Every new pesticide that reaches the market costs roughly 20,000 animal lives before it goes on sale, according to a new peer-reviewed paper published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Rats, rabbits, and dogs are dosed with chemicals, studied for toxic effects, and eventually killed. These toxicity tests used to assess these chemicals, however, largely date back to the 1950s and 1960s.
Other countries moved away from this system years ago. India was still running the same tests.
Pesticides are chemicals that kill insects, weeds, and fungi. And India is ranked as the world’s third-largest exporter and fourth-largest producer of generic pesticides, in a market projected to grow from $2.83 billion in 2024 to $4.79 billion by 2033.
And toxicity tests answer questions like how much of these chemicals is safe for a human to be exposed to without causing harmful effects..
For decades, this was done through animal testing. Scientists dosed rats, rabbits, and dogs with a chemical, tracked the effects, then killed them to study their tissues. This became the global standard by the mid-20th century.
Animal tests had long been criticised for failing to predict how chemicals actually affected humans. A response observed in an animal did not necessarily predict how humans would respond to the same chemical.
Studies have found that two laboratories running the same test on the same chemical sometimes produced different results. The study cited this variability as one of the core reasons the world needed to move toward human-relevant methods.
In the 21st century, labs can test chemicals on human cells directly or use computer models to predict toxicity. Other countries have started shifting to these methods.
India has formally accepted some non-animal toxicity tests since 2017, but animal experiments are still the default.
A new peer-reviewed study found the country could replace some of these tests with human-cell models and computer simulations, without weakening safety standards.
But two of the things that keep companies from switching: uncertainty over whether regulators would accept non-animal data, and the cost of importing laboratory materials needed for modern testing that smaller companies and labs may not be able to afford.
Other countries, including the US, EU, and South Korea, have already committed to phasing out animal testing.
Regulatory Uncertainty
Ankita Pandey, in a mailed response to Ground Report, said the biggest obstacle companies faced was uncertainty about whether regulators would actually accept non-animal data.
“When there is ambiguity, companies often take a conservative approach and rely on traditional animal studies to minimise the risk of delays or data rejection during the registration process,” she said.
Pandey, a Senior Scientist and Research Policy Advisor at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, focuses on replacing and reducing the use of animals in toxicity testing, led the study.
The paper suggests a path toward replacing many of the animal tests with modern human-relevant based methods, without weakening safety standards.
The paper described a category of newer techniques called new approach methodologies, or NAMs, which include human cell and tissue models grown in labs, computer models that predict toxicity from a chemical’s molecular structure, and read-across, which compares existing data from similar chemicals to predict the safety of a new one.
India’s Regulator Door
India’s Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC), which approves pesticides under the Insecticides Act, 1968, first formally accepted non-animal methods in its 2017 guidance, and, later in 2023, to cover biopesticides testing as well. PETA India worked with CIB&RC to support the adoption of non-animal methods in both the 2017 and 2023 guidance documents.
India has 24 laboratories accredited to generate the toxicity data that CIB&RC requires for pesticide registration. These labs hold certification under Good Laboratory Practice standards, known as GLP, and the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories, known as NABL. Few of those 24 labs appear to offer non-animal testing methods .
Despite flexibility to submit non-animal methods, he study suggests that regulatory guidelines still list specific animal species alongside each required test – “acute oral, rat”, for instance, which may give the false impression that animal testing is still mandatoryThe 2017 and 2023 guidelines acknowledge that non-animal methods were accepted, and some examples of non-animal data submitted can be found in Registration Committee minutes but there is still uncertainty about which specific approaches are accepted in practice. . The paper recommends a establishing public webpage explaining which non-animal methods are accepted and where they can be used, making the regulatory process more transparent.
It also proposes pre-submission meetings, so companies can discuss their testing plans with regulators before starting studies, saving time, reducing uncertainty, and encouraging the use of appropriate non-animal methods.
Dr Surat Parvatam, Senior Program Director of Research and Toxicology at Humane World for Animals India, in a mailed response to Ground Report and not related to the study, said the organisation recently surveyed 22 agrochemical companies and contract research organisations to understand why non-animal testing had stayed so low despite the rules allowing it.
Parvatam said that nobody told them plainly what regulators would accept instead. “This has made the industry stick to a tried and tested path and continue to test on animals,” she said.
Parvatam said Humane World for Animals India – formerly Humane Society International India – was part of developing the 2017 CIB&RC guidance document that first recognised non-animal methods in India’s pesticide regulatory framework.
Unlike the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan, India does not have formal pre-submission consultations. Companies only learn if non-animal test data was accepted or rejected after review. And rejection at that point can cost a company an entire season of potential sales.
Cost As A Factor
Human-tissue models often have to be imported currently, raising costs sharply for smaller companies and contract research organisations.
Though there are inexpensive alternatives that are also used.
Some tools, like read-across and the OECD QSAR Toolbox, are freely available online. A scientifically justified waiver meant no new test was needed at all, because enough toxicity data already existed. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saved over $300 million in study costs between 2012 and 2018 simply by granting scientifically sound waivers, according to a 2019 paper published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, known as the OECD, develops internationally agreed-upon testing methods that member and partner countries accept without requiring fresh validation.
India has formally been a part of the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) system since 2011. This meant data generated using OECD test guidelines should already have been accepted in India without requiring fresh validation.
Parvatam said accepting those already-approved methods without demanding fresh justification each time would be the single biggest step India could take.
Where laboratory equipment was needed, some Indian labs, including Jai Research Foundation, Eurofins Advinus, and Bioneeds, already offered OECD-accepted non-animal methods. Tissue models still had to be imported, but Pandey said costs were expected to fall as more labs built these capabilities and the demand grows.
She said animal testing was not necessarily cheaper once the full picture was considered. Some animal studies, particularly carcinogenicity tests, took up to two years to complete. Many non-animal methods produced results in days or weeks. More importantly, these approaches can provide data that are more directly relevant to human biology, improving the ability to predict real-world human responses.
“It’s not just a question of cost versus cost,” Pandey said. “It’s about investing in faster, better, and more efficient science.”
How the Rest of the World is Doing It
Several countries have allowed non-animal methods, while also making structural, funded, and legally binding commitments to phase out animal testing entirely.
For instance, on June 1, 2026, the European Commission adopted a full roadmap to phase out animal testing for chemical safety assessments across 15 domains, including pesticides, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals and food additives.
The roadmap covered 31 specific opportunities to replace or reduce animal tests and committed to launching a public dashboard by the end of 2026.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency recommitted in 2026 to eliminating all mammalian animal testing for chemical assessments . It also opened a formal process for companies to nominate specific non-animal methods for regulatory acceptance.
In May 2025, the South Korean government broke ground on a national animal-free testing facility in Incheon, with a budget of roughly $24 million. The facility aimed to use human cells, artificial organs, 3D tissue models and AI-based tools, supporting South Korea’s national target of replacing over 60 per cent of chemical safety testing with non-animal methods by 2030.
South Korea had already banned animal testing for cosmetics in 2018. Canada and the UK each published formal national strategies in 2025 to replace, reduce and refine vertebrate animal use in toxicity testing.
India allow non-animal testing but does not require companies to use it first. In the EU and UK, animal testing is generally allowed when no approved non-animal method exists.
A Live Policy Moment
The new Pesticide Management Bill, 2025, moved through government review after public consultation closed on February 4, 2026.
PETA India submitted formal recommendations before that deadline, calling for stronger provisions to promote scientifically validated non-animal methods.
The government had not publicly responded to those recommendations.
In April 2026, the CIB&RC dropped what was known as livestock metabolism tests for when the pesticide is imported from a new source. The test is used to see how chemicals behave inside farm animals and whether they leave residues in meat, milk, or eggs.
PETA India played a key role for the change.
“The science is established, valid OECD test guidelines are available, Indian laboratories can perform many of these methods, and there’s growing interest from industry,” Pandey said. “What’s needed now is a more supportive regulatory environment that gives companies the confidence to use them.
Support Us To Sustain Independent Environmental Journalism In India.
More Ground Reports
He Was Married as a Child, Now Manish Dangi Helps Stop It for Others
Despite The Ban, How Gutkha Became MP’s Most Common Household Habit
