Model Laws

An Act to Prohibit Animal Testing for Cosmetic Manufacturing


Read Commentary


Sec. 1. Purpose

To prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals by manufacturers and to require manufacturers to adopt non-animal testing methods (some already developed) in order to end the cruelty to animals and to bring more reliability and consistency to the process of testing cosmetics for safety. To prohibit the sale of personal care products and cosmetics that were tested on animals.


Sec. 2. Regulation

Except as specifically required by federal law or regulation, no cosmetic manufacturer shall conduct or have any other person conduct on its behalf, any test which involves the placing of a cosmetic in an animal's eye or on an animal's skin to measure its irritating effects, nor use any other traditional animal test method for which an appropriate industry accepted alternative test method exits.


It shall be unlawful to sell or offer for sale any cosmetic if the final product or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using animals for testing directly or through a contract with another facility after the effective date of this law.


The appropriate remedy for enforcing this section shall be either a civil action for injunctive relief and a fine of _______ or a criminal penalty of _______.


Sec. 3. Definitions

For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:


(1) "Animal" means any warm-blooded or cold-blooded vertebrate creature, and any other sentient being.


(2) "Cosmetic" means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, excepting those products considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be pharmaceutical products.


(3) "Traditional animal test method" includes but is not limited to the internal or external application or exposure of any cosmetic to the skin, eyes, or other body part of a live non-human vertebrate for purposes of evaluating the safety or efficacy of a cosmetic.


(4) "Manufacturer" means any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal relationship that produces chemicals, ingredients, product formulations, or products in this state.



Additional Commentary

An abundance of evidence proves that animal testing does not contribute to consumer safety, nor does it provide information for the effective treatment of injuries that may result from the use or misuse of a product. In fact, testing on animals does not accurately predict an allergic reaction in some humans, and some products that have been found to be safe on animals have caused serious problems when used by humans. Animal testing is not required by the U.S. Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, and cosmetic manufacturers are encouraged to use test techniques that do not use whole living animals.


There are many alternatives to animal tests now in use by the cosmetic industry. Some of these tests have been validated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, while others have been in use by the cosmetics industry for more than a decade. Major manufacturers of cosmetics and personal care items have ceased testing on animals altogether, while others have substantially reduced their reliance on animal tests.


To date, laws prohibiting the sale of animal-tested cosmetics have been passed in California, Illinois and Nevada, while legislation prohibiting the testing of cosmetics on animals in the state have been adopted in New Jersey, New York and Virginia. More legislation is being considered each year, while efforts on the federal level continue.



California: Cal.Civ.Code § 1834.9 (2002)


CA HLTH & S § 1650-1677 (2018)


Federal legislation, S.726 - Personal Care Products Safety Act (116th Congress, introduced 3/7/19)


ILGA SB 0241, Sent to the Governor 6/28/19


New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. § 4:22-59 (2007)


New York: N.Y. Pub Health Law § 505 (2014)


Nevada SB 197, Approved by Governor 6/1/19, Chapter 278.


Stacy E. Gillespie, A Cover-Girl Face Does Not Have to Begin with Animal Cruelty: Chapter 476 Gives Legal Force to Alternative Testing Methods, 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 461.


Vasanth R. Shenai, If Animal Rights Activists Could Write Federal Research Policy, 4 Animal L. 211.



[Return to Top]