Testing
New rules on the use of animals in experiments are being debated now in Europe. Join the debate and add your comments - all comments are moderated by the RSPCA.
Some 12m animals are used in animal research and testing each year.
By the time you cast your vote, MEPs will have ended their term of office by making their position clear on new proposals for regulating the use of animals in experiments. The RSPCA has been working hard to secure the best deal we can and the new proposals represent the first revision of the laws for 25 years.
Once newly elected MEPs return to Brussels, the British Government - along with all other Governments in the EU - will be considering their view on the proposals, and after that, a final version of the proposed regulations will come back to the Parliament.
This means the issue of animal experiments will be one of the important issues for MEPs for the next couple of years.
The RSPCA wants to see:
- the principles of replacing, refining and reducing the number of animals used at the heart of regulations, and that new alternative methods are developed as soon as possible
- the widening of the regulations to cover all animals
- a complete ban on the use of Great Apes
- Better standards of care for the animals used
Downloads
Have your say
-
Heather Chloe P, Hartlepool said:
I think all animals should be left be and let them live in either as a pet in a loving kind home or in the wild (if it belongs there) and i am only 11.I watch programs on the channel Animal Planet and it helps little animals that have been necglected on some programs i have a rabbit and in the future i am going to get a cat. I only get my animals from resuce centres because i know i can change there lives and make a difference.
-
Gabriella Cole, Port Talbot said:
Animals ar humans at heart, and testing on them is like testing on us.
-
tia, cornwall said:
just noticed the date 2009 so what has changes ?????
-
Chevonne Reeves, hastings said:
how cold do you have to be to ignore the cries of a kitten, puppy, monkey, anything when its screaming in pain as you rub shampoo into its eyes or opening its head open while its alive to get to its brain or injecting it with diseases? youd have to be dead inside to not let that get to you or to imagine yourself in its position just once.
we rely on nature just as much as it relies on us. we are no more supierior than any other species or animal. to me, the humans are less as a whole. with our intelligence weve managed to control or destroy everyother species, weve done nearly not as much as we could for this world, because its easier to destroy.
p.s. animals dont even have the same genetics as humans so why do they do it if it doesnt match up? -
Jon Bray BVSc MRCVS, Newport said:
Penicillin kills guinea pigs, and must be used with care in some other small herbivores as it can cause serious diarrhoea. To say it doesn't work on animals is ridiculous though.
Animal testing is an unpleasant business and we should certainly try to minimize its use - in particular for unnecessary cosmetics. Its worthwhile, when faced with a "new and improved" shampoo at the supermarket, considering whether the new receipe will have required further testing, over and above that done on its predecessors.
Those posting above don't show any signs of distinguishing between scientists that develop new shampoos and those who develop new medicines. I assume that when they are ill they will be refusing any drugs that have been developed using animals so as not to encourage this practice.