Wednesday October 28, 2009, 12:34 pm
The process to revise the law governing vivisection across the whole of the European Union has reached another critical moment. The draft Directive - having passed through the European Parliament - is now being re-shaped by the Council of Ministers, which is made up of ministers from every Member State. The Council of Ministers may adopt its position by the end of November.
It is vital that the influence of pro-vivisection industry lobbyists is countered by voices that speak out in defence of animals and for modern, cruelty-free research methods.
The directive proposal must be back in Parliament!

However we oppose all animal experiments on moral and scientific grounds the abolition through the EU is simply not possible at this time. What we need to do now is to demand from the Council of Ministers not to adopt the parliament proposal;
"If the Parliament's position is similar to the Council's, animals could be subjected to suffering which is both severe and prolonged, and be repeatedly used in painful experiments. Furthermore, the researchers would, in effect, be allowed to determine which experiments need governmental permission, by deciding how to categorise the level of suffering an animal is likely to experience. Researchers would also not have to carry out retrospective assessments of experiments – in the vast majority of cases - whether from the animal welfare or scientific point of view."


In 1986 the European Council adopted Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. The Directive controls the use of laboratory animals within the EU but, now some 20 years old, it is desperately out of date and in urgent need of review.
We want to see a total end to animal experiments and support instead cutting-edge non-animal research methods. However, for as long as animal experiments continue it is vital that even the imperfect protection provided by this EU legislation is improved. Some categories of experiments, such as basic research or the use of animals in education or training, are not even covered by the legislation and consequently EU efforts to develop non-animal replacements miss out whole areas of significant animal use.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 12:37 pm
the news after voting in May:

06.05.2009 EU Parliament fails critical test to improve animal protection legislation

Greens' press release:
"More than 12 million animals are used in experiments in the EU each year. Commenting on today's vote on revising the existing 1986 EU Directive to regulate animal testing, Caroline Lucas, co-sponsor of a written declaration in 2006 (1) and Vice-President of Parliament's intergroup on animal protection, commented:

"You don't need a microscope to spot the blatant flaws in the revision to animal testing legislation that was approved by European Parliament today. We had hoped for a better report from Neil Parish, who seemed more tuned into industry concerns than his role as President of the European Parliament's animal welfare intergroup.
A majority of MEPs chose to rubber stamp his flawed report and reject critical improvements tabled by the Greens that could have secured long overdue changes to the rules.
Authorisation rules will now have a limited scope to experiments classed as 'moderate' and 'severe' in terms of distress and harm they cause to animals. The revision means that all other experiments get a carte blanche and will no longer be subject to a centrally-monitored ethical review. It takes a leap of faith to believe that the legislation is truly acting to underpin the three Rs of reduction, refinement and replacement when the vast majority of experiments will now slip the net.
Those MEPs who are claiming today's vote is a step forward for protection of great apes are neglecting to mention that Parliament also approved an amendment meaning testing on primates need not to be linked to life-threatening conditions in human beings. This opens the door to non-essential use of primates in experiments.
For the sake of both the animals and for human health, it is essential that more modern, effective non-animal tests come into use as soon as possible. Unfortunately this approved revision to the legislation, after 23 years of waiting, will do precious little to speed up the process."

Caroline Jackson MEP:
I supported the text suggested by the Agriculture Committee, which was adopted virtually unamended, by 540 votes to 66. If you were in favour of more extensive controls than MEPs wanted, I have to report that there was little support for more radical alternatives than the amendments adopted.

The main points of interest were as follows

* MEPs endorsed a ban on the use of great apes threatened with extinction except for experiments intended to conserve these species
* MEPs did not support Commission proposals restricting the use of other primates because these could penalise European research : they therefore amended the directive to enable medical research on such animals to continue, but suggested at the same time that there should be much more active promotion of alternatives to animal testing.
* MEPs rejected the idea that tests on non-human primates should be restricted to life threatening and debilitating diseases
* MEPs want the Commission to carry out feasibility studies on the consequences for research of banning the use of animals captured in the wild and relying instead on captive bred animals
* MEPs changed the pain category criteria where the Commission had wanted the same animals to be re-used only if the test entails pain classed as "up to mild". MEPs felt that applying criteria that are too strict would result in even more animals being used in tests , which would defeat the object of the exercise. They therefore ask for animals to be re-used if the test entails moderate pain
* MEPs want the Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods to be expanded
* MEPs want prior authorisation for animal tests to be limited to projects where the pain would be "moderate" or "severe" or to those carried out on primates
* MEPs do not want the directive to cover all larval forms and embryonic or foetal forms other than mammals
* MEPs stress that the adoption of the text of the directive does not prevent individual Member States from adopting stricter conditions.

The text adopted now goes into hibernation during the period of the European elections. We are awaiting the result of the first round of the Council of Ministers' discussions, which will result in the adoption of their "common position". There then has to be a second round of voting by the Parliament and the Council followed by a "conciliation committee" meeting if the two institutions still disagree. If they can then reconcile their differences the directive will be adopted by each institution in a formal third reading - and finally goes to the Member States for them to put its provisions into national law.

ECEAE:
"The Ombudsman investigates complaints of "maladministration" against EU institutions, and an ECEAE statement claimed that "it is maladministration (by the Commission) to set up an inexpert body, heavily biased to one side of the argument, and for that body then to produce an unbalanced and unscientific report, ignoring huge swathes of evidence supplied to it."

A separate RSPCA statement said the organisation feared MEPs would "cave in after pro-animal use lobbyists made exaggerated claims that tougher rules on using primates will lead to live-saving research grinding to a halt in Europe".
More news from ECEAE: http://www.eceae.org

05.05.2009 Flawed raport

ECEAE:
Today MEPs accepted the proposal of directive what means that:
"- Researchers could be allowed to cause animals suffering which is both severe and prolonged, an obscenity in a civilised society
- They will be allowed to repeatedly use the same animal in painful experiments
- They will be able to use non-human primates for just about any purpose, not simply life-threatening or debilitating diseases as the Commission proposed
- There will be no incentive to stop the capture of primates in the wild, which causes them immense distress, for breeding for research
- Researchers will in effect be allowed to determine for which experiments they need governmental permission, by deciding how to categorise the likely suffering
- They will not have to carry out retrospective assessments of experiments – whether from the animal welfare or scientific point of view – in the vast majority of cases
- There will be no strategy to bring forward the day when animal experiments no longer take place, as everyone claims they want
Michelle Thew, chief executive of the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, commented:
‘MEPs have shown themselves to be completely out of step with public opinion. A recent opinion survey by YouGov across 6 EU countries found overwhelming support to end the use of primates, cats and dogs in experiments causing suffering, and animal experiments to be allowed - if at all - only for serious human illnesses. The Parliament has produced a charter for the multibillion pound animal research industry to carry on business as usual, with scant regard either for animal welfare or public opinion.
The struggle for justice for the 12 million animals used in laboratories every year now moves to the Council of Ministers. We will not give up on them, even if many MEPs have’."

For Immediate Release: By: ECEAE European Coalition to End Animal Experiments
European ombudsman asked to investigate ‘deeply flawed and biased’ report about monkeys in research as the European Parliament considers animal experimentation law

The European Ombudsman has today been asked to investigate a complaint that a report by the European Commission into experiments on non-human primates is scientifically flawed and biased. The charge is made by the EU-wide European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), which has submitted a 26-page complaint.
The submission of this complaint coincides with the plenary vote due to take place in the EU Parliament on Tuesday 5th May concerning revision of EU Directive 86/609 that governs animal experimentation. The trade and use of primates in research within the EU is one of the controversial issues to be voted on.

In May 2008, the Commission asked one of its standing scientific committees, the Scientific Committee on Health and Scientific Risks (SCHER), to conduct an inquiry into whether primate research works and the alternatives to it. The inquiry was in part a response to a written declaration signed by no fewer than 433 MEPs in 2007 calling on The Commission to bring forward proposals to replace primate use.
In fact, the Commission’s proposals, based on SCHER’s report which strongly backed primate use and played down the role and potential of alternatives, contain nothing to phase out primate use. A further change by a key committee of the European Parliament would allow primate use for just about any purpose. The full Parliament will vote on this and other aspects of animal experiments on 5th May. The ECEAE’s main complaints are:

• Neither SCHER nor the working group it set up had the necessary expertise in primate research nor in alternative techniques. Most of the working group members were animal researchers (but not primate researchers). Only one member had (limited) expertise in alternatives to primate use. Contrary to its own procedures, the Commission refused even to disclose who was on the working group until after SCHER produced its report.

• SCHER simply assumed that primate research works without analyzing the evidence. The Commission agrees that this was a key part of its function

• SCHER ignored huge amounts of peer-reviewed evidence submitted by the ECEAE and numerous other animal protection and patient safety organisations casting serious doubt on whether primate research works. This covers such important areas as AIDS, strokes, malaria and Parkinson’s disease. For example: not one of the 85 or more candidate AIDS vaccines tested successfully on primates has worked in patients; over 1,000 potential neuroprotective stroke treatments have been tested in animal models but none of the 150 which have progressed to human trials has proved successful.

• Similarly, SCHER dealt dismissively and cursorily with the substantial amount of evidence submitted about the existing and potential application of alternatives, including neuroimaging and computer modeling.

Michelle Thew, chief executive of the ECEAE commented:

‘A recent opinion poll by YouGov in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and the Czech Republic showed that 81% of people are opposed to experiments on primates causing pain or suffering. This issue is enormously important not only for animal welfare but also for human health. It is truly unforgivable that the EU should come up with such a one-sided and unscientific report, from a working group packed with inexpert animal researchers. We are asking the ombudsman to order the Commission to set up a proper scientific inquiry as a matter of urgency’

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 12:39 pm
Latest info:
13.10.2009 EU controversy over primate research continues

For Immediate Release: 13/10/09 – By: BUAV
EU controversy over primate research continues with the publication of a new paper accusing the European Commission of producing a “deeply flawed and biased”

A paper released today in the journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA) accuses the European Commission of producing a scientifically flawed report on the use of nonhuman primates in research. The report is based on a recent inquiry conducted by the Scientific Committee on Health and Scientific Risks (SCHER), into the validity of primate research and the alternative methods that could replace it. This inquiry was in part a response to a written declaration signed by no fewer than 433 MEPs in 2007 calling on the Commission to bring forward proposals to replace primate use.

The paper, titled ‘The SCHER Report on Non-Human Primate Research – Biased and Deeply Flawed’ exposes serious shortcomings in the SCHER inquiry and subsequent report which strongly backed primate use and played down the role and potential of alternatives. Drs Jarrod Bailey and Katy Taylor, scientists at the BUAV, analysed this report in detail. The ATLA paper demonstrates:

• Neither SCHER nor its working group had the necessary expertise in primate research or in alternative techniques. Most of the working group members were animal researchers (but not primate researchers), and just one member had (limited) expertise in alternatives to primate use.

• SCHER presumed the validity of primate research, while ignoring substantial peer-reviewed evidence submitted by the BUAV/European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE )and numerous other organisations casting serious doubt on the efficacy of primate research. This covered such important areas as AIDS, stroke, malaria and Parkinson’s Disease. For example: not one of the 85 or more candidate AIDS vaccines tested successfully on primates has worked in patients; over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been tested in animal models but none of the 150 that have progressed to human trials has proved successful.

• Similarly, SCHER dismissed or ignored significant evidence concerning the existing and potential application of alternatives to primate experimentation, including human clinical studies, in vitro (test-tube) techniques, neuroimaging and computer modeling.
The ATLA paper argues that the implications of such a flawed analysis are extremely serious, both for animal welfare and for human health and safety. In particular, because in revising the EU Directive on animal experiments, which is currently being considered by the European Parliament, the EU is basing its position to non-human primate research directly on the findings of the SCHER inquiry.

BUAV’s Scientific Coordinator, Dr Katy Taylor, said: “The conduct of the SCHER inquiry, and its published Opinion, should be of major and widespread concern and should not be given any political, scientific or legislative credibility.”

Scientific Consultant to the BUAV, Dr Jarrod Bailey, said: “The SCHER investigation was conducted by scientists poorly and inappropriately qualified to do so, and the subsequent report in support of non-human primate research was based on flimsy evidence and ignorance of the evidence against.”

more: http://againess-en.wikidot.com/animal-experiments-news

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 12:42 pm
Please go to the site and send a sample letter to MEPs addresses
and forward the alert
TY

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 2:20 pm
Um will definalty be sending my e-mails...

Big Gorilly Huygs

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 3:23 pm
Message sent. Thanks, Joanna!

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 4:20 pm
Have sent messages. However, I think there is an angle to tackling this problem that has been largely ignored - consumer awareness. Many, many people would boycott products tested on animals if they knew even half of the atrocities committed. Other alternatives exist and buying cruelty-free would attack the only thing
these vultures understand or care about - the hip pocket. We just have to say, "Enough is enough," expose them to the public and put them out of business, once and for all. No more discussion, proposals, amendments etc. No more pussy-footing around.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 5:08 pm
Thanks Joanna!

This is so important, the fact it continues after all of these YEARS and Years is just to much to comprehend. Letters will be sent for sure and I will forward.

Like Nora said, this needs to be out there for the public. Once they actually SEE with their eyes what takes place, it is hard to use creams, take pills etc.

Appalling, but great article and thanks for all of the addresses, not only this, but some other causes.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 6:18 pm
Thanks, Marilyn. I know the offenders would baulk at this, but you wouldn't have to go into the gory, disgusting details. For compassionate people, it would be enough to know that these poor creatures are taken away from their mothers at a young age, suffer a great amount of grief because of this and then are kept in cages for their entire working lives, only to be discarded unceremonisly when they are no longer of use. All this so that some stupid researcher can get a lipstick colour just so. Makes my blood boil.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 6:19 pm
Typo correction - unceremoniously

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 6:23 pm
Thank you Joanna.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 6:53 pm
Thanks Joanna Hugs

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 7:46 pm
one of the most heartbreaking pictures I have ever seen, the distress is so evident, yet so many vicious people feel they have the right to torture them until they die.
fyi Avon boasts of cruel free research, yet their latest brochure is selling much leather and some wool apparel.

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 10:17 pm
It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Keep up the super work Joanna, and ignore those haters.


creatin

Wednesday October 28, 2009, 10:59 pm
Too few people on this planet that are born with CONSCIENCE and DIGNITY. The rest is toxic waste and only DESTROY this beautiful planet.

Thursday October 29, 2009, 1:47 am
Noted & email letter sent. Thanks

Thursday October 29, 2009, 5:07 am
Ready! Sent out my e-mails to all e-mail-addresses. Thanks Joanna.

Thursday October 29, 2009, 5:37 am
Thank you Joanna.
OK for : e-mails to all e-mail-addresses.

Thursday October 29, 2009, 6:27 am
Done. Thanks Joanna.

Thursday October 29, 2009, 6:35 am
E-mail send

Thursday October 29, 2009, 10:37 am
could not sign - so this is my comment of support ; but so many animals have been hunted & experimented worldwide for centuries - why not start animal homes for us to help ? something for us to do , something permanent for the beings.

Thursday October 29, 2009, 12:26 pm
Noted and sent emails to my MEP's. Will forward to friends. C x

There's a petition for this also at:

http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/languages.php?ref=

Thursday October 29, 2009, 11:06 pm
Please also check out this story:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/587964436/1242662
Please read the story -- animal testing is not only cruelly unnecessary; the results are improperly used to determine treatment for humans with sometimes dangerous results. All this cruel pain and suffering by the animals does Not help and may hurt humans.

You can get more info on cruelty free products at: http://search.caringconsumer.com/

Friday October 30, 2009, 2:51 am
I'm sorry but since on the PETA's list are such companies like Clinique - which do test on animals (see their policy and info about botox) I don't recomend it at all.
The lists below include only the companies which joined the world's internationally recognised scheme
- they had to use the sheme standards, be approved and not only a company but it's all supply chain need to be approved by this scheme.
All companies approved by this scheme can use oryginal leaping bunny logo on on their products
http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/
http://www.leapingbunny.org/
 

anyway you should be aware that on the list, there is Body Shop - which don't test on animals but was sold to L'oreal

working links (I hope)
to Jenny's news:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/587964436/1242662
 
Carole's petition:
http://www.makeanimaltestinghistory.org/languages.php?ref=
 
animal experiments news:
http://againess-en.wikidot.com/animal-experiments-news

Thank you everyone who sent the mails!!!

Friday October 30, 2009, 6:02 pm
http://community.aavs.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1462

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 11:15 am
Many own brands do not test on animals and companies such as Avon and Oriflame don't either. Also, many cheap products do not test so the prices are right down. In the UK look for products from companies such as McBride and Clean & Easy, they specifically state it.

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 2:33 pm
ACTIONS TAKEN - THANK YOU!

Tuesday November 3, 2009, 8:07 pm
Thank you, Joanna

Wednesday November 4, 2009, 4:06 am
As a PETA member and supporter Joanna, I thank you for this most urgent story and request.

I have posted it to My Space as well a,d noted it myself.

Thank you for all you do.

In Solidarity for the Animals,

Nick J Davis
Toronto ON Canada

Tuesday November 10, 2009, 11:34 am
shared on my fb page as well..