Humane Cosmetics Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 1657

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Health

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2026-06-16T14:55:32Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Humane Cosmetics Act of 2025 aims to limit animal testing for cosmetics by prohibiting most such practices in the United States, promoting the use of alternative methods to evaluate safety and effectiveness. It seeks to reduce animal suffering while ensuring cosmetics remain safe for human use under federal oversight.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on Animal Testing: Starting one year after enactment, it is illegal to knowingly conduct or contract for animal testing on cosmetics within the U.S. "Cosmetic animal testing" is defined as applying or exposing a cosmetic product, ingredient, or incidental component (nonfunctional constituent) to a live non-human vertebrate (like a mammal or bird) to assess safety or efficacy for cosmetic use.
• Prohibition on Sales and Transport: After the same one-year period, it is illegal to sell, offer for sale, or transport across state lines any cosmetic developed or manufactured using animal testing conducted or contracted for in the U.S. after the effective date.
• Restrictions on Using Test Data: Evidence from animal testing after the effective date cannot be used to prove the safety of cosmetics, ingredients, or nonfunctional constituents under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act, the main U.S. law regulating food, drugs, and cosmetics). Exceptions apply if:
• The testing qualifies for an exemption (detailed below).
• For ingredients or nonfunctional constituents, no recognized non-animal alternative exists (as validated by federal agencies, an interagency committee, or the OECD, an international organization), and additional conditions are met, such as prior non-cosmetic use or specific exemptions.
• Entities can still review or keep old test data but cannot rely on new data for safety claims without meeting these rules.
• Exemptions:
• Testing done outside the U.S. to meet foreign government requirements.
• Testing requested or required by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who oversees the FDA) after a public process, including a finding of no alternatives, evidence of serious health risks, and no replaceable ingredients, plus a 60-day public comment period.
• Testing for products or ingredients regulated as drugs under the FD&C Act (e.g., medicated cosmetics).
• Testing for non-cosmetic purposes required by U.S. federal, state, or foreign regulators.
• Enforcement and Penalties: The FDA Secretary can impose civil fines up to $10,000 per violation, with each animal tested or each day of ongoing violation counting separately. The FDA can request records from manufacturers to verify compliance, and manufacturers must provide them promptly.
• State Law Preemption: States and local governments cannot enforce rules on cosmetic animal testing or data use that differ from this federal law; they must match its prohibitions and exemptions exactly. States also cannot require animal testing that violates the federal ban.
• Definitions: Key terms include "cosmetic" (as defined in the FD&C Act, covering items like makeup and lotions intended to beautify or cleanse), "nonfunctional constituent" (incidental ingredients not adding to the product's function, per FDA regulations), and "Secretary" (head of the Department of Health and Human Services).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces a nationwide ban on new animal testing for cosmetics, which was previously allowed under the FD&C Act without such restrictions. It adds specific timelines (one-year delay), data-use limitations, and exemptions not previously codified for cosmetics. It also preempts varying state laws (e.g., some states like California already limit animal testing), creating a uniform federal standard, and expands FDA authority to review records and impose targeted penalties for animal welfare in this sector.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The FDA gains new tools for enforcement, including record requests, public comment processes for exemptions, and penalty assessments, potentially increasing workload for oversight of cosmetics (a $100+ billion industry). It may foster collaboration with international bodies like the OECD for validating non-animal tests.
• On Citizens: Consumers benefit from reduced animal use in product development, aligning with growing public support for animal welfare, while maintaining safety standards through alternatives. It could lead to more innovative, cruelty-free cosmetics but might raise costs if alternatives are pricier.
• On International Relations: The exemption for foreign-required testing avoids trade conflicts, but U.S. companies may face challenges exporting to countries mandating animal data, potentially influencing global standards toward non-animal methods.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Cosmetics Industry: Manufacturers and suppliers must shift to non-animal alternatives (e.g., computer modeling or lab-grown tissues), facing compliance costs but opportunities for "cruelty-free" marketing.
• Animal Welfare Organizations: Groups advocating for reduced testing (e.g., those supporting the bill's sponsors) gain stronger federal protections.
• Consumers: Everyday users of cosmetics, who may see safer, ethically produced products but could experience short-term supply disruptions during the transition.
• FDA and Regulators: Directly responsible for implementation, exemptions, and enforcement.
• States and Local Governments: Limited in creating stricter rules, potentially reducing their regulatory flexibility.
• Researchers and Ingredient Suppliers: Impacted if they handle dual-use ingredients (cosmetic and non-cosmetic), requiring documentation of non-cosmetic intent.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens animal welfare under consumer product laws by integrating it into the FD&C Act framework, with clear enforcement mechanisms like fines and record access. It balances innovation by mandating alternatives where possible, potentially spurring research into validated non-animal methods.
• Constitutional: The preemption clause upholds federal supremacy over state laws (under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution), ensuring consistency but possibly limiting states' rights to address local concerns.
• Political: Bipartisan support (over 40 co-sponsors from both parties) reflects broad consensus on animal ethics, but implementation could spark debates over safety trade-offs or industry burdens, especially if exemptions are frequently sought.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

Cosponsors (124)

Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4], Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26], Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38], Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Scott, David [D-GA-13], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1], Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6], Rep. Bynum, Janelle [D-OR-5], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2] and 74 more

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
• 2025-02-27: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Humane Cosmetics Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-27 — PDF (8 pages)