Beyond the Lab: Legal Efforts to End Animal Testing and Advance Animal Rights
By Alyssa Jhingree ‘27
Animal testing has long been a contentious issue at the intersection of scientific progress and ethical responsibility. While scientific research has advanced dramatically—leading to lifesaving medications and treatments—this progress has often come at the expense of millions of animals subjected to laboratory experiments worldwide. However, society is increasingly recognizing the rights of animals to be free from unwarranted suffering and abuse, prompting the creation of laws that address this ethical dilemma. The legal frameworks surrounding animal rights highlight global efforts to balance scientific inquiry and the moral imperative to protect animals from cruelty.
Though concern for animal welfare has always been a societal concern, formal laws safeguarding were not established until the 19th century. The first significant legal breakthrough in animal rights came in 1822, when Britain passed the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, protecting cattle from abuse. This law set a precedent for broader legal protections, leading to the formation of various advocacy groups, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), which played an instrumental role in advocating for the ethical treatment and welfare of animals (1). The practice of animal testing began to gain traction in the 19th and early 20th centuries alongside the rise of biomedical science. Early researchers used animals to test new medical treatments, often without legal oversight. While some medical breakthroughs were made, the ethical costs were immense (2). By the mid-20th century, animal testing had expanded into industries such as cosmetics, household products, and chemicals—raising concerns about animal cruelty.
Over time, the growing public awareness of animal suffering, fueled by reports from animal rights organizations, media coverage, and public demonstrations, led to the establishment of comprehensive legal frameworks aimed at regulating and, in some cases, eliminating animal testing altogether. Countries such as the United Kingdom, members of the European Union, and select U.S. states have been at the forefront, introducing rigorous standards and outright bans on animal testing for certain industries, particularly cosmetics (3). The European Union, for example, has pioneered progressive laws with regulations like the Cosmetics Directive, which bans animal testing for cosmetics and their marketing within its borders, and the REACH Regulation, which encourages the use of alternative methods while permitting limited testing in specific cases. Both laws also prohibit the import of products tested on animals abroad (4). Meanwhile, countries such as China initially mandated animal testing for imported cosmetics but have recently introduced reforms to allow certain cruelty-free alternatives. In the United States, federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act provide basic protections by setting minimum standards for the housing, care, and treatment of animals used in research, exhibitions, and transportation (5). However, the Act remains limited in scope, as it excludes key groups like mice, rats, and birds—animals that constitute approximately 95% of those used in laboratory testing (5). This significant gap in federal protections leaves individual states to implement their own, often stricter, legislation. For instance, California and New Jersey have enacted bans on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, showcasing how state-level initiatives can drive progress in advancing animal welfare where federal laws fall short (6).
There is no binding treaty that universally governs animal rights or animal testing internationally, but various agreements and declarations have shaped the conversation. Though not legally binding, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) represents a global push toward recognizing the importance of animal welfare (7). Several organizations, such as the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), have also made efforts to establish guidelines for animal welfare, such as ensuring humane treatment during transportation, setting standards for veterinary care, and promoting alternatives to animal testing in scientific research. However, their reach is limited without global consensus. In the European Union, regulations on animal testing have become some of the most progressive in the world. The 2007 REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation and the 2013 EU ban on cosmetic animal testing set high standards for reducing animal suffering (4). The EU also prohibited the sale of cosmetic products tested on animals, even if the testing occurred outside the EU—signaling a solid stance against the practice. Several countries have similarly taken bold steps to legislate against animal testing, especially in nonmedical fields such as cosmetics and household products. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 governs the use of animals in scientific and medical research (8). This law requires researchers to follow the 3Rs Principle: Replace, Reduce, and Refine, which encourages researchers to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, replace animal models with alternatives where possible, and refine procedures to minimize animal suffering (9).
At the heart of the animal testing debate is the ethical question of whether it is justified to subject sentient beings to pain, suffering, and possibly death in the name of science. For centuries, using animals in experiments was considered a necessary evil—justified by the belief that scientific advancements, particularly in medicine, would ultimately save human lives. However, this utilitarian argument has increasingly been called into question (2). On one side, proponents of animal testing argue that it is essential for medical research. Many lifesaving drugs and treatments, such as vaccines and antibiotics, have historically relied on animal testing before they were deemed safe for human use. Those in favor also contend that, given the complexity of biological systems, animal models provide critical data that alternative methods cannot yet replicate (10).
On the other hand, critics, including animal rights advocates, argue that the use of animals in testing is fundamentally unethical. They believe that sentient beings should not be subjected to suffering, regardless of the potential benefits for humans (2). Additionally, with modern scientific advancements, opponents argue that alternatives to animal testing are now available, making the practice unnecessary and cruel. The development of alternatives to animal testing has gained significant momentum in recent years, driven by advances in biotechnology and a growing ethical consciousness. Vitro testing (which uses human cells and tissues) and computer modeling (silico methods) are two promising alternatives that reduce the reliance on animal models (2). Additionally, technologies such as organ-on-a-chip, a cell culture integrated circuit which simulates human organ systems, provide a more accurate and ethical means of testing new drugs and treatments than traditional animal testing.(12)
However, in comparison to its peer countries, the United States adopts a more divided approach. Passed in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) provides basic protections for animals used in research, setting minimum standards for their care and treatment. However, the law remains notably limited in scope, as it excludes mice, rats, and birds, which make up approximately 95% of animals used in testing (5). Additionally, while some states have enacted stricter animal welfare laws, there is no cohesive federal framework addressing animal testing comprehensively across industries, leaving significant gaps in protection.
In contrast, France has taken a more holistic approach to accountability with its Duty of Vigilance Law (2017). This legislation requires large companies to identify and prevent human rights violations and environmental harms, including animal cruelty, across their global supply chains (10). Though not exclusively focused on animal testing, this law creates an overarching framework that indirectly leads to better animal welfare practices, demonstrating how broader corporate accountability can influence animal protection measures.
The European Union has heavily invested in promoting alternatives to animal testing, funding initiatives like the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), which aims to accelerate the development, validation, and adoption of innovative testing methods that replace, reduce, and refine the use of animals in scientific research and regulatory testing (4). As technology advances, the need for animal testing will likely diminish, which has profound implications for both the legal landscape and animal welfare. Different industries have varying regulations regarding animal testing. Some, like cosmetics, are moving toward a cruelty-free future, while others, such as pharmaceuticals, still require testing on animals due to regulatory requirements.
In the pharmaceutical industry, animal testing is still a legal requirement in many countries, as regulators often demand animal data before approving drugs for human use (11). This presents a significant challenge for companies that are ethically opposed to animal testing but are legally bound to comply. However, the 3Rs Principle continues to push for reducing animal use in pharmaceutical research by encouraging the development of alternatives wherever possible (8).
In contrast, the cosmetic industry has made significant strides in banning animal testing. The European Union’s 2013 ban on cosmetic animal testing has set a global standard, and countries including India, Australia, and South Korea have followed suit with similar bans (4). This shift reflects changing consumer attitudes with increasing demands for cruelty-free products, ultimately driving companies to adopt alternative testing methods.
Biomedical research is deemed one of the most controversial areas of animal testing. While undeniable scientific advancements result from animal use in medical research, the ethical costs are significant. Efforts are underway to reduce the reliance on animal models in research, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States funding programs focused on alternative research methods (11). Still, change in this sector is gradual due to the complexity of the diseases being studied and the profoundly ingrained reliance on animal testing in biomedical research.
Regulating animal testing presents a challenge for policymakers, who must balance the need to protect animals with the demands of industries that rely on animal research for scientific progress. Striking the right balance requires collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society to create effective legal frameworks addressing both ethical and economic concerns. One promising approach is the development of public-private partnerships that promote ethical practices while advancing specific alternatives to animal testing (4). These partnerships can drive innovation in alternatives such as in vitro testing (using human cells and tissues to study biological responses), in silico methods (computer modeling and simulations that predict human reactions), and organ-on-a-chip technology (miniaturized systems that replicate human organ functions) (2). By pooling resources, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations can fund research into these alternative solutions, establish industry guidelines that prioritize cruelty-free methods, and enforce standards that reduce reliance on animal testing across various sectors.
The legal and ethical landscape surrounding animal testing is changing rapidly, with growing recognition that animals deserve protection from unnecessary suffering. Significant progress has been achieved through international agreements, national legislation, and corporate responsibility programs; however, considerable work remains (2). The future of animal testing will likely be shaped by continued technological innovation, shifting public opinion, and the ongoing efforts of advocates who believe that animals should not be abused or exploited. By strengthening legal frameworks, promoting alternatives to animal testing, and encouraging global cooperation, we can move toward a future where science and ethics coexist harmoniously—one where economic growth and scientific advancement no longer depend on the suffering of animals.
Endnotes
(1) Ryder, Richard. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg Publishers, 2000.
(2) Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. HarperCollins, 1975.
(3) European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products. Official Journal of the European Union, 2009.
(4) European Commission. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA).
(5) U.S. Government Publishing Office. Animal Welfare Act. Title 7 U.S. Code, Chapter 54.
(6) California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act. State of California, 2018.
(7) Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW).
(8) United Kingdom. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986.
(9) Russell, W.M.S., and R.L. Burch. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, 1959.
(10) Ruggie, John. "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework." United Nations.
(11) International Labour Organization. World Report on Child Labour: 2021.
(12) MIT Technology Review. "Is This the End of Animal Testing?" MIT Technology Review, June 21, 2024.
