EPA: On Track to Phase Out Animal Testing

In its announcement, the EPA described a three-part strategy to meet that goal, and we’re pleased to report that the EPA is making progress on all three parts. That progress is especially timely: House Committee on Appropriations report language, proposed by the Physicians Committee, acknowledges the January 2026 recommitment, encourages the EPA to release an updated New Approach Methods (NAMs) Work Plan, and calls for a report on the agency’s progress toward reducing animal testing to achieve the 2035 phaseout.

Identify Alternatives to Animal Testing

By informing more reliable, relevant, and timely evaluations of chemical risk, nonanimal NAMs translate gold standard science into regulatory practice that better protects human health and the environment. On June 2, the EPA updated its list of acceptable alternatives to animal studies for the first time in five years, adding 13 NAMs. These include:

• a method to evaluate eye hazards with reconstructed human cells;
• a method to evaluate phototoxicity using a 3D human cell-based tissue model; and
• a computational approach to identify dermal sensitization hazard and potency using in vitro and in chemico test data.

In 2016, the Physicians Committee lobbied for the establishment of this list under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to encourage companies to use NAMs by providing confidence that the agency will accept them. We have consistently pressed for more frequent updates so that regulators and stakeholders have access to the newest alternatives.

The EPA also developed a nonanimal testing framework for identifying skin irritation and corrosion hazards that prioritizes data from human cell-based tissue models, an approach the Physicians Committee helped to develop.

Begin Using Nonanimal Alternatives to Evaluate Chemical Risk

The EPA is not only reviewing regulations and guidance to identify where NAMs can meet its information needs; it is already beginning to apply this gold standard science in chemical risk evaluations. In April 2026, the agency released four draft risk evaluations and hazard assessments for public comment and consideration by its independent science advisory committee. In these reviews, the agency:

• used a computational model to help calculate protective limits for skin exposure based on in vitro, in chemico, and other available information;
• concluded that new cancer studies would not add value to certain assessments because exposure limits based on other health concerns were already protective; and
• found that one chemical was not likely to cause cancer in humans after a literature review and gene expression analysis indicated that the biological mechanism was not relevant to humans.

These examples show how NAMs can help the EPA meet its statutory obligations by allowing the agency to review more chemicals in less time with fewer resources.

Encourage Stakeholders to Use NAMs

In addition to updating its list of acceptable alternatives to animal studies, the EPA launched a streamlined process for researchers, companies, and non-governmental organizations to nominate NAMs for inclusion in the list. The Physicians Committee has long advocated for stakeholder participation in identifying promising NAMs.

Finally, in March 2026, the EPA shared the latest on its commitment to phase out mammalian animal testing at the Society of Toxicology’s annual meeting, presenting courses, sessions and posters on a wide range of topics, including developing adverse outcome pathways, rethinking carcinogenicity assays, and using in vitro data to modernize chemical evaluations.

While we’re excited by this progress, we look forward to the update of the EPA’s NAMs Work Plan and progress report called for by the House Committee, as well as to the resumption of the agency’s NAMs Conference on the state of the science. The Physicians Committee will continue to engage with the EPA to help make the 2035 phaseout a reality.