Animal testing cosmetics rules in the EU, UK and US (2026)
Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the EU and UK, with no federal US ban. What the bans cover, the dates, REACH gaps and SCCS-accepted methods.
Animal testing cosmetics rules in the EU, UK and US
Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the EU and in Great Britain, with the EU ban on testing finished products in force since 11 September 2004. Both markets also ban sale where the test was done to meet cosmetics rules. REACH can still require animal tests for worker or environmental safety. The US has no federal ban, though several states ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals after a cutoff date.
The EU ban on cosmetic animal testing
The rules are in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. It sets four prohibitions:
- placing on the market cosmetics whose final formulation was tested on animals "in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation", using a method other than a validated alternative
- the same for ingredients or combinations of ingredients
- animal testing of finished cosmetic products within the EU
- animal testing of ingredients within the EU once validated alternatives listed in Regulation 440/2008 or Annex VIII must replace them
The bans took effect in stages. The Commission's page on the ban gives the dates:
| Date | What applied |
|---|---|
| 11 September 2004 | Testing ban on finished cosmetic products |
| 11 March 2009 | Testing ban on ingredients; marketing ban for all human health effects except three |
| 11 March 2013 | Marketing ban extended to repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics |
A test done outside the EU still counts when it was done to meet cosmetics rules. In its 2023 reply to a citizens' initiative, the Commission stated that "data generated through animal testing performed to meet cosmetics requirements of non-EU countries cannot be relied on in the EU for the assessment of cosmetics."
Article 18(2) keeps a narrow derogation for exceptional circumstances. A Member State may request one where serious concerns arise about the safety of an existing ingredient, and the Commission decides after consulting the SCCS. The ingredient must be widely used and cannot be replaced by another that does a similar function. The health problem, and the need for animal tests, must be substantiated and backed by a detailed research protocol.
Where REACH can still require animal tests
The cosmetics ban does not cover every animal test on a cosmetic ingredient. It covers tests done to meet the Cosmetics Regulation.
In October 2014 the Commission, in cooperation with ECHA, clarified that substances used only in cosmetics may still need animal tests under REACH for worker and environmental risks. Substances with other uses may be tested as a last resort, as the Commission's 2023 reply describes.
In Symrise v ECHA, T-655/20 (22 November 2023), the General Court dismissed the action and read Article 18(1) as covering only animal test results relied on in the product safety report. The appeals in C-78/24 P and C-79/24 P were not allowed to proceed by orders of 28 May 2024.
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) explains how these data affect cosmetic safety assessments. Its Notes of Guidance (Appendix 1) assume animal tests on ingredients developed for and used only in cosmetics fall under the Article 18 ban, even when ECHA required them under REACH. Those results cannot be used to show cosmetic safety. Data from other frameworks, such as food, medicines, or biocides, can be relied on, but Member States decide whether such data fall under the ban.
The Commission's plan to phase out animal testing in chemical safety assessments, C(2026) 3497, was adopted on 1 June 2026. It sets 22 actions, with short-term actions to be adopted or proposed in legislation by the end of 2029. It is not itself a new testing ban.
The UK rules
Great Britain kept the testing and marketing bans after Brexit. The GB version of Article 18, as replaced by SI 2019/696 Schedule 34 from 31 December 2020, says no cosmetic product may be placed on the market if its final formulation or ingredients "have been the subject of animal testing in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation". No animal testing of finished products or ingredients "may take place in the United Kingdom". There are no phase-in dates and no derogation. Article 18(1A) expressly allows "historic animal testing data". Breaching Article 18 is a criminal offence under the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013.
The licensing side is older. The UK banned animal testing of cosmetics and their ingredients in 1998, as a 2023 written statement recalls. That statement (HCWS779, 17 May 2023) added that "from today no new licences will be granted for animal testing of chemicals that are exclusively intended to be used as ingredients in cosmetics products". A few time-limited licences had been issued between 2019 and 2022 for REACH requirements. Home Office ASPA guidance (section 5.18) confirms project licences will not be granted for testing cosmetics. The 2025 statistics record no procedures for cosmetics testing.
The government's Replacing animals in science strategy of 11 November 2025 aims to phase out animal use in all but exceptional circumstances, and to use only validated alternatives for skin irritation, eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing by the end of 2026.
Northern Ireland follows the EU Regulation under the Windsor Framework. Under GB Article 5A, an NI-established responsible person who complies with it is treated as complying with GB Article 18 for qualifying Northern Ireland goods.
"Not tested on animals" claims
A "not tested on animals" claim must meet Article 20(3) in the EU and GB texts. A brand may say its product was not tested on animals only if the manufacturer and its suppliers have not carried out or commissioned animal tests on the finished product, its prototype or any ingredient. It also must not use any ingredient tested on animals by others to develop new cosmetics.
Cosmetics tested on animals in the US
There is no federal ban. The FDA says "The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety". MoCRA, signed on 29 December 2022, only states in section 3507 the sense of Congress that animal testing should not be used for cosmetic safety and should be phased out, with appropriate allowances. The Humane Cosmetics Act, H.R.1657, was introduced on 27 February 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It has gone no further.
State sale bans include Nevada and Illinois, covering tests on or after 1 January 2020. Virginia and Maryland ban sales from 1 July 2022 for tests on or after 1 January 2022. Washington's ban applies from 1 January 2025. This is not a complete list. Each statute has its own scope, exemptions and enforcement rules.
Non-animal methods the SCCS accepts
The current guidance is the 12th revision of the SCCS Notes of Guidance (SCCS/1647/22), adopted on 15 May 2023, with Corrigendum 2 dated 21 December 2023. A 13th revision is in preparation. The SCCS plenary minutes say that work includes criteria for treating a new approach method (NAM) as scientifically valid, or as qualified for a specific context of use.
The guidance says "Only validated non-animal methods/NAMs may be applied". Well-documented methods not yet validated are considered case by case, and animal data generated before the deadlines can still be used. EURL ECVAM, part of the Commission's JRC, coordinates validation at EU level.
The 12th-revision Notes of Guidance list these methods per endpoint. This table reflects that edition, not later OECD guideline updates. A listed method does not replace every test for its endpoint.
| Endpoint | Accepted non-animal approach |
|---|---|
| Skin corrosion | OECD TG 430, 431, 435 (in vivo TG 404 no longer allowed for cosmetics) |
| Skin irritation | TG 439, reconstructed human epidermis |
| Serious eye damage / eye irritation | TG 437, 438, 491, 460, 492, 492B, 494, 496, plus TG 467 defined approaches |
| Skin sensitisation | TG 442C, 442D, 442E, none stand-alone; TG 497 defined approaches (2-out-of-3, ITSv1, ITSv2) |
| Phototoxicity | TG 432 first tier, TG 498 second tier if positive, TG 495 optional pre-screen |
| Genotoxicity | TG 471 (Ames) plus TG 487 (in vitro micronucleus); TG 476 or 490 if Ames is unsuitable |
| Dermal absorption | In vitro TG 428 with the SCCS Basic Criteria |
| Acute oral toxicity | 3T3 NRU, only to identify non-classified substances |
Two clear negatives in the genotoxicity base battery mean no further testing. There's still no validated in vitro method for photo-sensitisation.
The Notes of Guidance also identify gaps in systemic toxicity methods. No validated full replacement exists for acute dermal or inhalation toxicity, repeated-dose toxicity, full-cycle reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity or full toxicokinetics. Cell transformation assays count only in a weight of evidence. The SCCS treats next-generation risk assessment, described as "human-relevant, exposure-led, hypothesis-driven", as a possible framework, and uses read-across and the threshold of toxicological concern case by case.
If you need the articles and SCCS sections behind a specific ingredient or claim, RegAffairs AI answers this question with citations to the source texts.