|
Visit the EBRA web site at:
www.ebra.org
|
|
 |
Revision of 86/609 delayed again |
 |
|
Although it was expected to be adopted by the
Commission and published in June, it is now
clear that the revision of Directive 86/609 will
take longer. |
|
|
It
was widely expected that the Commission would adopt
their proposal for the new directive on animal
experimentation during the German Presidency, which
lasts until the end of June 2007. Once adopted, it
would be published and sent to the Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament to begin its
first reading.
However, we have recently learned that technical
issues with the legal drafting are taking longer
than expected to resolve and the adoption may be not
be until September or October. It is worth
remembering that almost every stage in the lengthy
process involved in developing the proposal has
taken significantly longer than expected, so it is
quite possible that it may take even longer.
In addition, Commissioner Dimas (Environment) has
had an operation and is still sick in the US. So,
given the forthcoming summer break, it looks as
though even the inter-service consultation, where
the different DGs discuss the draft among
themselves, is unlikely to start before October.
|
|
Campaigns against primate research |
|
|
|
Some of the most active animal rights groups in
Europe are campaigning in the European
Parliament against the use of non-human primates
in research. |
|
|
A second Written Declaration calling for an end to
the use of primates in research has been put down in
the European Parliament. Although Written
Declarations are not part of the legislative
process, they are a method that MEPs can use to
express an opinion on a subject.
In 2006, several MEPs put down a Written Declaration
on behalf of the National Anti-Vivisection Society,
a UK animal rights group operating under the name of
Animal Defenders International. This called for all
primate experiments in the EU to be phased out over
the next six years. By the time this declaration
lapsed, in January 2007, it had been signed by 88
MEPs. If an Written Declaration gets the signatures
of over half of all MEP's - ie 393 of them - it is
written into the minutes of a plenary session of the
Parliament.
The same animal rights group had another Written
Declaration on primate experiments put down in
April. It currently has 174 signatures and will
remain open until September.
Another animal rights group, the European Coalition
to End Animal Experiments, recently held a press
photo opportunity on the steps of the Euroepan
Parliament in which a number of MEPs released
activists in monkey suits from cages, to to launch
the groups campaign for a ban on the use of primates
in EU research.
|
|
EU adopts new housing and welfare guidelines |
|
|
|
The revised Council of Europe guidelines have
now been adopted by the EU. |
|
|
On
the 18th June, the European Commission adopted new
guidelines for the accomodation and care of
laboratory animals. These guidelines are the
revised Appendix A of the Council of Europe
Convention ETS123.
The original EU guidelines were set out in a 12-page
annexe to Directive 86/609. Starting in 1998, the
Council of Europe revised their equivalent guilines,
eventually adopting a 109-page document containing
much greater detail, higher welfare standards and
significanrtly larger enclosure sizes for all the
main species of laboratory animals.
During the revision process, the EU took the unusual
step of ratifying the Convention, thus binding
itself to adopting the new guidlelines. It
completed this process by adopting a Recommendation
on the revised guidelines in June. Although
Recommendations are a type of EU legislation that is
not binding on Member States, they do have a
significant political impact. Since their adoption
involves negotiation and a defined legislative
proecedure, there is a substantive expectation that
Member States will conform with them.
|
|
New booklet from the Coalition for Medical
Progress |
|
|
|
A UK group has produced a new booklet aimed at
patients which could also be useful for lobbying |
|
|
The Coalition for Medical Progress (CMP) have
followed-up their 2006 opinion poll that showed that
almost 9 in 10 British general medical
practitioners agree that safety tests should be
carried out on animals before human trials of new
medicines are conducted. The
CMP has
now produced a glossy booklet – “Where do medicines
come from?” – intended for distribution to patients
via their doctor’s waiting room. The leaflet,
which is supported by the British government, sets
out in simple language how new medicines are
developed from understanding the mechanism of
disease through animal studies to human trials.
The CMP is an alliance of organisations that share
the common aim to ensure the UK continues to lead
advances in human and animal medicine. The role of
CMP is to help explain the case for medical progress
and the benefits brought about by animal
research. Members include scientific and
veterinary organisations, medical charities,
pharmaceutical companies, research funding agencies,
medical organisations, patient groups, and trade
unions.
Copies of the leaflet, which could also be suitable
for use in lobbying politicians, are available from
www.medicalprogress.org.
|
|
REACH is now in action |
|
|
|
The new European Chemcials Regulations now apply
across all EU Member States |
|
|
The new European Chemicals Regulation, REACH, came
into effect across Europe on 1 June. Because it is
a regulation and not a directive, national
legislation is not necessary for its
implementation. REACH will replace 40 older laws
on EU chemicals, and will be overseen by a new EU
Chemicals Agency based in Helsinki.
One of the goals of REACH is to reduce animal
testing, particularly in vertebrates. Such
testing should only be undertaken “as a last
resort”, says the regulation. But with some 30
000 chemicals involved, including the 3 000
considered to be the most dangerous and subject
to special authorisation, it seems likely that
animal testing will increase rather than
decrease. Most of these dangerous chemicals
are known as persistent, bio-accumulative and
toxic (PBTs) or very persistent and very
bio-accumulative (vPvBs). Permission to use
these chemicals in Europe will only be given if
no alternative exists and the benefits of using
them outweigh the risks. In this case,
permission to use them will be granted for a
limited period while the manufacturer pays for
research to be carried out to identify an
alternative.
While environmentalists say this is not strict
enough to protect human health, animal rights
groups are claiming that REACH will lead to
hugely increased animal use in fulfilling the
strict testing requirements. In a letter to
the Brussels weekly paper European voice, Sandra
Hannen, from the European Coalition to End
Animal Experiments said: “Like most sensible
Europeans, the European Coalition to End Animal
Experiments fully supports the REACH aims to
protect our citizens and the environment from
exposure to harmful chemicals. But like many
Europeans we do not believe that aim should be
achieved via tens of millions of new tests on
animals.”
REACH has been considerably toned down during
its passage through the European legislative
process, and the testing requirements
considerably relaxed. But the problem of
balancing human health and animal welfare seems
set to cause difficulties for many years to
come.
.
|
|
