If you wear makeup, you’ve likely seen sections of Sephora or Ulta dedicated to “cruelty-free” products, usually adorned with bunny logos. Most people know this term indicates a product wasn’t tested on animals. But what really is animal testing?
Essentially, the term refers to the use of non-human animals in experiments to test the safety of new medicines, drugs, and products. Topical tests, the image most of us associate with animal testing, are when products are directly applied to skin to check for irritation and absorption. Similarly, ocular tests are when products are applied to the eyes of animals to assess irritation. In medicine, acute toxicity tests are used to establish a safe dosage range before human trials can begin, while repeated-dose, or chronic, studies track the effects of a product over weeks or months. Injection-based studies in particular are common in drug development to mimic how a compound behaves in the human body. In 95 percent of cases, the animals tested are rodents and small mammals.
For decades, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that new drugs be tested on animals before human clinical trials could begin. This mandate remained in effect until 2022, when Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the requirement and instead allowed companies to submit alternative data, including computer simulations or cell-based tests. However, there has been little practical change since the passing of this act, as FDA reviewers weren’t instructed to stop requesting animal data, and no specific non-animal methods were guaranteed acceptance. Consequently, many drug makers continue testing on animals as much as they always have, and animal rights groups are pushing for an FDA Modernization Act 3.0 to actually enforce the phase-out and “make it the exception rather than the norm.”
The loudest debate over animal testing usually centers on cosmetics. Unlike vaccines, cosmetics are considered frivolous, making the suffering involved in captivity and injections harder for animal rights groups to justify. It’s also worth noting that the FDA doesn’t regulate the term “cruelty-free” at all. By the agency’s own account, phrases like “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” can appear on packaging freely, since neither term has a legal definition or enforced standard. For example, a company might not test its finished product on animals but still test the ingredients that make it up; they could still call the product “cruelty-free,” since there are no guidelines to stop this. Leaping Bunny, an independent certifier behind the familiar bunny logo, exists mainly to fill that regulatory gap and help consumers identify truly “cruelty-free” products.
In totality, the practice remains controversial and is undergoing much change at present. Critics argue that testing causes unnecessary physical and psychological suffering and should be avoided whenever possible; Proponents counter that it remains superior to testing directly on humans, and that alternative models don’t yet measure up to live testing. Whatever your opinion, animal testing reminds us to think critically.