Committee reviews bill requiring Vermont product testers to prioritize non-animal methods

Representative Emily Krasnow told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry that H.14 would require companies that test products to prioritize non‑animal testing when approved alternatives exist and to report annually on animal use.

"For decades, animals have been subjected to cruel and painful experiments for the creation of cosmetic products," Krasnow said, arguing modern human‑cell‑based tests and computational methods make many traditional animal tests unnecessary. She described H.14 as a law that "requires companies that test products, including cosmetics, household products, pesticides, drugs, vaccines, or industrial chemicals to prioritize non‑animal test methods when they are developed and available, [and] are approved by federal agencies as acceptable alternatives to traditional animal tests."

The bill, as explained to the committee by Katie McGlenn of the Office of Legislative Council, would create a new subchapter titled "Use of Animals in Product Testing" with definitions, prohibitions, carve‑outs and reporting requirements. Under the draft language, a product testing facility operating in Vermont "shall not use a traditional animal test method" if a state or federal agency responsible for that product has approved an alternative non‑animal test or granted a waiver. When no alternative or waiver exists, the bill directs facilities to use traditional animal tests only using the fewest animals possible and with steps to reduce pain and stress.

McGlenn said the bill specifically carves out biomedical research — defined in the draft as investigation of biological processes, disease causes, or fundamental scientific knowledge — and does not override a state or federal law that requires a traditional animal test. She summarized the bill's data requirements: on or before Feb. 1 each year, product testing facilities operating in Vermont must submit to the Office of the Attorney General the number and species of animals used in traditional tests, the number and types of alternative methods used, the number of waivers, and the purpose of any tests or waivers. The attorney general must publish the results on its website within 90 days of receipt.

The draft ties violations to the Consumer Protection Act, giving the attorney general rulemaking and enforcement authority and creating a private right of action with potential treble damages, McGlenn said. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, under the version shown to the committee.

Committee members pressed on scope and unintended impacts. Representative Richard Nelson asked, "Will this have impact on, like, if UVM does cancer research, will it have impact on other types of things like that?" Krasnow and staff responded that biomedical research is carved out and that the bill targets testing done to assess safety or efficacy of chemicals, ingredients, drugs, vaccines, product formulations or finished products rather than fundamental biological research. Members also asked whether the draft defines "product" (McGlenn said it does not explicitly define the term in the draft) and whether facilities located outside Vermont but whose products are sold in the state would be covered (staff said the focus is on facilities operating in the state).

Members referenced recent news items about botched animal research at Middlebury and asked whether the bill would help track similar incidents; Krasnow said another important purpose of the bill is to gather data that currently are not required to be reported. Representatives also noted that four other states — Virginia, New Jersey, New York and California — have enacted similar laws and that Massachusetts is considering related legislation.

No formal vote was taken in the hearing record before the committee concluded its questions. Krasnow and legislative staff said the committee could amend definitions and scope during committee deliberations.

The committee discussion combined technical definitions (what qualifies as an alternative test method, the draft's definition of "animal" as a non‑human vertebrate), enforcement mechanics (Consumer Protection Act enforcement and private litigation remedies) and data‑collection provisions (annual reporting to the attorney general and public posting of results).