Suffering for science: chemicals law could hit animals hardest

Date: 24/02/05

Two MEPs give their views on how the proposed chemicals directive could affect animal testing

Although animal welfare groups have contributed a lot to REACH, not all their arguments are valid, says Lena Ek

Animal welfare groups have a point when they say that the REACH (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals) system for evaluating chemicals could lead to the use of millions more animals on safety tests for chemicals than are currently used.

They have contributed a lot of valuable facts and arguments to the general debate about REACH. It is partly because of their work that we now have a common understanding about the need for a mandatory sharing of the results of animal tests. I am happy that nobody really is opposing that.

The concept has been accepted by a large majority in the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. This has been one of the major achievements of the debate in the last six months. By having all the information gathered in data fact-sheets, we can try to put forward proposals that will bring down animal testing significantly.

If big industrial organisations in Europe say they want mandatory animal testing, I would not take their word immediately. Being a lawyer, I would want to get something in writing. And now we have something in writing, so I would see that as a clear point of view by industry. We did not have this six months ago, so it is a very good development.

There should be mandatory sharing not only in Europe but globally. There would be an added value to sharing with countries like Canada, for example, provided they have the same standards for animal testing as we have.

If there is a restrictive framework for tests, they would not see the need to repeat the same tests as in Europe.

My goal, as a member of the EU joint parliamentary assembly with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, is to establish chemical regimes in these countries too. When we can do that, we should share testing results with them in order to bring animal testing down as far as possible.

The discussion about alternatives to animal testing - what methods should be used and what the costs will be - is a secondary problem. There still has to be more thorough discussion about alternative methods. We have to put a lot more money into research on testing methods.

The animal welfare lobby has called for a complete review of risk management policy during the REACH debate. I would agree with some of the points they have made in this regard but in general I would not.

If we are to find a reasonable balance between human and animal welfare, then there is a lot in the current proposal that is correct. Everything, though, can be improved. There is still a lot that can be done to make testing better - to protect an unborn child from chemicals that are used by his or her mother but also to bring down animal testing. I think industry is serious when it says it wants to bring down animal testing for four reasons.

First, because it says so. Second, because there is a feeling among the general European consumers that they do not like animal testing. Third, because it is expensive. And fourth, because maybe the industry does not like animal testing that much either.

Sooner or later we will reach a standard for alternative testing that will make animal testing almost unnecessary. I do not like animal testing. But if you are the mother of a child who is allergic to some chemicals, of course you know that it is a matter of life and death that you are able to trust certain products.

That is why we have to develop alternative ways of checking products; we have to have rules in place as soon as possible. This is a common European responsibility.

• Swedish Liberal MEP Lena Ek is preparing a report on REACH for the European Parliament's industry committee.

Part of the REACH registration fee should be devoted to developing further non-animal tests, argues Caroline Lucas

In October 2003 the European Commission published draft legislation intended to overhaul the EU's chemicals regulation: the so-called REACH proposals.

There is no doubt that reform of EU chemicals regulation is urgently needed. Substances first marketed before 1981 (the so-called existing substances) have never been subject to systematic safety assessment and many synthetic chemicals known to pose a threat to human health, wildlife or the environment are in widespread use.

Regulators are not always sure which companies are using particular chemicals and retailers can have difficulty identifying chemicals of concern in their products.

But years before the proposals were even published, the environmental and animal welfare lobbies were pulled in different directions by newspaper headlines warning that millions of animals would suffer and die as a result of the draft directive. These were fuelled by a report commissioned by the UK government predicting that 12 million animals would be needed to test just the 30,000 'existing substances' which would fall under REACH's regulatory orbit.

It is now apparent that these predictions were grossly inaccurate: the Commission now reckons 'a mere' 3.9m animal tests will be required, as long as chemicals companies agree to share toxicity data - something that they have failed to agree to do in the past.

Even with this proviso, 4m cruel, expensive, misleading and deeply unpopular animal tests is 4m too many.

There is absolutely no doubt that levels of animal suffering, inflicted through toxicity testing, is immense. No pain relief is given and for many tests the endpoint is death: rapid (acute) or slow (repeat dose) poisoning is painful and there is no getting away from that. In a civilised society, causing such suffering should be regarded as unacceptable.

The toxicity data collected from animal experiments is misleading, too, as an increasing number of scientists accept. A recent survey carried out by the patients' group Europeans for Medical Progress found that as many as 82% of doctors questioned believed that the safety of their patients was compromised by the pharmaceutical industry's reliance on testing its products on animals.

By reopening the regulatory debate, REACH has given the scientific community fresh impetus to improve existing in-vitro and computer modelling testing techniques and move away from animal testing. This would hand the EU a real chance to become a world leader in developing and executing the non-animal tests that accurate science and heightened ethical considerations will surely require worldwide before too long.

In order to achieve this there must be full co-operation from the authorities and industry. In order to validate new in-vitro tests and build new computer models, companies must provide existing test results - their contribution is essential, but more funding is also needed, which is why I will vote for part of the REACH registration fee to be devoted to the development of further non-animal tests.

In the meantime, REACH provides legislators with many other opportunities to end animal testing. Full data sharing must be made obligatory, as must an early pre-registration date for all chemicals, together with mechanisms whereby companies holding data on chemicals that they do not intend to register can bring that data forward. Only these comprehensive measures will ensure that data sharing potential is maximised.

As the chemicals lobby closes ranks to fight off proposals for any new regulation of their industry, environmental and animal welfare campaigners should remain united, along with the millions of EU citizens who wish to see a robust new regulatory framework to keep some of the most toxic synthetic chemicals out of everyday products - and the industry that produces them on a tight leash - but in the context of a new non-animal-based testing regime.

• EP Caroline Lucas is a member of the Parliament's environment committee and the cross-party Animal Welfare Intergroup.

Two MEPs give their views on how the proposed chemicals directive could affect animal testing.

• Primary Source