New EU rules on animals used in scientific experiments
New EU rules on animals used in scientific experiments
New rules adopted today by the European Parliament aim to scale down the number of animals used for scientific purposes, but also seek to strike a balance between animal welfare and the need for research into diseases. Among the issues covered by the final text of the Directive - agreed between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers:
a ban on use of great apes, such as chimps, gorillas or orang-utans in any animal testing; but less restrictive wording on other primates;
a redefinition of 'mild' 'moderate' or 'severe' pain or suffering, and a definition of the type of procedures which may be permitted for each level;
the setting up of a European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.
Once the Directive has been formally agreed in Council, Member States will have two years to comply with the new rules.
See here for full press release on the outcome of today's vote.
Extracts from Wednesday morning's debate in Strasbourg:
Jill Evans MEP (Plaid Cymru, Wales): We believe Member States should keep the right to introduce stricter rules on animal protection, as they have at the moment and as we agreed at first reading. We believe that alternatives to animals must be used wherever that is possible. The current wording limits the mandatory alternative requirement to a minority of tests carried out, which weakens existing laws and, again, is not what we voted for in the first reading.
On non-human primates, we believe that, without the word 'substantial' to define it, a debilitating condition could be interpreted as almost any human ailment rather than as a serious reduction in human health, which is what the intention is here.
Mike Nattrass MEP (UKIP, West Midlands): Some 12 million animals are being used in experiments in the EU each year and this proposal could increase their suffering. We must reduce the need for experimentation on animals.
Civilised human beings will try to strike a balance between the need for research and the obligation to respect the lives of other creatures on this planet. These decisions require the wisdom of Solomon. I regret I have to say I have to ask the question, does the EU Parliament have such wisdom?
George Lyon MEP (LibDems, Scotland): Yes, we need to protect animals, but we need to make sure that our scientists have the tools to be able to develop the new medicines that will provide cures in the future for some of the most desperate diseases that we face as a society.
I think that in this argument the text in front of us gets the balance right between these two points of view. I believe that the protection of animals and the rights of society are dealt with properly, and we have the balance right here in the text before us.
Stuart Agnew MEP: (UKIP, Eastern Region): As a farmer I have always wanted to see animals properly treated and it is my belief that in the UK they are, at least by our scientific community.
I have visited Huntingdon Life Sciences in my constituency and I know that dedicated people are doing only what is necessary for scientific progress. This institution carries out essential tests on drugs that in a few years time may protect the life of somebody in this Chamber. Every employee there has an obligation to be a whistleblower if they have evidence of the maltreatment of animals.
...In the UK we have a sensible regime, a responsible scientific community - including, in my own constituency, that powerhouse of global scientific progress, Cambridge University - and balanced laws which sensibly address the needs of both science and animal welfare. That careful balance needs to be preserved.
2010 Archive
Email this pagePrinter-friendly version.
