In the news
6 Sep 2008
25 June 2007
Testing chemicals on animals out-performed by ethical alternatives, report says.
A major new report1 concluding that testing chemicals on animals is slow, expensive and often out-performed by modern test-tube methods, has been welcomed as “outstanding common sense” by one of Europe’s leading non-animal research charities, the Dr Hadwen Trust.
The report was commissioned by the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is responsible for thousands of safety (toxicity) tests on animals each year, and written by the National Research Council, which advises the US government on scientific issues.
Advanced non-animal methods using in vitro human cell lines, combined with computational methods and epidemiological studies to assess human exposure, are recommended as more human-relevant strategies for assessing the safety of large numbers of chemicals, says the report2. As well as causing immense suffering, traditional animal tests can involve huge doses of substances that the report highlights as irrelevant to real-life human exposure. The Dr Hadwen Trust welcomes the report, which provides high-level support for the sort of non-animal strategy the charity has long been calling for.
Says Nicky Gordon, Dr Hadwen Trust:
“These are hugely significant, forward-thinking conclusions from an internationally respected research council which could precipitate a major gear shift in toxicity testing worldwide. Testing chemicals on animals causes immense suffering and death, and it’s also extremely unreliable as there can be vast differences between species. Modern non-animal methods offer a kinder, clearer and more cost-effective solution to safety testing so dispensing with animal tests makes outstanding common sense. It is frustrating that it has taken so many years for the failings of animal toxicity tests to be recognised, but it is now vital that effort is focused internationally on replacing animal tests for the benefit of people and animals alike.”
The report’s vision is that eventually non-animal strategies will completely replace animal-based toxicity tests and revolutionise safety testing. So significant are the report’s conclusions, its authors compare it to other “pivotal events in science” such as the discovery of penicillin, the DNA double helix or the development of computers3. Recent developments in genomics and computational biology have made significant advances in toxicity testing possible, with major changes anticipated over coming years.
Millions of animals are used worldwide in toxicity tests for industrial, household, cosmetic and agro-chemicals; these are mainly dogs, rabbits and rodents but monkeys are also used4. They have chemicals force-fed (oral gavage), injected into their bloodstream, inhaled or administered via a nasal tube and the symptoms can be severe such as internal organ damage, bleeding from the eyes and nose, vomiting, tremors, seizures and even death.
This report comes at a key moment in the history of toxicity testing. REACH, the largest mass animal testing programme in Europe’s history, has just commenced and will see the testing of 30,000 chemicals on up to 10 millions animals5. If implemented, says the Dr Hadwen Trust, a non-animal test strategy could provide more reliable data, generated more quickly and at a dramatically lower cost than animal tests.
ENDS
1 Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first century: a vision and a strategy (2007). Extracts of the report can be viewed at the National Academies Press at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109922
2 Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first century, page 2
3 Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first century, page 1.
4 In 2005 (latest statistics available) a total of 393,114 toxicity tests on animals were performed (Home Office statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, Great Britain published 2006). Across Europe the total is 1,066,047 (Fourth report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union, published January 2005).
5 European Commission (2006) Briefing note on the number of animals expected to be used under REACH – summary of re-assessment performed by the JRC SHE7917
