More reliable, less expensive and with quicker results, alternative methods also have the advantage of being ethical and benefiting from cutting-edge technologies. One Voice is campaigning for the use and development of these methods.
Cell, tissue and organ cultures, the use of micro-organisms, molecular biology, post-mortem tissue studies, computer simulations, statistical and epidemiological population studies, clinical research on volunteer patients, virtual dissection and even bio-chips… Today there are alternative methods to test the toxicity of nearly all substances. Given the scientific and technical progress that has been made, it seems that only a lack of political will, independent of lobbies, is preventing all tests on animals from being replaced by these methods – methods that are not just more reliable, quicker and cheaper, but which also respect living beings.
For the right to an ethical choice
Giving the possibility to refuse to dissect live or dead animals for moral reasons is one of ONE VOICE’s actions in favour of alternative methods. In fact, high school and university students and researchers have no choice other than to carry out experiments as part of their coursework or research, even if this goes against their ethical principles. However, if experiments must be carried out on dead animals and these experiments are banned in schools, it is clear to see that this law is simply being ignored in many cases. Taking the example of Italy (since 1993) and Israel (since 1999), ONE VOICE is putting pressure on public authorities to adopt the same legislative mechanism of the right to “conscientious objection to animal experiments”.
More resources
At the moment, while 3 billion Euro are spent in Europe for animal experiments, only 12 million Euro are devoted to developing alternatives. It is clear that to develop cutting-edge methods, research in this area needs more resources than are made available to animal experiments. Convinced that an ethical, non-violent and progressive society should only use these methods, One Voice is also funding the demonstration of the real effectiveness of the Toxic gene test. This enables the toxic effects of a chemical to be studied on a cell’s genes, in other words “Toxic gene study is equivalent to getting into the cell’s control room – the core – to observe a selection of genes in it whose transcription has been affected by a chemical product". This test is now on the list of tests accredited by European legislation.
Methods recognised by European legislation
In legal terms, the European Commission has already given the EU laws to encourage the development of substitute methods that it recognises in its Directive 86-609 – Article 7.2. A list of alternative protocols validated by the EU is published and updated regularly. In 2003, the European Union banned, in stages, with full effect by 2013, the use of tests on animals to develop beauty products (Directive 93). Nevertheless, the EU’s own members are holding the primacy of European law up to ridicule. France is refusing to adopt resources to move forward and is ignoring its citizens who have spoken out in favour of banning animal testing for cosmetics (6 million signatures handed into the European Commission). Most monoclonal bodies used by research and in treating many illnesses, such as diabetes, for example, many be produced using in vitro methods. While some countries have banned the ascites* method, a source of major suffering for mice, this method continues to be used, notably in France.
Under these conditions, and despite warnings and sanctions, it seems that only a choice by consumer citizens in favour of products certified “not tested on animals” will encourage governments and companies to review their research policy. With this in mind, One Voice has co-developed the “cruelty free” standard and is launching its own label, which certifies that products, or their ingredients, have not been tested on animals.
* Method that involves injecting a product into the mouse’s abdomen for it to produce ascites that will then be drawn off to recover the antibodies. This method, which is very painful for the animal, may lead to death.
While 3 billion Euro are spent in Europe for animal experiments, only 12 million Euro are devoted to developing alternatives.
Methods not tested on animals in toxicology :
Thousands of in vitro methods and electronic technologies are likely to replace toxicity tests on rats, dogs, rabbits and monkeys (tests that have never been validated scientifically and which cause major suffering to these animals) :
- Ability to irritate the eye – EpiOcular and Eyetex, to replace the Draize test.
- Skin corrosion – Corrositex test rather than the test using substances on the shaved, scratched skin of live animals.
- Skin absorption – In vitro skin penetration test using human or animal skin from live or dead specimens.
- Mutagenicity – The combination of three in vitro tests to demonstrate mutagene potential without using animals.
- Phototoxicity – Red neutral 3T3 capture test; the European Union has accepted the validity of this test which measures the toxic potential of cosmetics when they are exposed to sunlight.
- Carcinogenicity – Certain cell systems and electronic models help to predict the power of chemical products to cause cancer.
And many others
Extract from the Canadian site
http://www.cah-research.com/french_version/animal_model_fr/toxicologie.htm
