A gaping hole in new rules on animal tests

Are the claims made for the animal experiments directive correct? Some simple clarification would settle the questions.

The European Parliament’s agriculture committee on Monday (12 July) approved a revision of the animal experiments directive. But even now, as the revision approaches adoption, the EU’s three main institutions remain confused about what they are seeking to achieve on important issues. 

The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) has felt compelled to complain to the European Ombudsman about misleading statements by the press office of the Council of Ministers. We have touched on such issues in the past on your letters page (“Honesty and openness in animal testing debate,” 7-13 January), but still, for example, the institutions routinely claim that the new directive will require researchers to use non-animal methods whenever possible. However, the wording of the text suggests a gaping hole in this important protection.

Inexplicably, no one is willing to put the matter beyond doubt with a simple clarifying amendment.

Elisabeth Jeggle, the European Parliament’s rapporteur, has told MEPs that primates will only be used for serious illnesses, echoing the European Commission’s official document. In fact, the text seems to allow them to be used for any condition, however minor (such as baldness). Again, a simple amendment would put an end to the issue.

It is welcome that the new directive will impose a limit on the suffering permissible, but scandalous that the definitions are so vague as to be potentially meaningless. Responsible legislating demands that there is clarity with such a key provision.

More generally, the new directive is a huge missed opportunity to bring animal experiments more in line with public opinion, and to adopt a targeted approach to the shared aspiration of animal-free science. The public is clear that it wants to see an end, at the least, to experiments on primates, cats and dogs, and all experiments causing severe suffering or which are not for serious or life-threatening human illnesses. It also wants to see meaningful transparency.

Regrettably, the new directive will achieve none of these things.

 

From:

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys

Michelle Thew

Chief executive

European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE)

London