REGULATORY ASPECTS OF COSMETIC PRODUCT TESTING AND THE ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS IN MODERN STRATEGIES

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2601064K

Keywords:

regulatory frameworks, cosmetic product testing, new approach methodologies (NAMs), weight-of-evidence, zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Abstract

Modern regulatory frameworks in the field of cosmetic products increasingly promote the use of alternative methodologies (New Approach Methodologies, NAMs) based on in vitro, ex vivo, and in silico approaches, accompanied by strict limitations or complete bans on animal testing. In such a regulatory environment, interest is growing in models capable of bridging the gap between cellular systems and complex in vivo studies. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos have been recognized as a potential bridging model due to their high biological relevance, testing versatility, and the more favorable ethical status of early developmental stages. This paper provides a systematized overview of regulatory frameworks in the EU, the USA, Asia, and Serbia, highlighting the degree of acceptance of alternative methods and the specific status of zebrafish in the context of the safety assessment of cosmetic products and ingredients. It analyzes the scientific advantages and limitations of the zebrafish model, including genetic similarity to humans, embryonic transparency, and rapid development, as well as limitations that restrict its use as primary evidence in regulatory documentation. The comparative analysis indicates that zebrafish are most appropriately used as a supplementary source of data within weight-of-evidence and NAM-oriented strategies, particularly in early-stage hazard screening and the mechanistic understanding of the effects of new bioactive substances. In line with international trends and the harmonization of the national regulatory framework with EU requirements, the findings suggest that zebrafish embryos represent a valuable research and development tool, but not a substitute for validated methods that form the basis of regulatory safety assessment of cosmetic products.

References

Baltazar, M. T., Cable, S., Carmichael, P. L., Cubberley, R., Cull, T., Delagrange, M., Dent, M. P., Hatherell, S., Houghton, J., Kukic, P., Li, H., Lee, M. Y., Malcomber, S., Middleton, A. M., Moxon, T. E., Nathanail, A. V., Nicol, B., Pendlington, R., Reynolds, G., Reynolds, J., White, A., & Westmoreland, C. (2020). Next Generation Risk Assessment Case Study for Coumarin in Cosmetic Products. Toxicological Sciences, 176(1), pp. 236–252. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa048

Barthe, M., Bavoux, C., Finot, F., Mouche, I., Cuceu Petrenci, C., Forreryd, A., Cherouvrier Hansson, A., Johansson, H., Lemkine, G. F., & Thenot, J. P. (2021). Safety Testing of Cosmetic Products Overview of Established Methods and New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). Cosmetics, 8(2), p. 50. DOI: 10.3390/cosmetics8020050

Bauer, B., Mally, A., & Liedtke, D. (2021). Zebrafish Embryos and Larvae as Alternative Animal Models for Toxicological Testing. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(24), p. 13417. DOI: 10.3390/ijms222413417

CMS. (2025). CMS Expert Guide on Beauty, Serbia. Downloaded 2025, October 3 from https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guideon-beauty/serbia

Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation [CSAR]. (2021). Downloaded 2025, October 5 from https://gest.healthlawasia.com/uploads/regulations/regulations-on-the-managment-and-supervision-ofcosmetics-2-4.pdf

Cronin, M. T. D., Enoch, S. J., Madden, J. C., Rathman, J. F., Richarz, A. N., & Yang, C. (2022). A Review of In Silico Toxicology Approaches to Support the Safety Assessment of Cosmetics Related Materials. Computational Toxicology, 21, 100213. DOI: 10.1016/j.comtox.2022.100213

Cruelty Free International. (2018). Korea announces ban on animal testing for cosmetics. Downloaded 2025, October 15 from https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/south-korea-implements-animaltesting-ban-will-united-states-follow/

EU SME Centre. (2021). Update on new regulations and animal testing exemption for cosmetics in China. Downloaded 2025, October 15 from https://www.eusmecentre.org.cn/publications/update-on-new-regulationsand-animal-testing-exemption-for-cosmetics/

European Commission. (2013). Ban on animal testing. Downloaded 2025, October 13 from https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cosmetics/ban-animal-testing_en

European Union Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing [EURL ECVAM]. (2014). Zebrafish Embryo Acute Toxicity Test method. Downloaded 2025, November 3 from https://joint-researchcentre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-activities/reference-and-measurement/european-union-reference-laboratories/eu-reference-laboratoryalternatives-animal-testing-eurl-ecvam/alternative-methods-toxicitytesting/validated-test-methods-health-effects/aquatic-toxicity/acute_en

Government of India, Press Information Bureau. (2014). Ban on Testing of Cosmetics on Animals, Gazette notification G.S.R. 346(E)

Howe, K., Clark, M. D., Torroja, C. F., Torrance, J., Berthelot, C., Muffato, M., Collins, J. E., Humphray, S., McLaren, K., Matthews, L., McLaren, S., Sealy, I., Caccamo, M., Churcher, C., Scott, C., Barrett, J. C., Koch, R., Rauch, G. J., & White, S. (2013). The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature, 496(7446), pp. 498–503. DOI: 10.1038/nature12111

Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods [JaCVAM]. (2020). Mandate and role in the validation of alternative methods relevant to cosmetic standards. Downloaded 2025, November 5 from https://www.jacvam.go.jp/en/index.html

Lawrence, C. (2007). The husbandry of zebrafish (Danio rerio) – A review. Aquaculture, 269(1-4), pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.04.077

MacRae, C. A., & Peterson, R. T. (2015). Zebrafish as tools for drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 14(10), pp. 721–731. DOI: 10.1038/nrd4627

Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare [OLAW]. (2021). The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). Test No. 236 Fish Embryo Acute Toxicity (FET) Test. OECD Test Guidelines

Penberthy, W. T., Shafizadeh, E., & Lin, S. (2002). The zebrafish as a model for human disease. Frontiers in Bioscience, 7(1-3), pp. 1439–1453. DOI: 10.2741/penber

Pravilnik o kozmetičkim proizvodima [Rulebook on Cosmetic Products]. Službeni glasnik RS, br. 60/19, 47/22, 21/23

Qu, J., Yan, M., Fang, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, T., Liu, F., Zhang, K., He, L., Jin, L., & Sun, D. (2023). Zebrafish in dermatology a comprehensive review of their role in skin research. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, 1296046. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1296046

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. (2009). Downloaded 2025, October 1 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1223/oj/eng

Robinson, M. K., McFadden, J. P., & Basketter, D. A. (2001). Validity and ethics of the human 4h patch test. Contact Dermatitis, 45(1), pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.045001001.x

Russo, I., De Maio, C., Cavaliere, R. C., Imbimbo, B. P., Marchese, G. C., Ceccato, M., Garofalo, L., Mosca, M., Colombo, A. L., & Porro, A. M. (2022). The Zebrafish model in dermatology an update for clinicians. Discover Oncology, 13(1), p. 48. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-022-00511-3

Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety [SCCS]. (2015). Memorandum on use of Human Data in risk assessment of skin sensitisation. Downloaded 2025, November 19 from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/memorandum-use-human-data-risk-assessment-skin-sensitisation_en

Silva, R. J., & Tamburic, S. (2022). A State of the Art Review on the Alternatives to Animal Testing for the Safety Assessment of Cosmetic Ingredients. Cosmetics, 9(5), p. 90. DOI: 10.3390/cosmetics9050090

Steptoe. (2018). California Bans Cosmetics Tested on Animals. Downloaded 2025, November 15 from https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/california-bans-cosmetics-tested-on-animals.html

Strähle, U., Scholz, S., Geisler, R., Greiner, P., Hollert, H., Rastegar, S., Schumacher, S., Selderslaghs, I., Weiss, C., Witters, H., & Braunbeck, C. (2012). Zebrafish embryos as an alternative to animal experiments. A commentary on the definition of the onset of protected life stages in animal welfare regulation. Reproductive Toxicology, 33(2), pp. 128–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.06.121

Streisinger, G., Walker, C., Dower, N., Knauber, D., & Singer, F. (1981). Production of clones of homozygous diploid zebra fish. Nature, 291(5813), pp. 293–296. DOI: 10.1038/291293a0

U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. (2022). Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). Downloaded 2025, December 1 from https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernizationcosmetics-regulation-act-2022-mocra

Whiteley, A. R., Zhao, F., Dasilva, E. S., Braasch, C. M., Stremick, M. J., Berim, M. M., Linney, C. H. L., Guo, J., Coombs, C. S., Ellis, J. K., Bridges, R. T., Kimble, M. J., Carty, K. L., Emmons, P. J., Boyce, M. D., Lynch, W. T. J., Tsai, C. H., & Schilling, K. A. (2011). Population genomics of wild and laboratory zebrafish (Danio rerio). Molecular Ecology, 20(20), pp. 4259–4276. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05272.x

Zakon o dobrobiti životinja [Animal Welfare Act]. Službeni glasnik RS, br. 41/09

Zakon o predmetima opšte upotrebe [General-Use Products Act]. Službeni glasnik RS, br. 25/19, 14/22

Zon, L. I., & Peterson, R. T. (2005). In vivo drug discovery in the zebrafish. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4(1), pp. 35–44. DOI: 10.1038/nrd1606

Published

2026-04-09

How to Cite

Katona , G., Vojvodić, S., & Stojiljković, D. (2026). REGULATORY ASPECTS OF COSMETIC PRODUCT TESTING AND THE ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS IN MODERN STRATEGIES. Law - Theory and Practice, 43(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2601064K