health problem relating to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated and the need to conduct animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed protocol for research that is proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; And
(Iii) there does not exist a method of testing other than animal testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by a federal or state regulatory agency.
(B) as a requirement of any regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction, if no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within the state by the manufacturer.
(C) for any product or ingredient in a cosmetic which is subject to the requirements under 21 USC Subchapter V.
(D) for purposes not related to cosmetics as required by any federal, state or foreign regulatory agency, provided that no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within the state by the manufacturer, unless:
(I) documentary evidence exists that the intent of the animal testing was unrelated to cosmetics; and
(Ii) there is a history of the use of the ingredient unrelated to cosmetics for a minimum of twelve months.
4. This section does not apply to a cosmetic:
(A) if in its final form, such cosmetic was tested on animals before the effective date of this section, even if the cosmetic is manufactured on or after such date.
(B) if an ingredient contained in such cosmetic was tested on animals and sold in New York State before the effective date of this section, even if such ingredient is manufactured on or after such date.”
Penalties: A fine up to $1,000. “If the violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it continues constitutes an additional, separate, and distinct offense.”
Oregon
“A manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer.”
Exceptions:
(2) This section does not apply to a cosmetic that has been developed through use of a cosmetic animal test if the cosmetic animal test was conducted
(a) Pursuant to a requirement of a federal or state agency and all of the following apply:
(A) A specific human health problem in relation to the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent is substantiated;
(B) The need to conduct a cosmetic animal test is:
(i) Justified; and
(ii) Supported by a detailed research protocol, proposed as the basis for evaluation of the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent;
(C) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent; and
(D) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent is in wide use and, in the case of a cosmetic ingredient, cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function.
(b) Outside of the United States, pursuant to a legal requirement of a foreign regulatory authority, provided that evidence derived from the testing was not relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient.
(c) Pursuant to a requirement established by 21 U.S.C. 351 to 360fff-8.
(d) For a cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent intended to be used in a product that is not a cosmetic and conducted pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state or foreign regulatory authority, provided that evidence from the cosmetic animal test is not relied upon to substantiate the safety or efficacy of the cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient unless all of the following apply:
(A) There is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test; and
(B) There is a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics at least one year prior to any reliance on the cosmetic animal test to substantiate the safety or efficacy of the cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient.”
Penalties: A fine up to $5,000, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.
Virginia
“A. Except as provided in subsection B, no cosmetics manufacturer shall:
1. Conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing that occurs in the Commonwealth on or after January 1, 2022;
2. Manufacture or import for profit into the Commonwealth any cosmetic or ingredient thereof, if the cosmetics manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that the cosmetic or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted on or after January 1, 2022; or
3. Beginning July 1, 2022, sell or offer for sale within the Commonwealth any cosmetic, if the cosmetics manufacturer knows or reasonably should know that the cosmetic or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted on or after January 1, 2022.”
Exceptions:
“B. The prohibitions in subsection A shall not apply to cosmetic animal testing or a cosmetic for which cosmetic animal testing was conducted, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted:
1. To comply with a requirement of a federal or state regulatory agency and (i) the tested ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; (ii) a specific human health problem related to the cosmetic or ingredient is substantiated that justifies the need to conduct the cosmetic animal testing, and such testing is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetic or ingredient; and (iii) there does not exist a method of testing other than cosmetic animal testing that is accepted for the relevant purpose by the federal or state regulatory agency;
2. To comply with a requirement of a regulatory agency of a foreign jurisdiction, so long as no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold within Virginia by the cosmetics manufacturer;
3. On any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to the requirements of Subchapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.); or
4. Pursuant to a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory agency for a purpose unrelated to cosmetics, provided that either no evidence derived from such testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic or there is (i) documented evidence of a noncosmetic intent of the test and (ii) a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics for at least 12 months prior to such reliance.”
Penalties: A fine up to $5,000, with an additional $1,000 per day for each additional day of violation.
Washington
“Beginning January 1, 2025, it is unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer.”
Exceptions:
“RCW 69.05.020 does not apply with respect to cosmetic animal testing:
(1) Conducted outside of the United States in order to comply with a requirement of a foreign regulatory authority if no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of the cosmetic ingredient or cosmetic product being sold by the manufacturer in Washington;
(2) Conducted for any cosmetic or cosmetic ingredient subject to regulation under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 351 et seq., of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act;
(3) Conducted for a cosmetic ingredient intended to be used in a product that is not a cosmetic product and is conducted under a requirement of a federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority if no evidence derived from the testing was relied upon to substantiate the safety of a cosmetic sold in Washington by a cosmetics manufacturer, unless all of the following apply:
(a) There is documented evidence of the noncosmetic intent of the test; and
(b) There is a history of use of the ingredient outside of cosmetics at least 12 months before the reliance; or
(4) Requested, required, or conducted by a federal or state regulatory authority and each of the following apply:
(a) There is no nonanimal alternative method or strategy recognized by any federal or state agency or the organization for economic cooperation and development for the relevant safety endpoints for the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent;
(b) The cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent poses a risk of causing a specific human health problem that is substantiated and the need to conduct cosmetic animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation of the cosmetics ingredient or nonfunctional constituent; and
(c) That the cosmetic ingredient or nonfunctional constituent is in wide use and, in the case of a cosmetic ingredient, cannot be replaced by another cosmetic ingredient capable of performing a similar function.”
Penalties:A fine up to $5,000 for each violation.