This session, the Massachusetts legislature will consider (1) bills that require the use of animal alternatives when available and also (2) bills to ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals! Join the Animal Action Team to stay in the loop on how you can help.
Product Safety Testing
Background
In 1933, more than a dozen women in the United States were blinded and one woman died after using a new mascara product called Lash Lure. At the time, there were no laws requiring manufacturers to verify the safety of cosmetics or household goods. This tragedy helped prompt the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which mandated that products be shown to be safe for human use before they could be marketed.
Animal testing quickly became the default method for establishing product safety, based on the idea that animals are biologically similar enough to humans to accurately predict human reactions. Over time, this approach became standard practice for evaluating the safety of not only cosmetics, but also pesticides, cleaning agents, pharmaceuticals, and other chemical products.
Animal Use in Testing
Exact figures are difficult to determine. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)—the primary federal law regulating animal use in laboratories—excludes mice, rats, and birds, who collectively make up over 95-99% of animals used in research and testing. It’s estimated that millions of animals are used globally each year in product safety testing.
Commonly used species include mice and rats, as well as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, birds, and fish. In safety tests, chemicals are applied in various ways: directly to shaved skin or eyes, fed through food or water, inhaled, or absorbed through water in aquatic environments. A separate group of animals—the control group—is not exposed to the substance. Researchers then compare outcomes between the exposed and control groups.
In testing, some animals experience minimal discomfort while others endure moderate pain or prolonged distress, especially in chronic or lethal-dose studies. Factors influencing the extent of harm include the type of test, the availability of pain relief, housing conditions, and whether the animals are euthanized at the end of the experiment, which is often the case in acute or long-term studies. Testing can also be highly resource-intensive. A single pesticide may require over 50 separate animal-based studies and up to 12,000 animals.
Toxicology and Test Types
Toxicology is the study of how chemical substances affect living organisms. Testing evaluates the risks posed by substances to humans, animals, or the environment, focusing on clinical “endpoints” like eye or skin irritation, reproductive harm, neurotoxicity, or cancer.
Toxicity tests fall into three main categories. Acute toxicity tests assess the effects of short-term exposure. These include the LD50 test, which estimates the dose of a substance needed to kill 50% of test animals, and the Draize eye and skin tests, in which chemicals are applied to rabbits’ eyes or shaved skin to assess irritation or damage.
Subchronic tests measure the effects of repeated exposure to a chemical over a period of weeks or months—typically less than 10% of an animal’s natural life span. These tests often involve rats and are used to evaluate substances such as food additives or ingredients in personal care products like skin lightening creams. Animals are usually killed at the end of the exposure period for further examination.
Chronic toxicity tests evaluate the effects of long-term exposure, typically at low levels over a substantial portion of an animal’s life. These tests explore risks such as cancer, birth defects, and developmental abnormalities, and also study how a chemical is absorbed, metabolized, and excreted. Lifetime feeding studies in rats or mice, lasting 18 to 24 months, are common examples. Like subchronic tests, chronic studies typically end in euthanasia for tissue analysis.
Public Opposition to Animal Testing
Public support for ending animal testing has grown and as a result, which is one of the factors driving a reduction of animal use in cosmetics and personal care product testing. A 2018 Pew Research Center poll found that 52% of U.S. adults opposed animal use in research. A 2022 survey of Massachusetts voters reveals that 75% support requiring companies in the Commonwealth to use methods that don’t use animals so long as such an alternative is available.
In response to public concern, Major manufacturers, such as L’Oréal and Procter & Gamble, have developed human-based alternatives that are now used by smaller companies marketing “cruelty-free” products. L’Oréal’s EPISKIN, for example, is a reconstructed human skin model validated as a replacement for skin irritation testing. These innovations show that safe products can be developed without animal suffering—and often more efficiently.
Advancements in Alternative Testing
Scientific innovation has made it increasingly possible to replace animal tests with alternatives that are faster, more accurate, and less expensive. In vitro testing, for example, uses cultured human cells and tissues to replicate biological functions in ways that often yield more relevant data than animal tests. In silico modeling—computer-based simulations—allows researchers to predict toxicity based on chemical structure and properties.
Another promising area is organs-on-chips, which are tiny devices lined with human cells that mimic the behavior of specific organs such as the liver, lungs, or heart. In addition, researchers are increasingly using 3D-printed human tissues and organoids to study complex biological responses in human-like systems. There are also financial incentives to reduce animal testing: replacing the rabbit Draize test with a human skin model such as EpiDerm can reduce costs from $1,800 to around $850.
While these alternatives may not completely eliminate animal use in early stages of testing, they also play a critical role in reducing the number of animals used and refining the conditions under which tests are performed in later stages.
Laws and Regulations
Recent laws and agency policies reflect a growing commitment to non-animal methods. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, passed in 2016, directs the EPA to reduce and replace vertebrate animal use and maintain a public list of validated alternatives. The EPA has also pledged to eliminate mammal use in its own studies and funding requirements by 2035. In addition, the agency has issued guidance to reduce or eliminate testing on birds and fish in the pesticide registration process.
The FDA requires product labeling when a cosmetic’s safety has not been demonstrated and encourages the use of validated non-animal tests. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which oversees products like household cleaners and toys, still relies heavily on animal data—especially rabbits used in eye irritation tests—but allows companies to submit alternative safety data. Meanwhile, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which sets worker protection standards, continues to rely largely on animal testing but supports chemical substitution strategies that reduce harm.
Several U.S. states have taken legislative action. California, New York, Virginia, and Washington all ban the sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals. In 2025, Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: SD 1640 / HD 1914 would require the use of non-animal methods when available for product safety evaluations, and SD 2265 / HD 1908 would ban the sale of most cosmetics newly tested on animals.
Globally, the European Union’s Directive 2010/63/EU mandates the use of scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods whenever possible. The directive also aims to institutionalize the Three Rs — Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement — within European law. However, other international laws impede the expansion of cruelty-free products. In China, where laws require that cosmetics are tested on animals before they can be approved.
ICCVAM and International Collaboration
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) was established in the 1990s to coordinate federal efforts to evaluate and promote alternatives to animal testing. Member agencies include the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and CPSC. ICCVAM is responsible for setting validation standards, reviewing alternative methods, encouraging regulatory acceptance, and helping to reduce duplicative testing across agencies.
Among the approved alternatives are the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), which tests for skin allergies using fewer animals and less painful procedures than older methods. Other examples include Corrositex, which replaces rabbit skin tests with synthetic membranes; the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test; and the Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) test, both of which use tissues from slaughterhouses rather than live animals.
ICCVAM collaborates internationally through the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM), which includes the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), Japan’s JaCVAM, and Health Canada. These collaborations help align validation efforts across countries and reduce redundant testing.
Although ICCVAM has made important progress, it has been criticized for its slow pace and limited emphasis on full replacement of animal testing. In 2018, ICCVAM released a strategic roadmap to accelerate the adoption of alternatives, especially in cosmetics testing. Its long-term goals include fostering regulatory acceptance, strengthening partnerships, and advancing the use of humane and scientifically valid alternatives.
