Humane Cosmetics Testing Act

Summary#

This bill, the Humane Cosmetics Act of 2025, would sharply limit the use of live-animal testing for cosmetics in the United States. It would ban most cosmetic animal testing and bar the interstate sale or transport of cosmetics developed using such testing. The bill aims to move safety testing away from animal experiments and toward non-animal methods, while creating narrow exceptions.

• Main change: Starting one year after the bill becomes law, it would be unlawful to conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing in the U.S., and unlawful to sell or transport in interstate commerce a cosmetic developed using such testing done after that date.
• Data rule: Evidence from animal tests done after the effective date generally cannot be relied on to show a cosmetic is safe, unless specific exemptions apply.
• Exemptions: Include testing done outside the U.S. to meet a foreign regulator; testing the HHS Secretary requests after a public finding and comment process; testing for products/ingredients regulated under another part of the law; and testing done for non-cosmetic regulatory purposes.
• Enforcement: HHS may impose civil fines up to $10,000 per violation; each animal and each day of a continuing violation counts separately.
• Records and preemption: HHS can request records from manufacturers; states cannot impose animal-testing rules that differ from the federal law or require testing the federal law forbids.

What it means for you#

• Cosmetic manufacturers and ingredient suppliers

  • Must stop conducting or contracting for cosmetic animal testing in the U.S. after one year.
  • Cannot sell or ship in interstate commerce cosmetics developed using U.S. animal testing done after that date.
  • May need to provide records to the HHS Secretary if relying on certain exemptions (for example, showing an ingredient was used outside cosmetics at least one year before relying on animal data).
  • Could face civil penalties up to $10,000 per violating animal and per day if they break the law.

• Testing laboratories

  • Labs that do animal testing for cosmetics in the U.S. would lose that work unless an exemption applies.
  • They could still perform testing outside the U.S. to meet foreign regulatory requirements, under the bill’s exemption for foreign compliance.

• Consumers

  • The bill does not directly change what consumers can buy at the state or local level, but it would limit sales and transport across state lines for cosmetics developed using covered animal tests done after the effective date.

• Federal government (HHS / FDA)

  • The Secretary of Health and Human Services would get new powers to grant narrow exemptions, publish findings, take public comments, request records, and impose penalties.
  • The Secretary must publish a written finding and allow at least 60 days for public comment before requiring new animal tests in the U.S.

• States

  • States may not have different or stricter rules about cosmetic animal testing or data use than this federal law. States also may not require testing that the federal law forbids.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill text does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
• This could mean additional administrative and enforcement costs for HHS to review requests, publish findings, manage public comment, request and review industry records, and impose penalties.
• Manufacturers and testing labs could incur compliance costs, recordkeeping costs, and potential costs to shift testing outside the U.S. or to develop or validate non-animal methods. These are possible impacts inferred from the bill text, not quantified by the bill.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to substantially reduce or end live-animal testing for cosmetics in the United States.
• A possible argument for the bill is that it encourages the use of non-animal testing methods and reduces reliance on animal experiments.
• The bill establishes a clear national standard, which could prevent a patchwork of different state rules.
• The public-comment requirement for any new animal testing requested by the Secretary creates a formal review before animal tests are allowed.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that banning use of animal-test data could create gaps in safety information for some ingredients if non-animal alternatives are not available or validated for certain endpoints.
• The bill’s exemptions and the process the Secretary must follow are detailed but may leave questions about how often, under what exact evidence, and how quickly exemptions would be granted.
• The law could push companies to do animal testing abroad to meet foreign regulators, rather than remove animal testing from the supply chain entirely.
• Preempting state laws means states cannot adopt stricter rules; some might view that as limiting local policy choices.
• Record requests and data reviews could raise confidentiality or commercial-information concerns for companies; the bill does not specify protections for proprietary data.