Animal Experimentation Directive
Info
Elisabeth Jeggle (MEP for Württemberg-Hohenzollern and memeber of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has presented a draft directive entitled ‘The protection of animals used for scientific purposes.’ This draft directive builds upon directive 86/609/EEC and 2003/65/EC. Both of these directives are concerned with regulated the use of animal experimentation by implementing the 3R’s: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. These measures attempt to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in research and experimentation.
The present draft directive, currently adopted at the 2nd reading stage by the Agriculture Committee, awaits its final vote at the Plenary meeting of the European Parliament on September 7 2010. If approved, the report will become official EU Law, resulting in scientists using human embryos rather than animals for testing and experimentation.
Danger present in the draft directive & important amendments needed
On 7th June 2010 the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) released a press statement. The COMECE press release expresses concern about Article 4 paragraph 1 of the report: ‘Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.’
There are 4 very important amendments that explicitly seek to protect human embryos and foetal tissues from being considered alternatives to animal testing. At this point, none of following amendments have been included in the draft Directive:
- Amendment 175 (Article 4.1), Elisabeth Jeggle, Michl Ebner, Heinz Kindermann: ‘Where an internationally accepted and validated method of testing not involving the use of animals exists and may be used instead of a procedure, Member States shall ensure that the alternative method is used. Pursuant to this Directive, testing methods which involve the use of human embryonic and foetal cells shall not be regarded as alternatives.’ 16th March 2009. The Amendments Report explains that ‘if Article 4(1) is taken in conjunction with Article 13, the result may be that Member States are required to abandon animal testing when the only alternative testing method available involves the use of human embryonic and foetal cells. However, Member States are free to decide whether and subject to what conditions the use of human embryonic and foetal cells is allowed and whether such testing methods are to be regarded as ethically defensible alternatives to animal testing.’
- Amendment 176 (Article 4.1) Janusz Wojciechowski: ‘Where a method of testing not involving the use of animals exists and may be used in place of a procedure, Member States shall ensure that the alternative method is used. Within the framework of this Directive, testing methods involving the use of human embryonic or foetal cells are not to be considered such an alternative.’ The Amendments Report explains that ‘Article 4 § 1 read together with Article 13 can have the consequence to oblige the Member States to abandon animal testing methods in a situation where only one other alternative testing method exists. However, Member States not only are free to chose whether they allow the use of human embryonic or foetal cells, they also have the freedom of choice whether they regard testing methods involving such cells as an alternative for animal testing. They may allow some restricted use of human embryonic stem cells for example and nevertheless have ethical objections to treat them as an alternative method in the framework of this Directive. That choice lies with the Member States. Therefore, this amendment does not prohibit or otherwise pass judgement on the use of human embryonic stem cells or human foetal cells. It only clarifies that the Member States may not – via the Directive - be forced to use testing methods involving such cells in a situation where these methods are the only alternative to animal testing.
- Amendment 227 (Article 13.1) Elisabeth Jeggle, Michl Ebner: Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is internationally accepted and validated. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. In no case shall a Member State be obliged to abandon animal testing if the only alternative testing method involves the use of human embryonic or foetal cells. The Amendment Report explains that ‘The EU respects the ethical decisions of Member States, so that they will not be obliged to use testing methods involving human embryonic or foetal cells. Therefore it needs to be clarified that Member States cannot be forced by the Directive to use these testing methods, even if they are the only alternative to animal testing.’
- Amendment 228 (Article 13.1) Janusz Wojciechowski: ‘Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is recognised by Community legislation. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. In any case, Member States will not be obliged to abandon animal testing where the only alternative testing method implies the use of human embryonic or foetal cells.’ The Amendments Report explains that ‘The EU respects the ethical decisions of Member States, so that they will not be obliged to use testing methods involving human embryonic or foetal cells. Therefore it needs to be clarified that Member States cannot be forced by the Directive to use these testing methods, even if they are the only alternative to animal testing.’
There are four amendments proposed which would protect human embryos (amendments 175, 176, 227 and 228 http://www.ecbr.eu/pdf/Amendments%20134-275.pdf).
More information in support of these points can be found in the 7 June 2010 press release by the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) http://bit.ly/csaTPX
Author
Ms. Elizabeth Jeggle
Germany: European People's Party
|
|
|
Parlement européen
Bât. Altiero Spinelli
10E209
60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60
B-1047 Bruxelles/Brussel
Tel: +32 (0)2 28 45351
Fax: +32 (0)2 28 49351
E-mail: .eu
Documents
Animal Directive
Animal Experimentation Directive
Info
Elisabeth Jeggle (MEP for Württemberg-Hohenzollern and memeber of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has presented a draft directive entitled ‘The protection of animals used for scientific purposes.’ This draft directive builds upon directive 86/609/EEC and 2003/65/EC. Both of these directives are concerned with regulated the use of animal experimentation by implementing the 3R’s: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. These measures attempt to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in research and experimentation.
The present draft directive, currently adopted at the 2nd reading stage by the Agriculture Committee, awaits its final vote at the Plenary meeting of the European Parliament on September 7 2010. If approved, the report will become official EU Law, resulting in scientists using human embryos rather than animals for testing and experimentation.
Danger present in the draft directive & important amendments needed
On 7th June 2010 the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) released a press statement. The COMECE press release expresses concern about Article 4 paragraph 1 of the report: ‘Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.’
There are 4 very important amendments that explicitly seek to protect human embryos and foetal tissues from being considered alternatives to animal testing. At this point, none of following amendments have been included in the draft Directive:
- Amendment 175 (Article 4.1), Elisabeth Jeggle, Michl Ebner, Heinz Kindermann: ‘Where an internationally accepted and validated method of testing not involving the use of animals exists and may be used instead of a procedure, Member States shall ensure that the alternative method is used. Pursuant to this Directive, testing methods which involve the use of human embryonic and foetal cells shall not be regarded as alternatives.’ 16th March 2009. The Amendments Report explains that ‘if Article 4(1) is taken in conjunction with Article 13, the result may be that Member States are required to abandon animal testing when the only alternative testing method available involves the use of human embryonic and foetal cells. However, Member States are free to decide whether and subject to what conditions the use of human embryonic and foetal cells is allowed and whether such testing methods are to be regarded as ethically defensible alternatives to animal testing.’
- Amendment 176 (Article 4.1) Janusz Wojciechowski: ‘Where a method of testing not involving the use of animals exists and may be used in place of a procedure, Member States shall ensure that the alternative method is used. Within the framework of this Directive, testing methods involving the use of human embryonic or foetal cells are not to be considered such an alternative.’ The Amendments Report explains that ‘Article 4 § 1 read together with Article 13 can have the consequence to oblige the Member States to abandon animal testing methods in a situation where only one other alternative testing method exists. However, Member States not only are free to chose whether they allow the use of human embryonic or foetal cells, they also have the freedom of choice whether they regard testing methods involving such cells as an alternative for animal testing. They may allow some restricted use of human embryonic stem cells for example and nevertheless have ethical objections to treat them as an alternative method in the framework of this Directive. That choice lies with the Member States. Therefore, this amendment does not prohibit or otherwise pass judgement on the use of human embryonic stem cells or human foetal cells. It only clarifies that the Member States may not – via the Directive - be forced to use testing methods involving such cells in a situation where these methods are the only alternative to animal testing.
- Amendment 227 (Article 13.1) Elisabeth Jeggle, Michl Ebner: Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is internationally accepted and validated. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. In no case shall a Member State be obliged to abandon animal testing if the only alternative testing method involves the use of human embryonic or foetal cells. The Amendment Report explains that ‘The EU respects the ethical decisions of Member States, so that they will not be obliged to use testing methods involving human embryonic or foetal cells. Therefore it needs to be clarified that Member States cannot be forced by the Directive to use these testing methods, even if they are the only alternative to animal testing.’
- Amendment 228 (Article 13.1) Janusz Wojciechowski: ‘Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is recognised by Community legislation. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. In any case, Member States will not be obliged to abandon animal testing where the only alternative testing method implies the use of human embryonic or foetal cells.’ The Amendments Report explains that ‘The EU respects the ethical decisions of Member States, so that they will not be obliged to use testing methods involving human embryonic or foetal cells. Therefore it needs to be clarified that Member States cannot be forced by the Directive to use these testing methods, even if they are the only alternative to animal testing.’
There are four amendments proposed which would protect human embryos (amendments 175, 176, 227 and 228 http://www.ecbr.eu/pdf/Amendments%20134-275.pdf).
More information in support of these points can be found in the 7 June 2010 press release by the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) http://bit.ly/csaTPX
Author
Ms. Elizabeth Jeggle
Germany: European People's Party
|
|
|
Parlement européen
Bât. Altiero Spinelli
10E209
60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60
B-1047 Bruxelles/Brussel
Tel: +32 (0)2 28 45351
Fax: +32 (0)2 28 49351
E-mail: .eu
Documents
6 Gardiner Place, Dublin 1, Ireland.
