Abby Wurzburger, a 14-year-old from Wauwatosa, is leading the charge on a bill to ban animal testing by cosmetics manufacturers in Wisconsin.

“Although the total number of animals and testing facilities are not disclosed to the public, this doesn’t stop the fact that any amount of unnecessary testing is too much,” Wurzburger said at a press conference in the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday. 

The middle school student was joined by Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa), who represents the young advocate and helped her work on the bill. The bill’s lead authors are Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis), and Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit). Vining described her constituent as the “driving force” behind the legislation before passing the microphone to allow Wurzburger to speak about the issue. 

Wurzburger said her concerns about animal testing started after she became a vegetarian a couple of years ago. A meal on a cruise spurred her decision. 

“It had an all-you-can-eat buffet, and I was actually eating a hamburger, and I was looking at, like all the waste I saw, the animal products and stuff,” she said, “I was like, this is a lot of waste, and this needs to be stopped.” 

Wurzburger explained at the press conference that animal testing involves putting cosmetic products, including perfume, nail polish, makeup and hair products, on the skin, eyes and other body parts of an animal.

“It’s basically just seeing how it reacts with them, and it’s cruel and inhumane,” she said. 

Wurzburger first contacted Vining two years ago and has worked with her since — contacting members of Congress from across the country, reviewing legislation in other states and meeting with Wisconsin Legislative Council to work on the bill draft. She said that in the beginning she wasn’t getting much response from lawmakers. 

“That was kind of frustrating, but it worked out,” Wurzburger told the Examiner. 

Vining complimented her constituent’s work, emphasizing that Wurzburger worked on the issue outside of school and saying she brought printed documents to their meetings with highlighted areas, notes and questions.

“You did difficult research,” Vining said to Wurzburger while they spoke with the Examiner. “You were sorting through bills from the federal level and Virginia, and you kept going through and figuring out what you thought was the right way to do something… if you were writing it for Wisconsin.” 

Members of Congress have introduced proposals to implement a federal ban on cosmetic animal testing as recently as last year, but none have been successful. There are at least 45 countries that ban cosmetic animal testing.

There are 12 states in the U.S. that have bans, including Virginia, Illinois, and Louisiana. California became the first state to adopt a cosmetic animal testing ban in 2018 and Washington state became the latest in 2025.

“We need Wisconsin to be the 13th,” Wurzburger said at the press conference. “This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart as I’ve been an animal lover my whole life.” 

Wurzburger said “the Wisconsin Humane Cosmetics” bill is modeled closely after Virginia’s bill. 

“After these bills have been passed, cosmetic companies started to drift away from these practices and are becoming more cruelty free, so those other bills have definitely promoted cosmetic cruelty free,” she said. 

According to the bill draft, cosmetic manufacturers would be prohibited from conducting animal testing, manufacturing or importing ingredients that were developed using cosmetic animal testing or selling cosmetics that were produced using animal testing. The ban would take effect on Dec. 31, 2026.

One change that Wurzburger said she thought about involved the penalties included in the bill. Under the bill draft, a person would be subject to $5,000 forfeiture for a violation and an additional $1,000 for each day the violation continues.

“We didn’t want to make it too high for small businesses who would suffer from that,” Wurzburger told the Examiner about deciding to mirror the penalty established in Virginia’s law. “I was thinking it would be really easy for the big businesses just to pay it off and keep testing, but then we thought about the small businesses.”

In the afternoon, Vining gave Wurzburger the opportunity to speak to a couple of fourth grade classes who had come to tour the Capitol. Wurzburger told the students about how she first emailed Vining in the sixth grade and said they could email their lawmakers about anything they want to see change. 

“I want to make sure that you guys know that nobody is too small to make a change that you believe in,” Wurzburger said.

Citing the frequency of overdose deaths nationwide and in the interest of transportation safety, the U.S. Department of Transportation said it seeks to add fentanyl and its metabolite norfentanyl to its drug-testing panels for CDL holders.

The proposal issued Sept. 2 seeks to amend certain provisions of 49 CFR Part 40 to “harmonize as appropriate” with the current U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs using urine (UrMG) and oral fluid (OFMG) that went into effect July 7, following a final rule published in January. A majority of HHS-certified labs already can test for fentanyl and norfetanyl with “sufficiently sensitive detection limits,’ according to this month’s NPRM.

The NPRM cites HHS findings from the Drug Enforcement Agency’s National Forensic Laboratory Information System 2021 report that fentanyl, a schedule II synthetic opioid, was the fourth most frequently identified drug and accounted for 11.61 percent of all drugs reported by forensic laboratories. Norfentanyl is “an important component of identifying fentanyl users when urine is the specimen matrix,” the proposal adds, with fentanyl being detected in oral fluid in pain management patients, overdose cases and cases of driving under the influence of drugs.

The National School Transportation Association said it is reviewing all the provisions of the  NPRM but is likely to support adding fentanyl to the drug testing panel.

If published as a final rule, school districts and school bus companies administering or managing drug tests will need to update their policies.

“If a DOT drug/alcohol policy lists the drugs that are tested for, this will need to be added to the policy,” commented Tonic Lathrop, president of operations for Sinnett Consulting Services in Reno, Nevada. “When I write policy, I only list the main categories and not sub-categories so when substances get added to the testing panel, I don’t have to change all of my clients’ policies.”

This includes updating testing procedures and protocols, if a company or school district adds a biomarker or testing type information into their drug and alcohol policy, she explained.

Additionally, Lathrop said employers would need to provide their employees with notification and education about the changes and ensure employees are aware of the additional substance testing and possible update to the drug and alcohol testing policy.  Updated education material should also include fentanyl with substance awareness.

She also noted a positive test for fentanyl may have a legitimate medical explanation. A medical review officer, or MRO, may verify and report a negative test with safety concerns.

Public comments on Docket DOT-OST-2025-0049 are due by Oct. 17 online, by mail or in person.

Related: Update: Feds Withdraw Oral Fluid Collection for CDL Drug Tests Rule
Related: Federal Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Finds 46K Driver Drug-Related Violations
Related: Marijuana Use Dominates Positive Drug Testing Rates of Commercial Drivers

The post U.S. DOT Proposes Rule to Add Fentanyl to CDL Drug Testing Program appeared first on School Transportation News.