In January we read an ALF report about a salamander liberation at a UK pet breeder who was selling animals to vivisection laboratories and it peaked our interest.
By chance we stumbled upon an animal delivery at a local “Pets At Home”.
Sticky fingers helped us collect an invoice from the front of the delivery van whilst they were unloading into the store and we found the address of a breeder.
We did some research; the breeder we had found was the biggest “Pets At Home” supplier in the country, delivering all across England. Surprisingly, that was not the only thing we found.
Thanks to a handy list of historical ALF raids against vivisection we learnt that the breeder had already been visited by the ALF during the 80s and 90s, where they liberated hamsters, mice and rats.
It seems that the pet industry has a dirty little vivisection secret.
They are not supplying labs that need sterile environment animals, but pet breeders are obviously being used as a cheap resource for uni labs and experiments that do not require toxicology or pharmaceutical handling.
We raided their guinea pig breeding operation.
With the amount of pregnant females, we estimate the number of liberated animals to be 400+.
They will see nothing but freedom. They will not be a thing people can buy at a Pets at Home, or a test subject to be tortured and then discarded in the name of ‘experimentation’.
Now that we know what they are up to, they should expect us to target them relentlessly. We do not give up.
We want to send our solidarity to the beagles inside MBR Acres, to Camp Beagle and to Free the MBR Beagles campaign.
Turns out MBR has a side hustle in the pet industry too!
Together we can shut them down and they should fear the escalation that will come.
And I mean…A new footage is filmed at MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire – right here in the UK – a factory farm where mothers are kept and forced to spend their entire lives as puppy-producing machines, allegedly churning out a total of between 1,600 and 2,000 offspring for medical testing each year.
So this is what our taxpayers money is going towards?
Beagles in the lab at MBR Acres Ltd- Nothing so clearly testifies to the bigotry and wretchedness of our speciesist morality as such photos.
Many of these horrific tests involve repeatedly force-feeding or forcing dogs to inhale substances for weeks, months, or even more than a year to measure the effects of repeat exposure on the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, and nervous system.
Anyone who knows and has studied the history of the “Third Reich” knows what makes animal experimenters tick. Their actions are 100% identical to the mass murderers of that time.
Then there are unscrupulous politicians as cooperation partners and financiers of the laboratory mafia and this criminal cartel will stay alive as long as we do nothing.
Many thanks to the ALF activists. We are grateful to you!
MEPs say now is the time for a comprehensive plan to end European animal experiments and transition to human-relevant science
8 July 2021
Today in the European Parliament, answering to a call from cross party MEPs to clarify how the Commission is planning to deliver on its commitment to proactively reduce and replace the use of animals in EU laboratories, Commissioner Adina Ioana Vălean described the Commission’s actions. MEPs from all political groups unanimously agreed that progress in replacing the use of animals has been slow and more needs to be done.
Members of the European Parliament are calling for a coordinated action plan to move Europe towards more humane and human-relevant science without the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education.
Cross party Members of the European Parliament have joined forces to request that the Commission sets up a high-level taskforce to work with Member States and relevant stakeholders in putting together an EU-wide plan to phase-out the use of animals in Europe’s laboratories.
An oral question to the Commission on this issue has been debated today and the Parliament will formally adopt its position in September.This has been a major objective of the Animals in Science working group of the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals.
Opinion polls show that ending animal experiments is a priority for EU citizens.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of European citizens agree that the EU should set binding targets and deadlines to phase out testing on animals.
The Members of the European Parliament’s comments:
Jytte Guteland, S&D“Today’s scientific landscape is not the same as 50 years ago. Today we have the knowledge and technology to plan for human-centred science, where animals are no longer the gold standard. But to get there, the Commission needs to set out a series of steps to reach concrete objectives that replace step by step the use of animals in specific areas.”
Tilly Metz, Greens“EU citizens have voiced their demand for non-animal science too many times, but EU investments are too slim and scattered to have an impact. The Commission needs to establish a high-level inter-service taskforce to work with member states and relevant stakeholders to draw up an EU-wide Action Plan that can drive an efficient phase-out of the use of animals for scientific purposes.”
Katalin Cseh, Renew“Animal tests are slow, inefficient and cause immense suffering. This has no place in 21st century science. The European Union has traditionally done better than the rest of the world, but even here, progress is too slow. We need a credible plan ‒ a plan with measures, targets and a binding, ambitious timeline. We need to promote and fund cruelty-free alternatives. This is what we are asking from the European Commission.”
Michal Wiezik, EPP “What we are asking from the Commission is to do more of what it already does, but in a coordinated manner and with concrete goals that can replace animals in specific scientific areas. Targeted funding, education and broad collaborations are key to making innovative advanced models and technologies the new normal.”
Anja Hazekamp, GUE/NGL“Scientific change, like any change we seek, needs a political strategy. The EU has strategies for climate change, gender equality, and even for research and innovation. But it does not yet address the scientific and ethical problems that have been dragged by animal experimentation for decades. An EU action plan to accelerate the transition to non-animal science can change that.”
Today’s debate has shown that despite the positive investments from the Commission on non-animal models, they are not usually linked to concrete objectives that can significantly reduce the use of animals and change the current scientific landscape.
A European Parliament resolution on a coordinated Union-level plan to facilitate the transition to animal-free innovation can lay out the strategic elements necessary to place the EU in the forefront of innovation, health and environmental and animal protection.
State lawmakers took another step Thursday to beef up the New Jersey rules against selling cosmetics that have been tested on animals.
Both houses of the state Legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill that bans the sale of any cosmetics that have been developed or tested on animals beginning January 2020. The prohibition applies even when tests were performed outside of New Jersey.
The state already bans animal testing on cosmetics when there’s an alternative testing method, such as using engineered human tissue or computer models. But lawmakers said they want to totally end the practice and send a message to companies that still engage in the practice.
“Cosmetic testing on animals is not only unnecessary and oftentimes ineffective, but it contributes to the serious suffering of animals,” state Sen. Joseph Lagana, D-Bergen, said.
“It is heartbreaking to know what these animals endure for days or weeks,” Lagana added. “This bill will make it illegal for any product that was animal tested to be sold in New Jersey, incentivizing companies to stop this unethical practice.”
The legislation (S1726) was sent to Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk by a 74-0 vote in the state Assembly with one abstention and 35-0 in the state Senate.
Violators can get hit with a $1,000 fine.
“Animal testing for cosmetic products was instituted in the 1940s,” the Assembly prime sponsors — Anthony Verrelli, D-Mercer; Lisa Swain, D-Bergen; and Andrew Zwicker, D-Middlesex — said in a joint statement
“Since then we have made many testing advancements and the procedures once used are now very outdated,” they said. “We are able to ensure products are safe by using modern methods that do not include harming animals.”
There’s an exception if testing on animals is required by federal or state regulator authorities, according to the bill.
Positive thinking; positive vote, positive moves for the future.
WAV Comment: we have always attempted to draw attention on several of our posts relating to how powerful the lobbyists are – Farming, Animal Exports; Pharmaceuticals etc. In this excellent report by ‘The Guardian’ (London), the lid has been taken off the all party parliamentary groups (APPG’s) who are supposed to be independent and represent the normal citizen with their enquiries. It would appear that drug firms may look at this from a slightly different angle – their potential profits being a large contributor.
“Something must be done to mitigate against potential influence which normal citizens or NGOs won’t be able to exert.”
Drug firms giving MPs ‘hidden’ funding, research shows
Pharmaceutical industry has “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups
Drug companies are giving groups of MPs and peers that campaign on health issues hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in “hidden” funding that could hand them “undue influence”, research has found.
The pharmaceutical industry has built up a “hidden web of policy influence” over dozens of all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) at Westminster by making hundreds of “non-transparent” payments to them, as part of the industry’s wider effort to lobby those in power, researchers claim.
The findings raise questions about the independence of APPGs, the voluntary special interest cross-party groups of members of both houses of parliament that seek to influence ministers and government departments through reports, inquiries and meetings at Westminster.
Fifty-eight APPGs focusing on different aspects of health received 468 payments totalling just under £2.2m in direct and indirect funding from pharmaceutical firms between 2012 and 2018, academics from the University of Bath found. APPGs receive no money from parliament to support their activities, which often involve ministers being questioned and being sent reports.
“In the context of health-related APPGs, payments from the pharmaceutical industry represent institutional conflicts of interest as they create circumstances where the primary interest, policymaking in the interests of public health, is at risk of being unduly influenced by the secondary interest, the pharmaceutical industry’s goal of maximising profits”, the authors conclude, in a paper published on Thursday evening in the medical journal PLOS One.
Drug companies can use their close relationship with APPGs to contribute to their inquiries, argue for policies that favour their commercial interests and have that reflected in reports, all without the public knowing about those links, according to Emily Rickard and Dr Piotr Ozieranski, from Bath University’s department of social and policy sciences.
They uncovered the long history of funding by examining parliament’s register of APPGs and drug company payment disclosure reports. Both sources contain information about big pharma’s funding of APPGs, and also its financing of health charities, which often act as the secretariat for APPGs. But the details given were often vague, incomplete and hard to understand, the authors said.
Their research found:
16 health-related APPGs received 168 payments from 35 drug firms worth £1.2m in 2012-18 – one-sixth of their total funding
Two APPGs, on health and cancer, accepted more than £600,000 in that time
50 health-focused APPGs received almost another £1m in 304 payments from patient organisations or health charities, which themselves take sums of money from big pharma
“We are not attacking any APPG or alleging any impropriety. However, there is a dilemma. The APPGs are a key part of policymaking and it is clear that corporate money is entering the APPG bloodstream”, Rickard and Ozieranski told the Guardian.
“Something must be done to mitigate against potential influence which normal citizens or NGOs won’t be able to exert.”
The revelations led to calls for greater openness about where APPG funding comes from.
“APPGs have an important role to play in holding the government to account and shaping policy by bringing together voices from across the political spectrum and from a range of stakeholders”, said Dr John Chisholm, the chair of the British Medical Association’s medical ethics committee.
“However, it is vitally important that there is full transparency around who is behind these groups and what is driving their calls for change. This is especially important for the development of health policy, which must be underpinned by the principle of improving the health of the population, and not risk being swayed by other conflicting interests.”
Justin Madders, a shadow health minister, said: “It is hugely concerning if big pharma and other vested interests are using the cover of these groups, which were set up with the best of intentions, to circumvent the normal rules on probity and transparency.
“There is a need for clearer rules on funding and conflicts of interest to ensure important health issues are not used as a vehicle to push private interests.”
But Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a Labour peer and the treasurer of the all-party parliamentary health group, countered that APPGs’ lack of funding from parliament left them reliant on external organisations.
“APPGs need a lot of support to be run effectively. There is no funding available so its inevitable that outside organisations are asked to fund”, he said.
“In these circumstances it is an imperative on the parliamentarians who serve as honorary officers to make sure that financial sponsors do not improperly influence the outcome of APPG work.
“That is certainly the case with the APPG on health, where the sponsors come nowhere near our decisions on programmes.”
Elliot Dunster of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said: “APPGs facilitate discussions between MPs, peers and stakeholders in an open and transparent way. A number of these groups are supported by charities, trade associations and companies to carry out research, reports and meetings.
“There is strict parliamentary guidance on APPGs and a complete register – there is no hidden funding from pharmaceutical companies for MPs.” This article was amended on 26 June 2021 to add a statement from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry that was provided after publication.
“IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME, AND IT’S A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.”
On a warm October day in Halifax, Dr. Charu Chandrasekera is attending the inaugural Canadian Animal Law Conference, to speak on a panel entitled, ‘Ending Animal Experimentation: New Advances.’ That same weekend, coincidentally, the Canadian Cancer Society’s CIBC Run For The Cure is also taking place, to raise funds for breast cancer research. As Dr. Chandrasekera and I sit in a coffee shop to discuss her work, participants jog by and she quips: “I wish I could tell them they are not running for a cure. They are running from a cure.”
And so began a conversation both enlightening and enraging, detailing Dr. Chandrasekera’s journey as a biomedical scientist growing increasingly disenchanted by the system within which she works, specifically due to the use of animal models in research.
“The journey didn’t start with anything to do with animals,” she says, “it was me trying to be a scientist.” In her postdoctoral training following her PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology, Dr. Chandrasekera says she actually specifically worked in animal research labs, “because it was ingrained in you that animal research is absolutely essential; and I believed it, I trusted it.”
Heart failure was her area of research, mice and rats her test subjects. “Some of the labs I worked in also had rabbit models, and I saw people working dog models of heart failure as well,” she says. Soon into the work, however, Dr. Chandrasekera says, “it became very obvious that the work I was doing was not translatable [to humans] the way I thought it was.” And though she would continue this work for a few years, she would also continue to question the purpose and effectiveness of testing on animals. “In the field that I was involved in, nothing was really reproducible; there were so many discrepancies and contradictions even among the top-notch researchers in that field.”
Today, she notes, drugs tested to be safe and/or effective in animal models have a 95 percent failure rate in human trials. Yes, read that over again.
During this period, says Dr. Chandrasekera, “while I was going through this whole experience in these animal research labs where scientifically they weren’t working, I was also going through a personal, moral journey at home.” Becoming visibly choked up, Dr. Chandrasekera speaks of her dear cat Mowgli, a grey tabby with green eyes.
“She [Mowgli] taught me all about animal sentience for the first time in my life, about who animals really are. That they are just like us, they feel pain, they feel joy, they are mischievous, they get mad, they like to enjoy, and they are conscious.”
There was a certain innocence and purity in Mowgli’s eyes, she says, that captivated her heart. “And soon enough, there were times when I would go into the lab and I would see the exact same innocence and purity in the eyes of a mouse. And to me, there was no difference between Mowgli and the mouse I was giving heart disease to.” Combined with the scientific failures of animal research, she says, “it was no longer justifiable.”
It was around this time Dr. Chandrasekera also adds, that she viewed the documentary Food, Inc., and immediately went vegan.
But it was in 2011 that Dr. Chandrasekera says she reached a point she describes as life-altering when her father had a heart attack and required bypass surgery. After staying at his bedside for weeks, she returned to the lab where they were working on heart failure research, specifically regarding certain receptors, if activated properly during a heart attack could be protective of the heart. “We had a number of different animal models of this,” she says, “and when I came back to the lab I talked to my professor I was working for, and I said ‘Do you think these receptors were activated in my dad during his heart attack?’ and he said –I’ll never forget this– ‘How the hell would I know? We’ve never looked at this in the human heart.’”
It was at that moment, she says, “everything within me sort of froze, and I thought, ‘What am I doing this for?’”
By 2012, Dr. Chandrasekera left traditional academia. She joined the American non-profit, The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which promotes plant-based eating, as well as preventive medicine and alternatives to animal research. “It was during this period that I was exposed to this whole other world. I got to interact with big players across the globe, people who were legitimate scientists, who were regulators, who were pharma industry, who were investing and actively promoting alternatives to animal testing.” She calls it an awakening, an awakening within her, as well as within the scientific community.
“There was a huge global shift. Countries like the Netherlands just came up and said, ‘We’re going to end all animal testing for chemical safety by 2025’; all these things were happening,” she says.
“From Brazil to East Asia, there are many countries that have dedicated federally funded research to shift away from animal testing.”
Whenever she would attend international meetings however, “people always asked, ‘How come there is no centre for alternatives in Canada?’” That’s when Dr. Chandrasekera knew what she needed to do next.
So in 2016, Dr. Chandrasekera approached the Vice President of Research and Innovation at the University of Windsor with a proposal, and said “How would you like to have a centre like that here?” He was fully on board, she says, as was the new Dean of Science, and in less than a year the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods was established. With the help of a “transformative gift from the Eric S. Margolis Family Foundation,” she says, the centre now works in three main areas: biomedical research, regulatory testing, and developing courses and degrees focused on “training the next generation to think outside the cage.”
Dr. Chandrasekera says she can now foresee a future without animal testing.
“It is going to happen in my lifetime, and it’s a win-win situation for everyone involved.”
As another Run For the Cure participant saunters by the coffee shop window, Dr. Chandrasekera concludes: “This is about animals and this is about people like my dad. Alternatives to animal testing are where the world is headed, whether the scientific community likes it or not.”
Photos of Dr. Charu Chandrasekera by Frank Michael Photography. All other photos by Jo-Anne McArthur. Interview and story by Jessica Scott-Reid.
Jessica Scott-Reid is a Canadian journalist and animal advocate. Her work appears regularly in the Globe and Mail, New York Daily News, Toronto Star, Maclean’s Magazine and others.
The Community of Madrid lifts the suspension of the activity in Vivotecnia and allows it to continue experimenting!
The Community of Madrid has lifted the precautionary suspension of the experimentation activity in Vivotecnia since June 1.
From PACMA, FAADA, AnimaNaturalis and SOS 112 Vagabundos we will continue with the judicial process against the laboratory, with the aim of safeguarding the animals.
The defendants against the Vivotecnia laboratory denounce that the Community of Madrid has lifted the precautionary suspension of the experimentation activity since June 1, which is why the experiments with animals continue.
The aforementioned organizations denounced the laboratory as a result of a video published by Cruelty Free International last April, in which cruel practices and an absolute lack of respect for the life and integrity of the animals victims of experimentation were observed in the facilities of the laboratory in Tres Cantos.
Thus, the Community of Madrid deliberately lied when it announced, in April, that it would proceed to remove the animals from the laboratory.
Not only does it not keep its word, but it has not even waited for responsibilities to be settled in the courts, but is now allowing the laboratory to resume normal activity.
Recently, Representatives Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and Vern Buchanan (R- FL), following efforts by Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research & Experimentation (CAARE), introduced a bill that would provide a needed boost to medical research.
If passed, the Humane Research and Testing Act of 2021 (H.R. 1744) will establish the National Center for Alternatives to Animals in Research (Center) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The bill follows nearly 30 years after Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act to modernize many of the outdated policies and regulations carried out under the world’s largest biomedical institution. The 1993 law included a substantial section [Section 205] to address the growing need and opportunities to replace animals in research. In robust language, the Act called upon NIH “to conduct or support research into methods of biomedical research and experimentation that do not require the use of animals.” It also included language “for training scientists in the use of such [non-animal] methods that have been found to be valid and reliable,” as well as “encouraging the acceptance by the scientific community of such methods that have been found to be valid and reliable.”
Unfortunately, even though this legislation passed nearly 30 years ago, NIH has made little effort in replacing animal testing, even with a revolution that has unfolded in biotechnology allowing for superior human-specific research without animals. According to a 2012 National Research Council report, almost half of NIH’s funding is for testing that involves animal use, and this amount has remained stable over the years.
The Humane Research and Testing Act will mandate that NIH follow the law. Fundamental to reducing animal experimentation is the ability to track the number of animals used, yet precise numbers of animals used in U.S. research are unknown. This lack of transparency in what animals are used, how many are used, and how they are used makes it impossible for the public to know whether NIH is making any true effort in replacing animal tests. That is why, in addition to the creation of the Center, the Humane Research and Testing Act (HRTA) will require NIH to track and disclose the numbers of all animals used and document its progress at reducing them through mandatory bi-annual reports.
Importantly, the establishment of a Center will be an important step in ensuring scientific progress for human health. It is becoming increasingly recognized by scientific bodies that there is an urgent need for a sea change away from animal testing. Whatever role animals may have played in medical research in the past, today’s research deals with the subtle nuances of molecular biology and genetics. Interspecies differences in physiology, pharmacokinetics, and genetics significantly limit the reliability of animal testing.
And the proof is in the pudding. More than 90 percent of drugs and vaccines fail during human clinical trials, after passing animal tests. People enrolled in clinical trials put their lives at risk based on misleading safety tests on animals. Equally troubling is the very likely fact that many drugs that were abandoned based on animal tests may have worked wonderfully in humans. Most diseases have little or no treatment available. But how many missed opportunities were there because of the unreliability of animal testing?
New testing methods offer a way out of the quagmire that animal testing has caused. Human organs grown in the lab, human chip models, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project offer great promise in helping scientists understand the diseases that afflict us and find treatments. Much of their promise lies in the fact that these testing methods are based on human biology.
But more change is needed and needed faster. As long as NIH prioritizes funding of animal research, the development of innovative testing methods will be impeded. The Center will be tasked with developing, funding, and incentivizing innovative, human-based methods. The Center will also educate and train scientists to utilize these methods.
The HRTA was introduced one month before Congressman Hastings died from pancreatic cancer. His words drove home his strong belief that the HRTA will be transformative: “This legislation will not just reduce animal testing and research,” said Hastings, “but will ultimately improve medical treatments for humans as they are developed from beginning to end primarily with test subjects that replicate human biology and physiology.”
Will Congress honor Hastings’s legacy? Lives remain in the balance as long as the biomedical system is based on ineffective animal testing. A new center within NIH will help ensure that our tax dollars are used to fund the best and kindest medical science possible and pave the way for innovation.
Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., is a double-board certified neurologist and preventive medicine/public health specialist. She is the CEO of the Center for Contemporary Sciences, pioneering the transition to replace the use of animals in experimentation with effective human-based technologies. Dr. Akhtar is the author of the recent book, Our Symphony With Animals. On Health, Empathy and Our Shared Destinies.
Cruelty-Free and Vegan Cosmetics Certifications & Claims Explained
WAV Comment – we are reproducing the introduction and link to the site in order that you can review and make your own choices. There is a lot of information, complete with logos to watch out for when you purchase or decide not to purchase.
In this post, I’m sharing some of the most common cruelty-free and vegan claims, labels, and logos that we often see on cosmetics and household cleaning products. As well as, providing an overview of which ones are regulated, the organizations issuing these certifications, their requirements, and the cost associated with licensing their logos.
And because no certification or standard is perfect or all-inclusive, I’ll also be sharing some things to look out for. That way, we can set some realistic expectations when we shop for cruelty-free and vegan cosmetics.
By the end of this post, you’ll have a better understanding of what each cruelty-free and vegan claim actually means, and hopefully, it’ll help you make better and informed consumer choices.
Fifth country takes a step towards “phasing out animal experiments”
The renowned Karolinska Institute in #Sweden# has published a discussion paper on new methods without animal testing, which is clearly aimed at a paradigm shift in which animal testing isno longer the “gold standard”.
Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm
The Swedish government had already announced that it could become the world leader in animal-free research.
The German association “Doctors Against Animal Experiments” is pleased about the 5th country after the Netherlands, USA, the Great Britain and Norway, which is taking an important step away from animal experiments.
“The Karolinska Institute’s paper does not yet speak of an exit from animal experiments, but an important first step has been taken, namely to recognize that the future belongs to methods that do not involve animal experiments,” explains Dr. med. vet. Corina Gericke, Vice Chairwoman of “Doctors Against Animal Experiments”.
A placement, not a replacement, is required, i.e. the establishment of animal-free procedures instead of a 1-to-1 replacement of animal experiments.
The word “alternatives” is also not chosen, but rather “new methods” are used.
These are not just a substitute or an alternative, as they offer many more options than animal experiments.
The authors are convinced that the new technologies hold great potential for science, the human environment and health, as well as for the innovative strength of industry.
Several actors from the fields of research, authorities, politics and industry (L’Oréal and AstraZeneca) were interviewed in the 114-page paper.
Many question animal testing as the “gold standard”.
Mice would be cured, but transmission to humans often doesn’t work.
Research needs more human relevance.
The first aim of the report is to promote communication between researchers and other stakeholders.
The Swedish government presented a roadmap for research over the next four years in December 2020.
It says: “Sweden can become a world leader in the field of alternative methods, which can contribute to new jobs as well as new companies. The demand for faster, cheaper and safer test methods is great. “
The Karolinska Institute near Stockholm is one of the largest and most respected medical universities in Europe.
The Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute annually determines the winner (s) of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
Sweden joins the list of countries that are taking steps to phase out animal testing: the Netherlands, USA, Great Britain and Norway.
In a joint campaign with the german Association of “People for Animal Rights” and 13 other organizations,” Doctors Against Animal Experiments” is calling for the German government to develop a concept for phasing out animal experiments.
And I mean…Directive EU / 2010/63 on animal experiments: “From an ethical point of view, there should be an upper limit for pain, suffering and fear that must not be exceeded in scientific processes. To this end, the implementation of procedures that are likely to cause long-lasting and unreliable severe pain, severe suffering or anxiety should be prohibited. “
The EU bans, but Germany does not!
Why are nevertheless animal experiments of severe degree still being carried out in Germany?
Because: The EU prohibits excessive suffering in the laboratory, but allows the member states to make exceptions.
And that is exactly what the German government did with the new version of the Animal Welfare Act:under pressure from the animal experimentation lobby, it has made use of the exception and, apart from a few cosmetic changes, the most important ones remain unchanged.
Therefore, severe animal experiments are still carried out in Germany.
Every civilized, informed and morally developed person disgusts this senseless torture in the name of a pseudoscience, and only a bunch of idiots in laboratories and government posts try to sell the animal experiment business to the public with hollow, factually false and implausible arguments.
Let us now hope that other countries will follow Sweden’s positive example, because in a modern Europe this senseless cruelty to animals has no place.
Most people nowadays do not miss how corrupt, primitive, unscientific work is done in the field of animal testing.
Biotech giant Amgen has confirmed that it no longer conducts near-drowning experiments on small animals!
This follows PETA scientists’ outreach to the company about the forced swim test, in which small animals are often dosed with a test substance, put in beakers of water, and forced to paddle desperately out of fear of drowning.