animal testing

/Tag:animal testing

Ten years of REACH — An animal protection perspective

Katy Taylor

It has now been 11 years since the EU’s new chemicals legislation (Regulation No. 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals [REACH]) came into force. Two important statements in the REACH Regulation in relation to animal testing and alternatives are: Article 1(1), which states that one of its purposes is to promote alternative methods; and Article 25(1), which states that animal testing should be used as a last resort. This review looks at the mechanisms that were put in place within REACH to achieve these aims and asks, not only if they are being implemented properly, but also if they have been sufficient. Whilst the chemical industry has heavily used data-sharing and read-across, this review concludes that nevertheless over 2.2 million animals have already been used in new tests for REACH registrations. This equates to an annual average of 275,000 animals; 58,000 more per year than the best-case estimate made by the European Commission in 2004. The use of in vitro and (Q)SAR approaches as standalone replacements for animal tests has been relatively low. The levels of funding for research into alternative methods remain low, and there are concerns over the speed of formal adoption of those that have been validated. In addition, there have been issues with the recognition that testing as a last resort and the promotion of alternative methods applies to all parties, including the Commission, Member States and the agency responsible, the European Chemicals Agency. This review provides ten recommendations for better implementation of these two key aspirations, as well as lessons to be learned for future similar legislation.

This article is currently only available in full to paid subscribers. Click here to subscribe, or you will need to log in/register to buy and download this article

A Multi-faceted Approach to Achieving the Global Acceptance of Animal-free Research Methods

Jodie Melbourne, Patricia Bishop, Jeffrey Brown and Gilly Stoddart

In 2015, the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. was awarded the Lush Training Prize for its broad approach to education and training on the effective use of human-relevant, non-animal research techniques. The prize was awarded for work that included hosting workshops and webinars, initiating in-person training sessions and developing educational resources. The Consortium works closely with industry and regulatory agencies to identify and overcome barriers to the validation and use of alternatives to animal testing, by using an approach that identifies, promotes and verifies the implementation of these methods. The Consortium's recent activities toward replacing tests on animals for nanomaterials, pesticides and medical devices, are described, as examples of projects with broad applicability aimed at large-scale regulatory change.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Evaluation of Non-animal Methods for Assessing Skin Sensitisation Hazard: A Bayesian Value-of-Information Analysis

Leontaridou_suppl_info_FINAL

Maria Leontaridou, Silke Gabbert, Ekko C. Van Ierland, Andrew P. Worth and Robert Landsiedel

This paper offers a Bayesian Value-of-Information (VOI) analysis for guiding the development of non-animal testing strategies, balancing information gains from testing with the expected social gains and costs from the adoption of regulatory decisions. Testing is assumed to have value, if, and only if, the information revealed from testing triggers a welfare-improving decision on the use (or non-use) of a substance. As an illustration, our VOI model is applied to a set of five individual non-animal prediction methods used for skin sensitisation hazard assessment, seven battery combinations of these methods, and 236 sequential 2-test and 3-test strategies. Their expected values are quantified and compared to the expected value of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) as the animal method. We find that battery and sequential combinations of non-animal prediction methods reveal a significantly higher expected value than the LLNA. This holds for the entire range of prior beliefs. Furthermore, our results illustrate that the testing strategy with the highest expected value does not necessarily have to follow the order of key events in the sensitisation adverse outcome pathway (AOP).

This article is currently only available in full to paid subscribers. Click here to subscribe, or you will need to log in/register to buy and download this article

On the Safety of E-cigarettes: “I can resist anything except temptation”

Robert D. Combes and Michael Balls

Strategic policy decisions are being made about e-cigarettes, based on the plausibility of their greater safety, rather than on essential scientific evidence which would permit a proper risk assessment. If e-cigarettes are really ‘safer’, then their use should be recommended, but only after an intelligent analysis of their risk to human health, based on integrated in silico, in vitro and clinical studies for both scientific and logistical reasons.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

A Campaign to End Animal Testing: Introducing the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd

Gilly Stoddart and Jeffrey Brown

The successful development and validation of non-animal techniques, or the analysis of existing data to satisfy regulatory requirements, provide no guarantee that this information will be used in place of animal experiments. In order to advocate for the replacement of animal-based testing requirements, the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd (PISC) liaises with industry, regulatory and research agencies to establish and promote clear paths to validation and regulatory use of non-animal techniques. PISC and its members use an approach that identifies, promotes and verifies the implementation of good scientific practices in place of testing on animals. Examples of how PISC and its members have applied this approach to minimise the use of animals for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation in the EU and testing of cosmetics on animals in India, are described.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

A ‘Road Map’ Toward Ending Severe Suffering of Animals Used in Research and Testing

Elliot Lilley, Penny Hawkins and Maggy Jennings

Ending severe suffering is a desirable goal for both ethical and scientific reasons. The RSPCA has pledged to work toward the end of such suffering for laboratory animals, and in this article we outline a practical approach that establishments can follow to achieve this aim.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Editorial: Openness on Animal Research: The Gauntlet has been Thrown Down

Michael Balls

The delivery of the UK Government's and Concordat's commitments to greater openness on animal research is eagerly awaited. Meanwhile, the questions raised by two studies on the use of animal tests to predict the toxic effects of drugs in humans should be answered. Procedures applied to protected laboratory animals, which may cause them pain, suffering, distress and or lasting harm, are only morally acceptable, and should only be legally permissible, if they are scientifically justifiable.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.