HB1657, the Humane Cosmetics Act of 2025, would substantially restrict cosmetic animal testing in the United States. Beginning one year after enactment, it would make it unlawful to knowingly conduct or contract for cosmetic animal testing in the U.S., and it would also prohibit the sale, offer for sale, or interstate transport of cosmetic products developed or manufactured using prohibited animal testing conducted after that effective date.
The bill also limits the use of animal-test data in determining the safety of cosmetics, cosmetic ingredients, and nonfunctional constituents under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It creates narrow exceptions where no recognized non-animal alternative exists, where the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes specified findings and follows notice-and-comment procedures, or where testing is required for non-cosmetic purposes or by foreign regulators. The bill authorizes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, allows the Secretary to request relevant records from manufacturers, and defines key terms such as cosmetic animal testing, nonfunctional constituent, and Secretary.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend the federal regulatory framework for cosmetics by sharply limiting domestic animal testing and by restricting reliance on animal-test data for cosmetic safety determinations. It would affect cosmetic manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, importers, and distributors, while preserving certain testing and data-use exceptions for foreign regulatory compliance, non-cosmetic regulatory requirements, and limited FDA-directed circumstances. The bill also includes a state preemption provision that would bar states and localities from imposing cosmetic animal-testing rules that differ from the federal standards or from requiring testing that the bill prohibits.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by the large bipartisan list of House cosponsors spanning both parties and a broad ideological range. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship pattern. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce indicate it is in the early legislative stage.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to center on the scope of the testing ban, the exceptions, and federal preemption of state law. Industry stakeholders may be concerned about compliance costs, limits on product development, and the recordkeeping and enforcement provisions, while animal welfare advocates are likely to focus on closing loopholes and ensuring the ban is meaningful. Another potential issue is the bill’s allowance for certain FDA-requested testing and foreign-regulatory testing, which may be viewed either as necessary flexibility or as an avenue for continued animal testing.