Proposition 52K1379

Proposition de résolution visant à accroître la transparence de l'expérimentation animale et à renforcer la protection des animaux en laboratoire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nathalie Muylle
Ecolo Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
Groen Meyrem Almaci
LE Marie-Martine Schyns
MR Josée Lejeune
Open Vld Hilde Vautmans, Katia della Faille de Leverghem
PS | SP Colette Burgeon, Valérie Déom
Vooruit Magda Raemaekers, Bruno Tobback

Submission date

July 14, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of animals medical research resolution of parliament animal experimentation tobacco industry

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 18, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Colette Burgeon, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mrs. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues across all party boundaries for their constructive cooperation and their support in preparing and usefully amending this resolution.

Not only do we rightly ask ourselves questions about animal testing. More and more scientists, surgeons, doctors, veterinarians, lawyers, philosophers and nurses are opposing the use of animal testing for scientific and ethical reasons. More and more citizens are committed to the animal welfare of experimental animals. The reality is that today only five European countries use animal testing more than we do.

Scientific research is of course very important. We cannot eliminate animal testing from today to tomorrow. We must continue to strive for an absolute minimum of animal experiments and above all we must continue to pay attention to the so-called 3 V: replacing animal experiments with alternative methods, reducing the number of animal experiments and improving the experiments.

In order to ⁇ these three V’s, we voted in the House a year ago on the National Centre for Alternatives for Animal Testing. That center was established by the adoption of a law. This was a first step in the right direction. Alternatives exist and win field. Science evolves every day. Who would have thought in 1960 that crash tests, which were then carried out with chimpanzees, could also be carried out with dolls?

Current legislation on animal welfare explicitly states that animal testing should be limited to what is strictly necessary. Nevertheless, in practice, we unfortunately find that certain tests are still carried out by different laboratories. Usually this is driven by competition and by the desire to be the first with scientific results. Should we still tolerate that luxury weight loss pills are tested on beagles in 2010?

The resolution we will vote on today goes beyond the current legislation. As the name suggests, we advocate for greater transparency in animal testing and for better protection of the animals used in laboratories.

I would be very pleased to discuss with you the points included in this resolution.

First, we call for a strengthening of the controls on compliance with the legislation. This seems obvious, of course. There is legislation and there must be controls. However, we ask that because the current controls are negligible. If certain violations are identified, one usually does not make the effort to draw up a PV.

Second, we call for the strengthening of the independence of the ethics committees by providing for at least two external, objective and unbinded independent members. The current legislation stipulates that an ethics committee must be established in each laboratory. This committee shall annually report on its work to its members. So far so good, but unfortunately that stops. Why can’t the report, for example, be delivered to Members of Parliament? With the independent members, we aim primarily to increase transparency. Not only animal rights organizations are demanding parties to this. We also see more and more that the citizen wants to know what is happening in those labs. The mystery surrounding those labs must be solved.

Third, we also ask to explore how to further increase transparency so that everyone involved in animal welfare can be informed of the decisions taken by the ethical and deontological committees. I personally think that a central database with all the data from the various laboratories that perform animal testing would be a useful step. The data stored therein should be easily accessible to all citizens.

Finally, we also ask the laboratories that carry out animal testing to take into account the specific physical and psychological sensitivities of each animal species.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, this was a brief summary of the various elements to which we call attention in this resolution and for which we want the government to take steps. I realize that this is a very small step towards less animal testing and less suffering among the animals used, but I find it very important that Parliament sends the signal to take this issue to heart.

The creation of the National Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing last year was a first step. Let us adopt the resolution today. That will then, with your agreement, be a second important step. We owe that not only to the animal lovers, but especially to the experimental animals themselves. Gandhi once said that the degree of a civilization can be measured by the way a society treats its animals.

I thank you for your attention.

It is with great interest that the PS group has participated in the work on the proposal for a resolution aimed at increasing the transparency of animal testing.

While it is undeniably necessary to continue efforts to promote and raise awareness of the industry, especially the pharmaceutical industry, in order to convince them of the relevance, well-foundedness and economic cost-effectiveness of alternatives to animal experiments, it must be recognized that these experiments will not disappear tomorrow. That is why they need to be better controlled and framed.

This is partly the objective of the text which I have sought to complement with various measures which I find primary. Indeed, if the initial goal of the authors is praiseable, it is for my group insufficient. I have thus personally defended the principle that laboratories must, with respect to the animals used, comply with strict standards of accommodation and care.

The European Union, in particular the Parliament and the Council, is working on defining guidelines on this subject. I wish that we should not merely follow the lighted recommendations of Annex IV to the proposed Directive amending Directive 86/609/EC. However, in order to move forward on certain issues, it is necessary to know how to make compromises. This is what has been done. We hope, however, to go further next time.

Another point that was ⁇ important to me was the differentiated treatment according to species. To ⁇ the same result, scientists agree that some species could be more used than others because they experience less mental and physical suffering. Laboratories do not always know this. Often, they proceed by habit and always use the same species. Public authorities should therefore raise awareness in laboratories about this differentiated treatment.

You have understood, the PS Group will obviously approve the resolution proposal that is being discussed. We desire, however, that in the future, the praiseful intentions, which motivate the writing of this kind of text, are not too easily curtailed or sweetened by the pressure of the laboratories that always know how to show themselves so persuasive.

Our group supports this resolution. In the committee, we have made known, on behalf of Ms. Snoy et d’Oppuers — I have signed the resolution myself, but Ms. Snoy d’Oppuers has followed the committee discussions — that this resolution deserves to be supported, even if in our eyes it is somewhat minimalist. It is a compromise text, and for us one could have gone further.

There are a number of obvious things in it, for example in Article 1, which we currently find surreal. That does not mean that it has the merit of being there, also in terms of clarity.

In our country, more than 700,000 animals are still used annually for testing in laboratories. These figures do not come from databases managed by the government itself, but come from those who perform the tests. In that sense, the question is whether it is an exact figure or rather a underestimation.

Two-thirds of the test animals are used for the development of medicines and medical devices. At least this is used as an argument for these tests. Those who go deeper into the problem will see that some nuance is needed, and that nuance is also applied in the resolution. Animal experiments are rapidly cataloguing their research as medically relevant. Examples include the tobacco tests, which are now fortunately banned, as well as the obesity test experiments carried out, among others, at Janssen Pharmaceutica. These are more commercial than medical experiments.

If you look at the position of our country in Europe, you will see that we are in the sixth place in terms of the number of tests on animals. However, if you put this in proportion to the size of our country, we are actually one of the leading drivers in Europe. This is a sad positioning. Fortunately, the situation has improved, but it can be much better.

A survey by the European Union has also shown that the population is the requesting party for this. In the Netherlands, the government has already expressly expressed itself in favour of a strategy aimed at reducing, and even replacing, animal testing. The European Union has also anticipated this.

Today, I hope that this resolution can also encourage our country to go a little further and develop a strategy, especially with regard to animal testing that is of a commercial nature. The discussion in the committee also referred to the difference between pharmaceutical and commercial research. This distinction is necessary. We emphasize this today, also in a bill that we have prepared in this regard.

As an alternative to many of these tests, they already exist in vivos, in vitrotests, and even in silicotests and a lot of computer models.

I therefore find it a little regrettable, considering the establishment of the Centre for Toxicogenomics proposed and approved in 2009 by the Senate, that in the budget there was ultimately no figure to be found in order to effectively realize that center. So I find it very nice that we present today this resolution, which I substantially really support, but in the budget of this year that center should have got a budget. This should have been achieved, but it did not happen.

The same applies to some of the things that I find reasonably evident in the resolution itself. I already said that the first article for me is the evidence itself. I do not want to go into this too long. We remain positive.

Our group has submitted a bill that will clearly prohibit commercial animal testing. We also ask questions about the use of primates for any research. At present, there are many alternatives to this, even within the scientific world. Research shows clearly that the suffering that these animals suffer is ⁇ heavy and very difficult to answer.

I can only say that we hope that the Center for Toxicogenomics can quickly get a budget and work quickly. We hope that the bill we have submitted will also get the support of other parties. We also hope that the strategy requested here from the government, as it is already being developed in Europe, will be followed by the others as well and that the government will work on it.

Madame della Faille, do you ask for the word?

Mrs. Almaci, I let you speak first, but then I want to clarify a few things.

Mrs. Speaker, the only thing I want to say, which I also find an important point of discussion and which is also elaborated in our bill, is about the independence of the ethical committees within the animal testing laboratories. I think it is essential that they are strengthened. I hope we can at least reach a consensus on this. Thus, we can ensure that those committees effectively count more independent members and that progress is made in that area in the short term.

Thank you for your positive contribution, Mrs. Almaci.

I have three small comments. First, when it comes to controls, everything is surreal, of course. If there is a law, it must be complied with and then control must be carried out. I have listed the controls here deliberately because there are few controls and because there are few processes-verbal formatting. That is the reality.

Animal testing on tobacco is still allowed until 2011. Then it was done.

As for the Belgian Centre for Toxigenomics, which has now been given a different name, I have asked a verbal question. Indeed, there are no resources provided for this. I also noticed this. That is simply because nothing has happened yet. In fact, the world is on its head. We first passed a law on this subject. During the discussions in the committee, I requested that a study be conducted first on the task package, the budget, and so on.The Minister will now only begin a study to look at what tasks can be entrusted to the centre and what resources are needed for this. We are still waiting for the results. In any case, in the end, the same result is achieved.

It is important to clarify this for the Room. I had already followed it myself. I was informed, both by your questions and by the research I had done myself.

I think it is important to keep track of the dossier closely. We must ensure that our country develops a sound strategy and shifts Europe from one of the leaders in the use of animal testing to one in the use of alternatives. I think we should support each other as much as possible.

I can be brief, because the situation has already been quite clearly outlined by the previous speakers.

The resolution proposal that is being discussed here today is a proposal that, of course, no one can oppose. The Government is asked to ensure that the existing legal provisions are complied with. It also calls for more serenity and transparency from the ethical committees that deal with animal testing in our laboratories.

In fact, it is bad that the majority must submit a resolution to ask the government to apply the law. That in itself is already eloquent. Per ⁇ the insiders mean it well. They may want to respond to the legitimate comments that many citizens make about the numerous animal tests still taking place in the country, even though there are animal-free alternatives for certain experiments, which are much more acceptable and more accurate.

Belgium is one of the European leaders in terms of the number of test animals used. In particular, animal testing with explicit commercial purposes and animal testing on higher species are increasingly controversial and should be avoided.

In fact, one felt morally obliged to intervene, but due to various associated interests and due to the balances within the government, one could not go much further than urging the application of the existing legislation and of the European directives.

The Belgian legislation already states today that if there are animal-free alternatives for certain experiments, they must be used and that animal testing should be limited to what is strictly necessary.

Furthermore, the European Parliament already in 2007 on the occasion of the revision of Directive 86/609 voted by a majority in favour of extinguishing experiments on primates. As Minister Onkelinx responded to an oral question, that decision of the European Parliament was somewhat weakened following a study requested by the European Commission, which, however, was carried out by a fairly unilateral scientific committee. So it is a study whose scientific content can still be questioned.

In any case, in Britain, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, experiments on all kinds of monkeys are strictly prohibited, so not only on the human monkeys, unless it is in the interests of the animals themselves. That is clear. There is no need for additional costly studies to conclude that there are sufficient equivalent alternatives, namely a whole range of ex-vivo and in-vit tests, tissue and cell cultures tests, in addition to computer-based in-silicate tests and imaging by scanning.

Our group is convinced that the new technology is not only much less invasive, but also more accurate and demonstrates much more respect for nature. We have therefore submitted an amendment in the committee, which we wish to submit here again today, with the explicit question to all those who actually want to undertake something, beyond the extension of the title of the resolution, against the horrible experiments still existing in Belgium, to support our amendment. We request that the available part of the resolution be supplemented by a fifth and a sixth point, namely a ban on animal testing on vertebrate animals for purposes other than scientific research for the benefit of public health and a ban on animal testing on primates, regardless of the purposes.

Anyone who is so good at animal welfare will ⁇ be able to support the amendment. We can count on our support for the resolution. If not, we will, unfortunately, have to remember at the forthcoming windowdressing.