Simon Baker / Getty Images
Backlash to the animal testing required for FDA approval of sunscreen in the U.S. has grown, especially as viable alternatives have emerged. Many, from animal rights activists to members of Congress, are hopeful as the FDA commits to reducing animal testing.
By Kelly A. Dobos, MSc
For decades, animal testing was the primary way scientists determined whether chemicals, medicines or everyday products could be harmful. Before modern tools existed, it offered researchers a way to observe how a substance behaved in a whole living organism without putting people at risk. Animals were used because they share some biological similarities with humans and can develop similar reactions or diseases, making them practical stand-ins when testing on humans would be dangerous or unethical.
In the United States, sunscreen ingredients fall under the category of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, not cosmetics. That means the FDA requires companies to demonstrate that a new UV filter (active ingredient in a sunscreen) is safe before it can be sold. Historically, the only accepted way to gather this safety data was through animal studies, which were once the standard tools for checking irritation, toxicity, absorption and long-term health effects. These requirements were designed to protect consumers, but they rely on methods created decades ago.
Today, many experts and consumers are questioning whether this approach still makes sense. Critics argue that animal tests don’t always predict how humans will react and that scientific innovation has outpaced these older methods. At the same time, public frustration is growing. Countries like those in the European Union and regions such as South Korea have already approved a wide range of modern UV filters without relying heavily on animal testing. As Americans learn that U.S. sunscreen options lag behind largely because of these outdated testing rules, calls for change are becoming louder.
The good news is that scientists have created a variety of modern alternatives to animal testing, including:
- Lab-grown human skin models that allow researchers to study irritation and absorption without using animals.
- Computer-based models that predict how a chemical may behave inside the human body.
- Advanced cell-based tests that can screen for potential hazards earlier and more efficiently.
These methods can be faster, more relevant to humans — and far more humane. However, many of them are not yet fully validated, which means regulators cannot rely on them as the sole proof of safety. Some tests are also limited by their reliance on historical data and in their ability to mimic the complexity of an entire living organism. These new methods are promising, just not perfect replacements yet.
Still, the regulatory landscape is shifting. The FDA has shown increasing interest in these new approach methodologies (NAMs), a broad category of non-animal testing tools. Congress has also supported reducing animal testing in other areas of drug development, signaling a growing openness to modernization. While sunscreen regulations haven’t fully caught up, momentum continues to build. Scientists, physicians, advocacy groups and consumers are all urging the move toward updated safety assessments that protect public health without unnecessary animal use.
If this trend continues, the future of sunscreen innovation in the United States may rely far more on advanced, human-focused science and far less on outdated animal testing — while still ensuring the highest standards of safety and effectiveness.
Kelly A. Dobos, MSc, is a cosmetic chemist and educator based in Cincinnati, Ohio. With more than 20 years of experience developing beauty and personal care products, she has worked with iconic brands and now teaches in the University of Cincinnati’s Cosmetic Science program. Passionate about sunscreen science and formulation innovation, she also writes and speaks widely to make cosmetic chemistry accessible to both professionals and consumers.
