What Cruelty-Free Labels Truly Mean
By Caiden Feldman | January 15th, 2026
“Cruelty-free” and “animal-free” labels are common on cosmetics and personal care products, but their meaning is highly variable. These claims reflect consumer concern about animal testing, but limited regulations mean the labels don’t always tell the entire story.
Many consumers assume these labels mean no animals were involved at any stage of production. In reality, standards differ: some labels only cover testing of the finished product, while others also include requirements for ingredients and supplier practices. Combined with varying regulations across countries, this means that similar labels can reflect very different practices.
Globally, only about 15% of cosmetic brands meet recognized cruelty-free standards. Regulations differ widely across regions: the European Union bans animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients, although certain products under REACH, the EU’s chemical safety law, may still require testing. China currently requires animal testing for some products, including sunscreens and hair dyes. Since December 2023, Canada has banned animal testing for cosmetics and prohibits unsubstantiated ‘not tested on animals’ claims. Some exceptions remain, for example, when animal-testing data already exists or was collected for non-cosmetic purposes. In many countries, no formal rules exist, highlighting just how inconsistent cruelty-free labeling can be globally.
Certification programs such as Leaping Bunny and PETA’s Ultimate Cruelty-Free List were created to help guide consumers toward cruelty-free products. While their intent is to provide clarity, these programs are not regulated, and requirements vary. Consumers should understand that not all certifications are equal. Leaping Bunny requires brands to document ingredient sources and supplier procedures in detail, while other programs may only verify that the finished product wasn’t tested on animals. Being aware of these differences helps consumers make informed choices and identify brands that truly minimize animal testing, rather than those that rely primarily on marketing claims; labels that appear identical may reflect very different processes, including reliance on outdated supplier information. While these programs aren’t perfect, they demonstrate progress toward improved ethical standards and transparency in the cosmetics industry.
Real progress will require regulations that address more than the final product, including ingredients, suppliers, and worldwide compliance, helping close the gaps that make cruelty-free labels misleading and confusing towards customers. In addition to stronger regulations, advances in scientific approaches, specifically New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), provide alternatives to animal testing while maintaining product safety. For example, some major cosmetic companies, like L’Oréal, use 3D human skin models to test irritation or allergenicity, while in silico models predict toxicity for ingredients before they ever reach a lab. These approaches not only reduce animal testing but also often produce results that are more directly relevant to humans, helping ensure products are both safe and ethical.
Consumers can make more informed choices by checking certifications, researching ingredient suppliers, and verifying whether products are sold in countries that legally require animal testing. This awareness helps shoppers align their purchases with their ethical values, even in a marketplace with inconsistent rules. Wider acceptance of NAMs, combined with clear regulations, would help ensure that cruelty-free labels truly reflect ethical practices.
Cruelty-free labels are meant to indicate the absence of animal testing, yet without consistent standards, they are often used more as marketing tools or financial opportunities than as reliable indicators of ethical practices. Making consumer expectations of cruelty-free labels a reality will require transparency, the adoption of scientific alternatives, and clear regulations.
References:
Bigley, K. (2025, March 31). Animal testing in the age of globalization. Harvard International Review. https://hir.harvard.edu/animal-testing-in-the-age-of-globalization/
L’Oréal does not test any of its products or any of its ingredients on animals. L’Oréal. (2025). https://inside-our-products.loreal.com/our-approach/our-alternative-methods-animal-testing
Ringler, A. (2025, October 10). What is leaping bunny certification?. Tangie. https://tangieco.com/blog/what-is-leaping-bunny-certified-and-how-does-it-benefit-you/?srsltid=AfmBOooTGm_xMvcZ5RvbnWQfwrH777lGPwqAWIjMhJz6TaFZow-z9YVR
Stephanie. (2023, October 30). 84.6% of top brands are animal testing in 2023 – statistics. Cruelty. https://crueltyfreeguide.com/news/statistics-animal-testing-brands/
Canada, H. (2023, December 4). Government of Canada. Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/cosmetics/animal-testing-ban.html
Cosmetics europe: Registration, evaluation, authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (reach). Cosmetics Europe -. (2025, May 8). https://cosmeticseurope.eu/policy-corner/registration-evaluation-authorisation-and-restriction-of-chemicals-reach/
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
