Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them.
Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.
Fact and figures - United Kingdom
- 4.87 million experiments on animals
- Of the 1.93 million experimental procedures completed in 2014, 149,917 were assessed as “severe,” including “long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviors/activities persist.
What You Can Do
Tell research-funding agencies to kick their animal experimentation habit.
Virtually all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. NIH needs to hear that you don’t want your tax dollars used to underwrite animal experiments, regardless of their purpose. When writing letters, be sure to make the following two points:
• Animal experimentation is an inherently unethical practice, and you do not want your tax dollars used to support it.
• Funding for biomedical research should be redirected into the use of epidemiological, clinical, in vitro, and computer-modeling studies instead of cruel and crude experiments on animals.
The Commission has made about EUR 238 million available between the years 2007 and 2011 for research into alternative methods to animal testing alone. The largest part of this budget, around EUR 198 million, was spent on projects through the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. The second largest part was spent on the European Reference Laboratory for Alternative Methods to Animal Testing for its work on alternatives. The Communication adopted by the Commission today recognises the importance of continuing this research.
In addition, the cosmetics industry plays an active role in the development of alternatives. A very concrete example is the SEURAT-1 initiative ('Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing') in the field of repeated dose toxicity. This project is jointly funded by the European Commission and the cosmetics industry, each of which are contributing a EUR 25 million between 2011 and 2015.
Animal experiments are one of the traditional approaches to studying how human and animal bodies work (in health and illness) and for testing medicines and chemicals.
Scientists who use animals argue that there is currently no other way to achieve their scientific objectives, and that any pain or distress caused to the animals is outweighed by the potential benefits of their research. However, ‘necessity’ and ‘justification’ are both matters of opinion and open to debate. There is a range of views on how much suffering should be allowed and for what purpose (e.g. aiming to treat cancer, drug addiction, or male pattern baldness, to assess the safety of a new industrial chemical, or to find out how birds navigate) and to what species of animal. The UK law that controls animal experiments is supposed to reflect this. It requires that the likely harms to the animals are weighed against the potential benefits of the project, that there are no alternatives available, and that the numbers and suffering of animals are minimised.
• Animal experimentation is an inherently unethical practice, and you do not want your tax dollars used to support it.
• Funding for biomedical research should be redirected into the use of epidemiological, clinical, in vitro, and computer-modeling studies instead of cruel and crude experiments on animals.
Cosmetics testing using animals - source RSPCA
The use of animals to test cosmetics products or their ingredients is banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Union. Since March 2013, it has also been illegal to sell cosmetics products within the EU which have been, or which contain ingredients, newly tested on animals. The RSPCA has long campaigned against this use of animals. There are already more than enough cosmetics products available and thousands of existing cosmetics ingredients are accepted as safe. It is simply not justifiable to cause animal suffering to develop more. It is encouraging that a number of countries outside the EU are also now seeking to adopt similar bans. However, in others - including China and the United States of America - animals are still used to test cosmetics ingredients and products. Our focus will now be on ending the suffering of these animals too.
Is animal testing for cosmetics not already prohibited in Europe?
Yes, that is true : there can be no animal testing for cosmetic purposes carried out in Europe. Animal testing for finished cosmetic products is already banned since 2004, animal testing for cosmetic ingredients is banned since 11 March 2009 ('testing ban'). Since March 2009 it is also prohibited to market in the Union cosmetic products containing ingredients which have been tested on animals in order to meet the requirements of the Directive ('marketing ban').
But for the most complex tests the marketing ban deadline was extended to 11 March 2013. This means that for these tests companies could still carry out the tests outside the Union for cosmetic purposes and rely on the results for the safety assessment in the Union. This is not possible any more after 11 March 2013.
Why is animal testing carried out for cosmetics anyhow?
It is crucial to make sure that products that come into contact with our body day-by-day are safe for human health. Cosmetics are products that are used by consumers every day – there are estimates that each consumer uses at least seven different cosmetics per day and many of us will use more. Animal testing data is still needed to carry out this safety assessment – for example to establish whether or not a certain ingredient can cause skin allergy or contributes to the formation of cancer.
So is it possible to fully replace animal testing by other methods?
No, this is not yet possible in all cases. A lot of progress has been made, but there remains a lot to be done. Several alternative test methods have been validated by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) and have subsequently been included in OECD Testing Guidelines and in the respective Union legal texts. For example, reconstructed human skin models exist to test whether an ingredient can cause skin irritation.
However, for the complex health effects that concern the whole human organism the situation is much more complicated. Important progress has been made here as well and methods have been validated or are undergoing validation that can then be used as building blocks within an overall testing strategy. Replacement will however not be achieved by replacing one animal test with one in vitro test and it is difficult to predict when full replacement will be possible. More research is needed.
Yes, that is true : there can be no animal testing for cosmetic purposes carried out in Europe. Animal testing for finished cosmetic products is already banned since 2004, animal testing for cosmetic ingredients is banned since 11 March 2009 ('testing ban'). Since March 2009 it is also prohibited to market in the Union cosmetic products containing ingredients which have been tested on animals in order to meet the requirements of the Directive ('marketing ban').
But for the most complex tests the marketing ban deadline was extended to 11 March 2013. This means that for these tests companies could still carry out the tests outside the Union for cosmetic purposes and rely on the results for the safety assessment in the Union. This is not possible any more after 11 March 2013.
Why is animal testing carried out for cosmetics anyhow?
It is crucial to make sure that products that come into contact with our body day-by-day are safe for human health. Cosmetics are products that are used by consumers every day – there are estimates that each consumer uses at least seven different cosmetics per day and many of us will use more. Animal testing data is still needed to carry out this safety assessment – for example to establish whether or not a certain ingredient can cause skin allergy or contributes to the formation of cancer.
So is it possible to fully replace animal testing by other methods?
No, this is not yet possible in all cases. A lot of progress has been made, but there remains a lot to be done. Several alternative test methods have been validated by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) and have subsequently been included in OECD Testing Guidelines and in the respective Union legal texts. For example, reconstructed human skin models exist to test whether an ingredient can cause skin irritation.
However, for the complex health effects that concern the whole human organism the situation is much more complicated. Important progress has been made here as well and methods have been validated or are undergoing validation that can then be used as building blocks within an overall testing strategy. Replacement will however not be achieved by replacing one animal test with one in vitro test and it is difficult to predict when full replacement will be possible. More research is needed.
More information - World makeover
- A year ago, the sale within the European Union of cosmetics newly tested on animals was banned. This followed a 25-year campaign by the RSPCA and other animal protection groups. But this story is not yet over - animal life investigates.
- For decades, the RSPCA has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of laboratory animals. One issue, which has captured much of the public’s attention over this time, has been the use of animals to test cosmetics products and their ingredients. In the late 1990s this use of animals was banned in the UK and a similar ban took effect across the EU in 2009. Then, in March 2013, the sale within the EU of cosmetics newly tested on animals was outlawed. Despite the EU ban, not all products are made by cosmetics companies that are no longer involved with animal testing.
- Global end - Consumers should be aware that many well-known brands continue to test their products or ingredients on animals outside of the EU to sell in other parts of the world, or choose to continue to market their products in countries where the authorities require mandatory animal testing. So, the next phase of our campaign will be aimed at encouraging cosmetics companies to stop these practices globally, and for good.
- Cruelty-free testing - When it comes to cosmetic ingredients there are plenty to choose from – the industry has more than 20,000 that are accepted as safe. Companies also have the option of developing new ingredients using existing alternative test methods, where available, without having to resort to animal use. “Many people believe that testing cosmetics using animals is a thing of the past, yet numerous animals over much of the world still suffer in the name of beauty,” says RSPCA Campaigner Eloise Shavelar. “The RSPCA wants to see the day when no new cosmetics product or ingredient is tested on any animal, anywhere in the world.”
- Most cosmetics products have a lifespan of less than five years and manufacturers reformulate 25 percent of their products every year. It’s inevitable that companies will look to develop innovative new products, but if this involves causing animal suffering we believe this is simply unacceptable. “If cosmetics companies can comply with this EU ban and still trade within the EU, there is no reason why they cannot adhere to a non-testing policy worldwide,” says Eloise. “There is no excuse for any more animals to suffer in these tests.”
- Positive steps - A number of well-loved global brands, for example The Body Shop, Lush and Marks and Spencer, have been selling cosmetic products that contain no newly animal tested ingredients for a number of years. The EU ban has generated even more positives, with Israel and India both introducing their own bans on the use of animals to test cosmetics, and other countries considering doing the same. Chinese authorities are also taking an interest in the alternative test methods already validated and accepted in the EU and recently announced a small but encouraging first step of ending mandatory animal testing for certain domestically produced cosmetics products. Cosmetics companies now have a clear chance to be ahead of the game and demonstrate – rather than just talk about – their commitment to crueltyfree cosmetics.
The Commission has made about EUR 238 million available between the years 2007 and 2011 for research into alternative methods to animal testing alone. The largest part of this budget, around EUR 198 million, was spent on projects through the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. The second largest part was spent on the European Reference Laboratory for Alternative Methods to Animal Testing for its work on alternatives. The Communication adopted by the Commission today recognises the importance of continuing this research.
In addition, the cosmetics industry plays an active role in the development of alternatives. A very concrete example is the SEURAT-1 initiative ('Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing') in the field of repeated dose toxicity. This project is jointly funded by the European Commission and the cosmetics industry, each of which are contributing a EUR 25 million between 2011 and 2015.
RSPCA - Are animal experiments necessary?
Scientists who use animals argue that there is currently no other way to achieve their scientific objectives, and that any pain or distress caused to the animals is outweighed by the potential benefits of their research. However, ‘necessity’ and ‘justification’ are both matters of opinion and open to debate. There is a range of views on how much suffering should be allowed and for what purpose (e.g. aiming to treat cancer, drug addiction, or male pattern baldness, to assess the safety of a new industrial chemical, or to find out how birds navigate) and to what species of animal. The UK law that controls animal experiments is supposed to reflect this. It requires that the likely harms to the animals are weighed against the potential benefits of the project, that there are no alternatives available, and that the numbers and suffering of animals are minimised.
This provides a framework for making decisions about animal experiments, but the system should be implemented more effectively. For example, it is often suggested that most animal experiments are ‘life-saving’ medical research and are all done to the ‘highest possible standards’. But sweeping statements like these do not stand up to scrutiny, for two main reasons: There is serious debate within the scientific community about the value of information obtained from many animal tests, and about the relevance of various animal ‘models’. This raises doubts about the scientific validity of applying the results from research on animals to humans.There are many concerns about the poor quality of much animal research.
- The issues relating to scientific validity and quality are deeply worrying. Research that is of little value, poorly designed or conducted, and badly reported is a waste of animals’ lives, causing suffering that should have been entirely avoidable. Animal experiments like these are certainly neither necessary nor justified. Efforts are at last beginning to be made to recognise and address these problems, and the concerns do not apply to all scientists and research areas. However, poor quality animal research continues to be funded, licensed, carried out and published. This should stop.
- The scientific community, including researchers, funding bodies, journal editors and the Home Office, should do much more to critically review the scientific validity of animal experiments.
- The ‘need’ to use animals, and the justification for the suffering caused, should both be challenged much more strongly. Animals' lives and welfare should be given higher priority.
- Badly designed and poorly carried out experiments are invalid science and waste animals' lives. They should not be licensed by the Home Office, given grants by funding bodies or published in scientific journals.
- Even scientifically valid research may not add significantly to knowledge in its field, or it may only be of interest to a few people. This does not justify harming animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment