The UK Battles the EU to Preserve Protections for Lab Animals

When the E.U. adopted Directive 2010/63 in 2010 to protect animals used for research, it foretold the improvement of conditions for animals in laboratories in many European countries.

But not so in the U.K. The animal testing law there, known as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), is more protective than the E.U.’s directive, which was set to go into effect January 1, 2013.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals produced a report called “Amending the UK Animal Experimentation Law — A Threat to UK Standards” which mapped out the differences between the U.K. and E.U. provisions and warned against the backsliding that would result from “transposing” (i.e. adopting) the E.U. directive. Some examples:

  • The EU directive allows more suffering than the ASPA. It allows animals to be subjected to procedures that involve “severe pain, suffering and distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated,” if there are exceptional and scientifically justified reasons. The RSPCA report says that this “allows a higher level of suffering” than the ASPA. It is also ambiguous: the “type of scientific justification that might be considered acceptable is unspecified, and nobody has been able to provide an example of research that would require this level of suffering.”
  • The Directive approves methods of killing animals that are inhumane and not permitted under the ASPA, like “very young puppies and kittens could be killed by a blow to the head and an adult bird the size of a sparrow could be decapitated.”
  • Conducting research on great apes: according to the RSPCA, no European country uses great apes as research subjects. The E.U. directive, however, leaves room for such research to begin. The RSPCA protests the transposition of this portion of the directive into U.K. law, but U.K. law isn’t so great itself. The country is “committed” not to license research on great apes, but it isn’t clear how much a “commitment” binds the government.
  • The E.U. directive permits smaller cages for dogs and rats than the ASPA does. Also, the directive offers no guidance about creating a “good environment” that satisfies the physical and behavioral needs of animals in research labs.

Last May the BBC reported that the U.K. government had decided to “retain stricter animal testing standards than required by a new European Union directive.” The RSPCA conceded that the government had done the right thing, but decried the 18 months it had to spend fighting just to stand in place.

Not everyone has been placated, however. The Humane Society International/UK is dissatisfied with the surviving UK regulations because they are “unlikely to do anything to significantly reduce the number of animals subjected to experiments,” but it doesn’t appear that this is the result of a change based on the EU directive.

The BBC’s report suggests that the UK did give way to the EU directive’s more lax standards in one area. Previously the UK required individuals working in animal research to be personally licensed. The BBC quotes a Medical Research Council official welcoming the UK’s “commitment to simplifying the personal licensing system… We look forward to working with the [government] to develop a simpler system.” The RSPCA, in its report, expressed concern about loosening the personal licensing requirements.

More generally, the transposition has become a political football, whether the rust-colored oval kind or the black and white round one. Tim Aker, Campaign Manager of a group called “Get Britain Out” [of the E.U.], used it as an opportunity to bemoan the E.U.’s power to degrade the U.K.’s legal standards. Writing in The Commentator, Aker claims that as of January 1st, E.U. Directive 2010/63 significantly weakened or repealed the laws protecting the welfare of animals in research labs. He cites this as a reason the U.K. should not be in the E.U. It seems to me, though, that Aker has not done his research, given that others have reported that the U.K. preserved its stricter protections — including Speaking of Research, a pro-vivisection group.

So much good news comes out of the E.U. about improving conditions for animals, particularly animals raised for food. This brouhaha is a reminder that what is an improvement for most countries may be a backslide for others. It is also a sign that the E.U. is not necessarily all that when it comes to animals. It is making slow, incremental changes, generally in the right direction, and I and other Americans are often impressed because we compare it to our own country’s near total failure to regulate the conditions for animals on factory farms. Comparisons aside, the E.U. is not always doing good, and it could always do better.

 

Related Stories:

The Vivisection Scam (Video)

95% of Lab Animals Have No Legal Protection From Cruelty

NIH Spends Our Money to Torture Animals for No Good Reason

 

118 comments

John W.
John W.8 months ago

10 Reasons why Britain should leave the European Union

Why we should leave: The top ten reasons we would be BETTER OFF OUT…

 

1.     Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.  

2.     Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.

3.     Freedom to control our national borders.

4.     Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.

5.     Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.

6.     Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.

7.     Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.

8.     Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.

9.     Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens. 

10.   Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.

Manel Dias
Manel Dias2 years ago

Animals are not for any bloody humans to abuse. They have their own lives as the way we people have ours. BAN this hipocritical lab experiments. Those so called scientists are THUGS who robbs millions of Tax payers money asking for reserch grants in so many universities and laboratories across the country. STOP this brutality. Is this UK or anyother poverty striken country like vietnam or china where some people have no brains and no food to eat? Shame on those thugs in the UK.

Arlene Morrison
Arlene Morrison3 years ago

Those who conduct these experiments become dehumanised over time~nice to think that they are out there teaching their children.....!!!

Katherine Wright
Katherine Wright3 years ago

There "should" be no battles here.....anyone with a heart and soul knows that abuse, neglect, torture and murder of animals IS WRONG on so many levels. We should all be on the side of protecting all animals from the evil humans of society, those lacking a heart and soul.

Animal rights should be a given.

I'm with David V......perfect post! "ALL ANIMAL TESTING NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. It is not reliable and the results are inaccurate. If you need test subjects, the prisons are full of them."

EXACTLY........

Christine Jones
Christine J.3 years ago

Why oh why do they insist on shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? Just stop using innocent animals as test subjects. Apart from being unethical and cruel, vivisection produces inaccurate results, and is an outdated and unscientific form of testing. We have much better non-animal methods available, so why don't we just get on and use them?

Eveline M.
Eveline M.3 years ago

good

Carrie Anne Brown

thanks for sharing

Waheeda S.
Waheeda S.3 years ago

Animal testing is disgusting and unethical. I hope the more humane option wins here!

Carol M.
caroline m.3 years ago

Animal testing should be stopped everywhere in the world. It is a shame it is still going on.

Carol D.
Past Member 3 years ago

experiments on animals are unethical and if there are companies that can give us products that dont do animal experiments why are still testing on animals allowed Is it a money making thing
to employ sadistic people sounds like it to me It should be banned worldwide or employ people and let them experiment on each other if they love doing it so Maybe they would not be so keen
to do that though
signed