.. well worth a visit … even if you’re not living in the US.
Recent Article of Interest:
https://aldf.org/article/state-animal-protection-laws-ranked-oregon-is-1-north-dakota-50/
Category: Vivisection
See our other recent post about this: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2024/11/08/usa-40-monkeys-escape-from-yemassee-monkey-farm-in-beaufort-hampton-co-heres-what-we-know/
New reference – additional data:
The monkeys that science has experimented on for over a century.
“The U.S. Army and NASA have rhesus macaques too,” wrote the book’s author, Dario Maestripieri, a behavioural scientist at the University of Chicago, “and for years they trained them to play computer video games to see whether the monkeys could learn to pilot planes and launch missiles.”
WHY ????
Regards Mark
Regards Mark
Additional:
Anyone who sees or finds a monkey is asked to call 911, the Yemassee Police Department said.
“Just don’t try to take these things home or pet them,” Yemassee Police Chief Gregory Alexander said, per the Post and Courier. “We’re getting a lot of that on our social media. That’s a felony because they don’t belong to you.”
Alpha Genesis conducts research trials using the monkeys, and prides itself on being “one of the largest and most comprehensive nonhuman primate facilities, designed specifically for monkeys, in the United States.” According to federal data, the facility houses more than 6,000 monkeys.
Play Video
Monkeys Spotted in Wooded Area in South Carolina After Escaping Research FacilityUnmute
0
The sheriff’s department did not confirm which species of monkey escaped the lab, but Alpha Genesis’s website says it primarily works with capuchin and macaques.
It’s unclear if the monkeys were part of an ongoing clinical trial, and if so, what kind of testing they had undergone before escaping.
Alpha Genesis maintains a colony of 3,500 monkeys on Morgan Island, in South Carolina — which has since been called Monkey Island — where it breeds monkeys for research purposes.
This isn’t the first time monkeys have escaped into Beaufort County, South Carolina; the region’s newspaper, the Post and Courier, reported that there have been several other escapes, including an incident in 2016 when 19 monkeys spent six hours on the run.
In addition to Alpha Genesis’s Monkey Island in South Carolina, there are at least three species of monkeys with breeding populations living in Florida — none native — including rhesus macaques that were intended to be a part of a tourist attraction in the 1930s. The descendants of those monkeys will roam parts of Florida to this day.
From news to politics, travel to sport, culture to climate – The Independent has a host of free newsletters to suit your interests. To find the stories you want to read, and more, in your inbox, click here.
He realised the only thing I couldn’t say no to was giving all the money away to animal rights organisations. The irony is the only way to get me on tour is to make sure I don’t make a penny from it.
Moby’s passion for animal rights is no secret as the star has even brand himself with his beliefs through tattoos.
His boldest are two arm tattoos which he debuted in 2019 and read ‘Animal Rights’, one word on each arm in thick black ink.
Regards Mark
Metro – London
A professor was placed on leave — prohibiting him from conducting research or teaching — days after he started his new job at Rutgers University, university officials said.
Xiaobing Zhang, an associate professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, was put on leave Sept. 14, shortly after the university received a letter from an animal rights group saying he was barred from his previous research lab at Florida State University following accusations involving the mistreatment of animals.
See also: https://nj1015.com/xiao-zhang-suspension-rutgers-medical/
Mark
Carlota Saorsa / HIDDEN / We Animals
Carlota Saorsa / HIDDEN / We Animals
22 September 2024
The European Pharmacopoeia Commission took a historic step by removing the rabbit pyrogen test from the European Pharmacopoeia in favour of the use of non-animal methods. This decision will not only spare the lives of tens of thousands of rabbits in the EU every year, but will also better ensure the safety of medicines and vaccines.
This long-debated method, which raised ethical concerns and had limitations in accuracy and reproducibility, now belongs to the past.
Pyrogens are fever-inducing substances that can unintentionally contaminate injectable medicines, and their detection is crucial to ensure the safety of these products.
Developed in the early 1900’s, the rabbit pyrogen test was the predominant method for detecting pyrogens. It involves injecting the test substance intravenously into a vein of the rabbits’ ears and observing their reaction, mainly an increase in body temperature. These injections can be repeated until their ears are severely damaged and can no longer be used, or until they show a reaction. In all cases, rabbits are killed at the end.
The limitations of the rabbit pyrogen test are widely recognized, including limited sensitivity and reproducibility. Repeated injections can lead to the development of pyrogen tolerance, while the inherent stress of the test can also affect results.
Alternative non-animal methods with improved sensitivity and relevance have been available for more than 20 years.
Despite many years of efforts to promote the use of non-animal methods for both ethical and scientific reasons, the rabbit pyrogen test remained the standard for detecting pyrogens, resulting in the suffering and death of approximately 25,000 rabbits annually in the EU.
In June 2024, the European Pharmacopoeia Commission, a regulatory body responsible for overseeing the safety of medicines, adopted 57 revised texts in the European Pharmacopoeia. Drug developers will now be required to choose non-animal methods for assessing the pyrogenicity of their products. Among the available methods, the Monocyte Activation Test (MAT) has emerged as a highly reliable and accurate solution for pyrogen detection. This test is based on the response of human immune cells to pyrogens, offering greater sensitivity and reproducibility than the rabbit assay.
This decision marks a significant milestone in the transition away from animal-based testing methods. It is hoped that it will pave the way for the adoption of more innovative and reliable non-animal approaches across various scientific fields.
Regards Mark
5 August 2024
Directive 2010/63/EU establishes common EU measures for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, but the way the Directive is implemented differs between EU Member States. A new implementation report highlights this heterogeneity, particularly in areas where the Directive lacks specific, detailed provisions.
Member States are required to send information on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU to the European Commission every five years. Following the first report in 2019, the second report, covering the period 2018-2022, has just been published.
Education and training
The Directive requires appropriate education and training for staff carrying out procedures, caring for animals, killing animals and designing procedures and projects. However, implementation rests largely with Member States, which can decide independently how competence should be demonstrated.
Most Member States mentioned that they follow the EU Education and Training Framework document, but did not explicitly explain how competence should be demonstrated beyond having obtained the required education.
Project evaluation and authorisation
During project evaluation, applications must be carefully considered to ensure that animal use is justified, the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) are applied, and that the benefits are expected to outweigh the anticipated harms. 2 Member States use individuals to evaluate projects, whereas the others use a panel.
Around 15 000 projects involving the use of animals are authorised across the EU and Norway annually. The number of projects has remained reasonably constant throughout the five-year reporting period, and only around 4.5% of applications are rejected each year.
Competence of project evaluators is assured in different ways. However, it seems that there may be scope for improved training to ensure a consistent approach across the Member States. Many Member States discussed the required qualifications of project evaluators, but only Ireland mentioned expertise in the area of non-animal methods.
It is surprising that there was no explanation on how to achieve harmonisation when project evaluation is carried out by multiple competent authorities from some Member States.
Only one Member State confirmed that applicants are never involved in the project evaluation of their own work.
Animals bred and killed but not used in procedures
This category includes animals killed for their organs and/or tissues, animals used for breeding when they reach the end of their breeding life, animals which were ill and humanely killed before being used, and animals killed in order to protect the health and scientific integrity of the colony. They are not reported in the annual statistics.
In 2022, 9.5 million animals were bred and killed but not used in procedures. This means that there are more animals that fall into this category than the number of animals that are actually used in procedures. Mice, zebrafish and rats account for more than 90% of the animals reported.
Inspections
20 Member States complied with the requirement to inspect at least 1/3 of the user establishments each year. Greece, Croatia and Portugal appear not to have met this criterion for any of the years reported.
According to the Directive, an appropriate proportion of inspections must be carried out without a prior warning. Across the Union, around 1/3 of inspections were unannounced. However, the proportion of unannounced inspections varied between Member States from 0-100%. This suggests that different criteria are being applied to determine “an appropriate proportion.”
8 Member States performed no unannounced inspections which is the same number as in the first report. Cyprus and Portugal performed no unannounced inspections over the ten years covered by the two implementation reports.
18 Member States acknowledged that they did not meet the minimum requirements for inspection in any of the reporting years.
Penalties
Nearly 3/4 Member States reported infringements, and 21 Member States have used administrative actions. Infringements which were dealt with by administrative action were due to failings in animal welfare, staff, records, environment, and facilities.
Almost half of the Member States used legal actions, of which two-thirds were fines.
Structure of competent authorities
The Directive requires that the authorisation of establishments, inspections, project evaluation, project authorisation and retrospective assessment are performed by a competent authority. 7 Member States have only one competent authority for each of the five tasks (Denmark, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Norway), while other Member States have very large numbers of competent authorities (for example, 112 in Spain; 245 in Italy, 328 in Poland and 573 in Germany).
It may be challenging to provide a consistent approach where there are multiple competent authorities responsible for the same individual tasks. Large numbers of competent authorities for any or all tasks increase the risk of inconsistencies.
Summary
The implementation reports are an opportunity to show how Member States have been working since the implementation of the Directive, understand where they encounter difficulties, but also highlight best practices so that they can learn from each other.
The lack of harmonisation across Member States continues to have a negative impact on the objective of creating a level playing field across the EU, but also, and importantly, on animal welfare.
Regards Mark
29 July 2024
Long-awaited statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the 27 EU Member States and Norway during 2021 and 2022 have been published. We dive into the figures to see how many animals were used, which species, and in which ways, to explore how the data can inform the transition away from animal use.
For the first time, a systematic trend analysis was included to make direct comparison with previous years data available in order to monitor the objectives of Directive 2010/63/EU.
2021 Statistics
In 2021, after three years of consecutive decrease, the total number of animals used for the first time increased significantly to 9.41 million. This is 18.5% higher than in 2020, and 6.6% higher compared to 2018.
This increase is mainly due to three research projects, two using salmon in Norway and one using larval form of sea bass in Spain, accounting for over 1.3 million animals. Part of the increase can also be attributed to projects that were either cancelled or postponed in 2020 due to COVID-19 lockdowns and carried out in 2021.
Positively, 13 Member States reduced the number of animals used for the first time in 2021 compared to 2020.
2022 Statistics
In 2022, the total number of animals used for the first time decreased to 8.39 million, 10.9% lower than 2021, and 5% lower than 2018.
This confirms the exceptional nature of the increase reported in 2021, and highlights a longer-term decreasing trend.
Species
In both years, mice continue to be the most used species, followed by fish, rats, domestic fowl and rabbits.
Fish saw a dramatic increase in use in 2021, whilst 2022 saw an increase in the proportion of reptiles used.
Disappointingly, the total number of non-human primates used for the first time increased. Most non-human primates were imported from Africa and Asia, shifting more prominently towards Africa after the Chinese export ban introduced in 2020. The percentage of those that came from self-sustaining colonies (from parents bred in captivity) increased from 58.8% in 2021 to 74.4% in 2022, a positive shift towards eliminating capture of wild primates for breeding purposes.
Genetic alteration
In 2022, 24.8% of animal uses were carried out on animals that were genetically altered, an increase of 4.3% compared to 2021. Of these, 17.5% were carrying a harmful phenotype. Zebrafish and mice continue to be the most genetically altered species.
In addition, 852,145 animals were used in 2022 for the creation and maintenance of genetically altered animal lines, an increase of 28.1% on 2021.
Severity of suffering
The proportion of ‘severe’ uses continues a downward trend since 2018, but this still represents 918,202 animals in 2021, and 784,048 animals in 2022.
However, it is worrisome that the proportion of ‘moderate’ uses has been increasing since 2019, reaching over 42% of uses in 2022.
Types of use
As in previous years, most animal uses were conducted for research purposes.
The number of uses of animals used for regulatory purposes continued to decrease by 6.2% in 2021, and 16.2% in 2022. This is mainly due to continuous reductions in animal uses related to legislations on medicinal products for human use and food legislation, amongst others. This can be attributed to combined efforts from EU regulators, including the EDQM and the European Commission and industry via EPAA, as well as changes in legislation. This includes the decision in 2021 to completely replace the rabbit pyrogen test within five years, and the replacement of the use of mouse bioassay for the purposes of shellfish toxin testing by the so-called Lawrence method.
Unfortunately, this trend is not reflected in other legislation, including medical devices legislation and industrial chemicals legislation, where the number of animals used to satisfy regulatory requirements has been increasing since 2018.
Routine production saw an increase of 1.5% in 2021 and 15.7% in 2022. This category includes monoclonal antibody production by the mouse ascites method, one of the most severe procedures. In 2022, only 3 Member States reported the use of the mouse ascites method, with France representing 99.5% of that, using 49,038 mice. Germany stopped the use of animals for this purpose in 2022. The Commission itself mentions in the 2022 report that the use of mouse ascites method which results in high severities and has alternative production methods available should be discontinued.
What do the statistics tell us?
The statistics indicate that policies to promote the development and use of non-animal technologies and approaches require a further push in order to significantly reduce animal experiments in Europe.
Although a positive trend is now seen in the replacement of a small number of methods, this took decades to achieve after the development of non-animal alternatives. Likewise, the mouse ascites method continues to be accepted in some EU countries despite its near ban in most Member States, and the existence of valid alternatives.
The upward trends in the use of some species like the ones belonging to groups of non-human primates are also worrying in an era where human-based methods have been thriving.
It will be important to take lessons from the social, economic, regulatory and technological factors that influenced the slow transitions that are now taking place, in order to plan more effective transitions moving forward.
Regards Mark
World Animals Voice 