Congress moves to end animal testing where alternatives exist
H.R. 6660 — Replace Animal Tests Act of 2025 · Filed by Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) · 6 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 11, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits companies from submitting animal-test data to federal regulators (FDA, EPA, USDA, CPSC) if a scientifically acceptable non-animal test method is available and accepted by the agency. It creates narrow exceptions for data generated before enactment, foreign regulatory compliance, and cases where the agency determines no suitable non-animal method exists. Companies that violate the rule face civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, and agencies must issue guidance within one year and publish annual reports on animal-test usage.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a mandate to use non-animal test methods when scientifically acceptable alternatives exist, paired with agency guidance and public reporting requirements. It is fundamentally a regulatory reform aimed at reducing animal testing while maintaining scientific rigor.
What the text implies
- Companies using non-animal methods may face lower regulatory approval timelines and reduced development costs, potentially accelerating product launches and creating competitive advantage for firms with in-house alternative-testing capacity.
- The bill's reliance on agency determination of 'scientific acceptability' creates regulatory discretion that could vary across agencies and over time, potentially creating compliance uncertainty for multiproduct companies.
- Public reporting of animal-test data by species, type, and purpose may expose proprietary testing strategies and competitive information, though the bill includes a carve-out for 'proprietary information.'
- The $10,000-per-violation penalty is modest relative to typical pharmaceutical and chemical development budgets, potentially creating weak deterrence for large corporations that might calculate violations as acceptable business costs.
- Agencies must revise regulations to eliminate animal-test requirements where non-animal methods are accepted, which may trigger litigation from companies invested in legacy animal-testing infrastructure.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill reduces unnecessary animal suffering by mandating use of scientifically validated alternatives where available, while preserving agency discretion to require animal testing when genuinely necessary. Citizens benefit from reduced animal cruelty, lower regulatory burden on companies (who can use cheaper, faster non-animal methods), and increased transparency through mandatory public reporting.
Who stands to gain
- alternative testing technology companies (in vitro, organ-on-chip, computational modeling firms)
- pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers (reduced testing costs and faster approval timelines)
- contract research organizations specializing in non-animal methods
Named in the bill
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), USDA (Department of Agriculture), CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission), ARE (Animal Research Ethics — mapped stock reference)
Where it stands
6 cosponsors: 6 Democrats.
- Dec 11, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Dec 11, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture and House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $17,500 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Jared Moskowitz, the sponsor, reported $678,646 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Cruelty Free International — $10,000 on 1 filing
- Last Chance for Animals — $7,500 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 13, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,793 characters) on Aug 17, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 13, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress moves to end animal testing where alternatives exist” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr6660 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.