The US EPA expands its list of accepted non-animal testing methods. The global picture is getting clearer.
On 2 June 2026, the same week the European Commission published its roadmap for phasing out animal testing, the US Environmental Protection Agency quietly updated its official list of alternative test methods and new approach methodologies (NAMs) for chemical safety assessment.
The timing is coincidental but the direction is not. Across the world’s three largest regulatory markets, the shift towards non-animal testing methods is now happening in parallel.
What the EPA has done
The EPA has added 13 new in vitro methods and approaches to its list of accepted alternatives. These cover immunotoxicity, eye irritation, skin sensitisation, phototoxicity, endocrine disruption and fish toxicity. The list also now includes additional in silico tools and, for the first time, two decision frameworks providing structured guidance on how to apply non-animal methods for skin irritation and corrosion testing.
This is the third update to the list since it was first published in 2018. Importantly, it’s also the first time the EPA has included instructions for how stakeholders can nominate additional methods for inclusion. That’s a significant step because it opens the door for method developers and testing laboratories to actively contribute to expanding the list rather than waiting for the EPA to act.
Why this matters alongside the EU and UK announcements
Three things have now happened in quick succession. The UK government published its strategy for replacing animals in science in November 2025, committing to ending animal testing for skin and eye irritation by the end of 2026. The European Commission published its comprehensive roadmap on 1 June 2026, backed by EUR 49 million in dedicated Horizon Europe funding.
Each announcement comes from a different regulatory system with different legislative frameworks. But the direction of travel is the same everywhere: non-animal methods are moving from “accepted where available” to “expected as standard.”
For companies operating across multiple markets, this convergence is important. It means that investing in non-animal safety data isn’t just about compliance in one jurisdiction. It’s about building a testing strategy that works globally.
What’s on the list
Many of the methods now on the EPA list are ones that contract testing laboratories like ours perform routinely. Skin sensitisation methods including KeratinoSens and GARDskin. Eye irritation testing using reconstructed human cornea models. Skin irritation and corrosion using reconstructed human epidermis. These are validated, established methods with years of regulatory acceptance behind them.
The addition of decision frameworks is particularly welcome. One of the practical barriers to adoption has always been that companies and regulators lack clear, step-by-step guidance on when and how to use non-animal methods.
What it means in practice
If you’re registering chemicals in the US, the EU, or the UK, the regulators in all three markets are now actively encouraging the use of non-animal methods. The science is ready for many endpoints. The regulatory acceptance is following. And the gap between the two is closing faster than most people in the industry realise.
If you’re wondering what this means for your testing strategy, or you want to understand which of your current animal tests could already be replaced, we’re happy to have that conversation.
———
Contact us if you’d like to learn how you can support our mission, become a corporate sponsor or donate to our crowdfunder.
Email info@x-cellr8.com
Call +44 (0)1925 607 134.
Follow Us!