Everybody! Please take action, it costs 5 minutes of your life.

Ratamahatta | 29.04.2009 12:40 | SHAC | Animal Liberation

On 4th May there will be voting in EU parliament for revision of directive about testing on animals , please send this mail to UK MEP's (listed under the letter - cut/paste)

Dear MEP,

Revision of Directive 86/609 provides Europe with an opportunity to lead the world in the development of non-animal methods. To achieve that the EU needs a targeted and properly funded strategy that places replacement at the heart of the new legislation. To benefit people and animals, replacing unsatisfactory animal experiments with more relevant and reliable non-animal methods must be the ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, the report by the Parliament’s Agricultural Committee seriously weakens proposals by the European Commission and undermines existing regulations in most Member States. Amendments accepted by AGRI in the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (COM(2008)0543 – C6-0391/2008 – 2008/0211(COD)) loosen controls on what experiments can take place and increase suffering for a great many animals.

It is well known fact, that MEPs have been lobbied by the pharmaceutical and animal research industry; restrictions on the re-use of animals already used in experiments, limits of levels of pain animals can experience, and a phase-out of offspring born to wild-caught primates have been rejected.

I remind you that EU citizens, through the revision of Directive 86/609 want to see:
- improved protection of animals with regular reviews of animal welfare provisions;
- transparency and accountability relating to animal use;
- creation of structures at EU and member state level to develop and promote the replacement of animal procedures with modern, scientifically robust alternatives.

Replacing animal experiments must be the ultimate goal; the proposal already recognises that the EU and Member States have a responsibility to contribute to the development of alternative methods (Article 45), but explicit and practical steps to achieve progress in this area
are needed. It is essential that the replacement goal is more than simply aspirational. Specific mechanisms must be introduced to ensure targeted
progress. The Directive must create incentives, and replacement evaluation and implementation must be part of the authorisation process.

Directive must extend the scope to include sentient foetal animals and invertebrate species (Article 2) which have previously been excluded from protection under EU legislation. The proposal will also regulate fundamental research for the first time at EU level, along with the use of animals for
educational purposes and those animals who are bred (and killed) for their organs and tissues. This is a major gain for animal welfare particularly as
basic research accounts for a large portion of EU animal use. This measure will also harmonise different standards applied currently in the Member
States.

The Commission has proposed an end to the use of great apes and a phase-out of the use of F1 primates (Article 10). These proposals must be
maintained but also strengthened to remove exemptions and ban the use of wild-caught primates. The Commission proposes a ‘phase out’, which allows sufficient time to stabilise captive breeding stock and prevent production of ‘surplus’ males. The so-called ‘safeguard clause’ relating to exemptions in the great ape ban, should be deleted because the use of great apes in procedures should be absolutely prohibited, without exception.

The use of animals for experiments in higher education, forensic studies, household product testing and psychology experiments should no longer be allowed.

The requirement for Member States to ensure that procedures classified as ‘severe’ are not performed if the pain and distress is likely to be prolonged, should be supported (Article 15) as well, as the requirement that animals should not be used in a second experiment if the first experiment is classified as ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ should be supported (Article 16).

Revised directive needs a clear framework to guarantee data sharing at the point of authorisation to prevent duplication of animal experiments. A separate mechanism will be needed for academic/fundamental research. The principle should be established that authorisation is refused if data is already available (against payment where relevant).

Publication of non-technical summaries (Article 40) will increase transparency and is a major step forward. It is essential that the new Directive increases the level of publicly available information to ensure greater accountability. Evaluations and authorisation applications, infringements, retrospective assessments and comprehensive statistics must also be made public.

The Directive should create a genuinely independent framework for ethical and scientific evaluation, project authorisation and the functioning of the cost / benefit assessment.

I urge you to think carefully before voting; the directive must protect animals used for scientific purposes not benefit pharmaceutical and animal research industry. The strategy for replacing animal experiments with new, advanced technologies will benefit animals, people and medical sciences.

Yours faithfully, (your name)

@ adresses: