From law to labs: EU's tide change for animal experiments

The Commission says this is a 'time of transition' when Europe is reducing the use of animal testing thanks to major technological advances. ©iStocktiripero

With mounting public pressure, the EU has experienced a tide change on the use of animal experiments in recent years. But is this in vitro political will reflected in vivo on lab floors?

At the beginning of 2015 the European Commission was handed a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) petition with more than 1.15 million certified signatures asking for a paradigm shift in the way research is conducted. 

The ‘Stop Vivisection’ petition called for the Commission to go beyond its new directive proposals (directive 2010/63/EU) on the protection of animals used in science given “clear ethical objections” and scientific limitations of animal models - and instead make a new proposal that “does away” with animal experimentation and “makes compulsory” the use of data directly relevant for humans in biomedical and toxicological research. 

The call follows a precedent seen already in the cosmetics sector.

The EU outlawed animal testing for new cosmetics and their ingredients back in 2009. In 2013 this was extended to include non-EU products, effectively placing a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing.

Yet the Commission has been reluctant to respond with such dramatic measures across all industries.

The total number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in 2011 was just below 11.5 million. This was a reduction of over half a million animals used in the EU compared to that reported in 2008.

Rodents and rabbits represent more than 80% of the animals used, with mice the most commonly used animal accounting for 61% alone, followed by rats at 14%.

No great apes have been used in EU since 1999. 

Commission vice-president for jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness said the Stop Vivisection initiative came “at a time of transition – thanks to major technological advances, Europe is reducing the use of animal testing. 

“However, a complete ban on animal research in the EU would be premature and it would risk chasing out biomedical research from Europe"

Instead the Commission said it would try to enable faster progress in the uptake and use of alternatives approaches based on cell and tissue cultures and computer modelling. 

And it’s put its money where its mouth is with this aim. 

Funding conditions for the Commission’s Horizon 2020 incentivise non-animal techniques.

The Horizon 2020 programme for 2014-2015 contained four topics addressing predictive safety testing, of which at least two (health and food safety) require “non-animal approaches”. 

This strategy centres on a continuation of the 3Rs principle - Replacement, Reduction and Refinement – a concept that had been around since the late 50s. 

Key EU organisation the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says it is “committed” to the 3Rs.

Prove it 

But speaking with NutraIngredients recently, one member of EFSA’s panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) said animal models were still being used widely in the dossiers it received.

He said genotoxicity and mechanism models were two areas where alternatives were being increasingly used. For example for genotoxicity tests, in vitro would only be followed by in vivo tests if a problem had been flagged. 

However, he said alternative testing models would have to be verified by EFSA to be accepted as part of a dossier. 

And with firms already investing huge amounts of money and resources in health claim and novel food applications, it may be the case that companies are unlikely to want to take the risk of submitting an emerging model as proof of their mechanism or ingredient safety.   

Sharing lessons

Dr Jacqueline Whyte, senior scientific officer at publicly funded organisation Science Europe, said there was a changing culture around animal testing and an intensification of debates that had been on the table for a long time.

“It’s an important question: are we doing the right research and are we doing it in the right way?”

The Stop Vivisection petition had “really stirred a lot of good discussion” and Science Europe was planning further work and workshops on this issue.

“There’s definitely an opportunity to further share new lessons on this, signpost and explore opportunities.”

Yet she said more work was needed on developing the alternatives – and cost remained a key challenge for expensive options like the use of human primary cells.  

She said a survey from the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) – prompted by the Stop Vivisection petition – was a good way to spread the word on new techniques already being used.

“At conferences it’s very clear – there’s lots of discussions on this – both industry and academia are already using other models like computers and
primary cells.”

Big funding, big responsibility

Science Europe and its members funding and performing research support the 3Rs concept.

“And they [the funders] definitely question and are increasingly aligning on questioning the use of animals in the research that they fund and this is ongoing work.”

Science Europe members channel €25 billion of public money into research – and Whyte said this was a responsibility to tax payers they took “very seriously”. 

Related News

Researchers propose alternative field of 'nutritional ecology', which has developed within the framework of ecology and evolution. ©iStock/fotohunter

Nutrition science is broken, say researchers

©iStock

Lab meat heads for the market: A look at the history and future of in-vitro meat

'Should this conclusion persist – the conclusion would have to be that it can’t be possible to get a health claim for probiotics,' says Probi CEO after claim rejection. ©iStock/benjaminec

310th probiotic claim rejection: EFSA throws out Probi claim for iron absorption

SNE and Chios Mastiha Growers Association have both withdrawn their respective health claim applications dating back to 2008. ©iStock.com/shironosov

Prebiotic & botanical health claims withdrawn from EFSA

Interested parties have until 12 September 2016 to submit comments on the draft document. ©iStock/pichet_w

What do YOU think about EFSA’s health claim guidance?

The scientific community is invited to submit comments on GM allergenicity before 25 September 2016. Photo: iStock / AdgaFoto

EFSA launches public consultation on GM allergy assessment

Researchers are finding fish offcuts can be a source of protein without typically bitter flavour notes. ©iStock

Fish trimmings could be new value-added protein source

'I would expect those rules to be changed to say ‘from Europe’ not only the European Union,' says head of EFSA's nutrition unit. ©iStock/Bee-individual

Brexit may force EFSA to change its 'nationality balance' policy

Related Products

See more related products

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.