...
By Jasmine Laws
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
While the use of animals to test the safety of cosmetic products in the U.S. is legal, a number of states have brought in laws to ban the practice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that animal testing in the cosmetic industry "may be used to establish product safety," and that in some cases, it "is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient."
However, there are now 12 states that have passed legislation to ban the use of the practice, according to a U.K.-based animal rights advocacy group, Cruelty Free International.
Read More on News
Why It Matters
Animal testing typically involves conducting scientific experiments on animals to determine any potential effects a chemical could have when used by humans. These experiments are carried out during the development of the product, and tend to measure the toxicity level of a chemical by observing reaction time on the animal.
This means that many animals are subjected to pain, as well as distress, and some may even be killed. A 2023 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture reveals that for many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to American bison, bats and many other species, pain is "not minimized."
What To Know
According to Cruelty Free International, the states that currently have bans on animal testing in the cosmetic industry are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.
Washington was the most recent state to pass legislation on the issue, which determines that it is "unlawful" for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale a cosmetic that has been "developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing."
The framework for most state's laws on animal testing in cosmetics is based on the Humane Cosmetics Act, a bill which aims to make it "unlawful to knowingly conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing that occurs in the United States."
There have been a number of versions of the bill since it was first introduced in 2014. The Humane Cosmetics Act 2025 was introduced in February and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
"We have been pushing for the passage of the Humane Cosmetics Act since its introduction in 2014, when we hosted the first Congressional briefing on the bill. Over the years, we have continued to champion the bill at federal level, building cross-party support and securing dozens of cosponsors," Cruelty Free International said in March.
"The current version of the Humane Cosmetics Act closely mirrors the model state legislation we developed through key agreements with the industry. This work has contributed to 12 states passing cruelty-free cosmetics laws and played a pivotal role in shaping the passage of Canada's cruelty-free cosmetics law in 2023."
However, there is some debate on whether the laws passed by the states themselves are actually effective in stopping animal testing in the cosmetic industry.
Dr. Paul Locke, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland told Newsweek that these laws may not be as effective in carrying out their purpose as they seem.
He said that the laws "exist on a continuum between symbolic and significant."
"Symbolic laws are important because they show that state legislators care about animal welfare and the public, by demanding that cosmetics companies get out of the business of testing on animals, but the laws themselves right now are much closer to the symbolic than they are to the significant," he said.
So while such laws are "important because states need to take a role in laboratory animal regulation," he said that the issue is more complex.
This is because a lot of the laws passed by states have a significant number of exceptions, Locke said.
"If you look at the Washington law, they have what they call a "ban," but then that's followed by a section of 'if you fall into one of these categories, the ban doesn't apply,'" he said.
"It's like if you want to block somebody from traveling down a road, you can either put up a cement barrier that blocks the road, or you can put up one orange cone," Locke added.
Locke said that because of all these exceptions it's "likely" that the law is "not a ban really." In order for the legislation to become more "significant" he said, "I think some of the exemptions need to be removed."
He also said that implementation was another issue with these laws, as they require a lot of money and resources to ensure the legislation is correctly followed by manufacturers.
Marc Bekoff, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado and author of a number of books on animal welfare, rights and behavior, takes a more upbeat view of the laws.
"I think they are effective in a few ways," he told Newsweek. "These bans mean that animals will no longer be used and suffer in these sorts of useless one-sided experiments that do absolutely nothing for them."
He added that he hopes the states which have passed such bans will "serve as examples for other states to follow and that the approximately 88 percent of cosmetic companies that still do cosmetic testing will also follow suit."
What People Are Saying
Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado told Newsweek: "There are a number of non-animal alternatives that cruelty-free companies use. These include doing skin-sensitivity tests on consenting human volunteers, using human skin, tissues, and cell cultures, and employing perhaps silco models."
He added: "I hope that other states will see that there is absolutely nothing to lose by banning cosmetic testing, that it is totally one-sided in that there is nothing in it for the animals—the hapless victims of these unnecessary and painful procedures—and that perhaps more people will buy their products because there is an ever-growing number of people who oppose animal testing and these bans call increasing attention to them. There are a good number of people who don't know that animals are tested for their cosmetics. As the late Gretchen Wyler once said, 'Cruelty can't stand the spotlight.'"
Dr. Paul Locke of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland told Newsweek: "Money needs to be made available so that the state can properly implement these laws so that there's somebody within the state hierarchy who's actually watching cosmetics testing."
He added: "We have good alternatives, we don't need to test on animals, and now it's with countries that require animal tests for cosmetics to reevaluate their laws and just take those laws off the table."
What Happens Next
This year's version of the Humane Cosmetics Act 2025 continues to be deliberated in the House.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines