Expert veterinary care for every stage of your pet’s life.
Emergency: 617-522-7282
Poison Control: 888-426-4435
Bringing pets and people together—for life.
Advocate for animals, volunteer, or get help for your pet with our compassionate community services.
The MSPCA encourages consumers to make conscientious choices about the personal care products they buy. Learn about our legislation to ban the sale of most cosmetics newly tested on animals.
Labels that say “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” are not regulated by the U.S. government. This means companies can define these terms themselves, and they often do so in very different ways. For example, a company might use the label even if:
The only widely accepted standard is the Leaping Bunny Program, which certifies that neither a product or its ingredients were tested on animals after a certain and that no future testing will occur. It also requires companies and their suppliers to sign pledges and undergo independent audits.
Animals have long been used to test the safety of cosmetics and household products, often through procedures that expose them to chemicals by skin, eye, or oral application. These tests aim to assess both short- and long-term health risks, such as toxicity or cancer potential. The species most commonly used include mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters.
However, animal tests do not always accurately predict human responses. Many scientists and consumers question the ethics, reliability, and necessity of continuing to use animals, especially for cosmetics, which are not required by U.S. law to be tested on animals in most cases. Worldwide, an estimated 500,000 animals are still used in cosmetics testing each year.
In the 1980s, public concern began to grow when consumers became more aware of tests like the LD50 and Draize eye test. In response, companies such as Revlon and Avon helped fund the development of alternative methods. The cosmetics industry later created the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins University, a leader in promoting humane science.
Scientific advances and economic incentives have also contributed to the shift. Alternatives such as in vitro methods, computer modeling, and the use of human volunteers or thoroughly-studied ingredients have improved both safety and efficiency. These methods are often cheaper, faster, and more predictive of human outcomes than animal tests.
The European Union banned animal testing for cosmetics in 2004, expanded the ban to ingredients in 2009, and prohibited sales of animal-tested cosmetics in 2013. Similar laws have passed in Israel, India, and Norway. Many other countries are working toward similar goals. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have also approved non-animal methods, including alternatives to the Draize test, and issued guidance reducing animal use in pesticide testing. Also, the federal Humane Cosmetics Act would prohibit animal testing for cosmetics in the U.S. and ban the sale of any product developed using animal testing. Similar legislation has also been introduced in several states.
Some companies have made strong commitments to avoiding animal testing and developing alternatives. Others have adopted partial or temporary policies. For example, in the 1990s, companies like Avon, Estée Lauder, and Procter & Gamble announced reductions in animal use, but some resumed testing to meet the requirements of overseas markets like China, where animal testing has historically been mandated.
At the same time, consumer demand has driven growth in truly cruelty-free brands, such as Avalon Organics, Kiss My Face, Burt’s Bees, and Tom’s of Maine. Retailers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s prioritize these products and many other grocery stores now carry them as well.
