Animal rights groups and chemical organisation meet to discuss animal testing
The Brussels-based chemicals organisation’s issues team met with the animal rights NGOs as part of the ongoing cooperation looking at alternatives to animal testing and presented a new position paper on animal alternatives and REACH.
“I think industry has an obligation to foster a genuine open dialogue on alternatives to animal testing,” Cefic executive director for research & innovation, Gernot Klotz said.
Chemical testing complications
Legislation like REACH is highly-dependent on animal testing as part of the process for demonstrating the safety of chemicals to health and the environment.
However, approaches to reduce the amount of animal testing are set out in REACH, and are supported by Cefic and its Long-range Research Initiative.
Cefic’s LRI has supported research into using fewer animals in product testing, whilst maintaining accurate toxicology data.
A Cefic spokesperson told CosmeticsDesign-Europe.com ensuring chemical safety and maintaining animal welfare are both issues of great societal and ethical concern.
Advanced scientific developments
According to Cefic scientific developments in the field of safety testing have advanced significantly and there are an increasing number of approaches which can replace, reduce or refine the need for animal testing.
Cefic believes the 3Rs approach will maximize the impact on overall use in the industry and are confident that development and application of science can further reduce the dependency on animal testing.
“LRI’s commitment goes beyond investing time and resources into alternatives. We also share our findings and work with policymakers including at the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] to ensure that these techniques are accepted. Only by working with all parties involved can we make a real difference,” Klotz explained.
A number of LRI projects past and present were outlined at the meeting, including an extended study design intended to address the limitations of the standard design, while significantly reducing the number of animals required.
Concerns were also raised by the ECEAE about the apparent lack of support publicly stated by the chemicals industry for testing on animals ‘as a last resort’.
Following the meeting, Dr Katy Taylor, representing the ECEAE, said "The ECEAE is pleased that the CEFIC has entered into a dialogue about its work on alternatives and its concerns about REACH. However, we would like to see the CEFIC be more proactive in promoting the use of the valid alternatives and strategies that are already REACH ready."
Animal use in cosmetic testing
In the cosmetics industry in particular, there has been increased scrutiny over the animal tests used for some ingredients, and work is ongoing to develop alternatives.
Earlier this week CosmeticsDesign-Europe.com reported on debates over botulinum toxin testing for cosmetics purposes.
Toxin manufacturer Ipsen also stressed how the 3Rs approach would be the best step forward and is working with scientists and regulatory authorities in the European Expert Working Group to develop this.
