Proposition 52K1918

Projet de loi portant création d'un Centre belge des méthodes alternatives à l'expérimentation animale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Oct. 3, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of animals medical research animal experimentation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Koen Bultinck (VB) abstained from voting.
• Bart De Wever (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Hagen Goyvaerts (VB) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

May 14, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the Committee on Public Health discussed the present bill during its meetings of 21 and 28 April 2009. This is a bill sent to us by the Senate.

During his explanation, the Minister outlined the framework of the draft. The present text concerns animal welfare, in particular the welfare of experimental animals in laboratories. Therefore, it pays much attention to the alternatives to the use of animals for experiments.

The draft is an extension of a resolution adopted during the previous legislature calling for the establishment of a study centre for toxicogenomics.

Toxicogenomics is a discipline that arises from the decryption of the human genome and which, without having to rely on experimental animals, is relevant for the development of biomedical research as well as for the monitoring of the toxicity of products.

The bill aims to lay the foundation for the establishment of such a centre. The draft stipulates that the conditions will be fulfilled by the King.

The Minister points out that 800,000 animals are used in laboratories in our country each year. In this context, the development of alternatives should be a priority.

During the discussion, all members declare that they agree with the starting point and the philosophy of the draft. Nevertheless, several questions arise, especially regarding the legal tasks and the financing of the center.

Mrs Snoy et d’Oppuers would like to know whether the necessary resources have already been included in the 2009 budget or whether the 2010 budget should be awaited.

Mrs Muylle has doubts about the establishment of a new institution, especially because the draft does not specify the tasks of the center in question.

Furthermore, Mr Flahaux notes that the center to be established would best take over the practice of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain.

Mrs Avontroodt points out that a feasibility study was urged in the Senate. However, no such study is mentioned in the present draft.

In her response, the Minister states that the budget envelope is 400,000 euros. The aforementioned amount should be distributed over four years.

Furthermore, the Minister agrees to a better task description of the Centre.

Finally, the Minister indicates that it is very concerned with this draft, especially because the prohibition is aimed at the welfare of animals.

Collega Muylle is not satisfied with the Minister’s response and again calls for a better description of the Centre’s tasks. It therefore announces that its group will abstain from voting if the Centre’s tasks are not further defined.

Collega Avontroodt asks whether it is not desirable to seek advice from the Flemish Institute of Biotechnology. The VIB is the party involved. It also asks whether it makes sense to set up another institution. The contracts could also be assigned to the FOD Science Policy.

Collega Schyns hopes for a quick consensus given the need to work on animal welfare.

Col. Bultinck asks whether the institutional division of powers has really been taken into account when drafting the draft, since the scientific research, to which the center to be established should contribute, is primarily a matter of the regions.

Collega Pécriaux believes that the design gives an impetus to animal welfare so that progress can be made in this area. It submits seven amendments in response to the various comments of the members of the committee. These amendments are adopted unanimously.

A number of technical corrections are being made to the text. Among other things, the name of the design is changed and the objectives are expanded.

Finally, the amended bill is unanimously adopted by the Public Health Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, my group today welcomes the adoption of this bill, which was initiated by a colleague Senator. This project deals with animal welfare and in particular laboratory animals. It also addresses alternative methods for their use.

Initially focused on toxicogenomics, a promising method in terms of biomedical research and product toxicity without the use of animal testing, the project has been expanded to all alternative methods and we are really satisfied with it.

As the rapporteur pointed out, my group was ⁇ active in drafting amendments that strengthened the original text. Thus, the text, which is submitted to you today, clearly specifies what will be the objectives and missions of the future Belgian reference centre for the development of alternative methods to animal testing.

It should not be forgotten that in Belgium, around 800,000 laboratory animals are used and that this use is only growing. Although alternative methods to animal testing will never completely replace animal testing, it cannot be denied the importance of encouraging new methodologies that combine high-tech, ethical concerns, but also savings. In fact, some alternative methods are sometimes more reliable but also more economical than animal testing.

This center will therefore have the task of stimulating, coordinating, supporting research in this area. He is therefore a source of great hopes and I thank his instigator once again for putting this topic on the table of parliamentarians and the government. The Minister of Health is ⁇ aware of this problem and I recall that she banned animal testing on tobacco products and experiments on monkeys in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the present bill was born in the Senate. It is actually a child of Mr. Philippe Mahoux, who apparently invested a lot of time and energy, first in the Senate, with a resolution and then a bill, a colloquium and hearings. All that had as its main purpose the introduction of alternative methods for testing the toxicity, the toxicity of chemical substances.

This, of course, was not only the idea of Mr. Mahoux. It also comes from the European level, where, among other things, it was decided that a method should be developed for measuring the toxicity of chemical substances, products present in agriculture and industry, in addition to the medicines. Its importance for the European Commission is, of course, in the safety of European citizens.

At European level, various initiatives have been taken, various debates have been held and various programmes have been developed, such as the REACH programme, with a very specific Directive on chemical toxicity.

Experimental animals are widely used in biomedical research, usually for drug testing. As scientists, of course, we cannot test new products on humans, at least not directly. We must look at the toxicity and also the effectiveness of those new substances when it comes to the treatment of certain diseases.

The most widely used experimental animals today are rodents, such as mice and rats, as well as rabbits. The large number of trial animals is increasing each year due to the increase in biomedical research as a result of increasing knowledge about various diseases.

It is therefore very important to find alternatives where possible. It will not be possible to completely remove test animals from scientific research because there are situations in which it is necessary to be able to test on a living organism. Rodents, of course, are not humans, but they are easily managed in a laboratory environment and for some experiments they are similar to humans.

The welfare of test animals has been monitored for a very long time and a number of rules and measures have been taken to guarantee that welfare. A number of ethical measures and guidelines have been developed. Researchers at universities or in the industry are required to complete documents showing why they will use experimental animals in their experiments, how many experimental animals they will use, how the experimental animals are treated, whether the experimental animals are kept alive and, if the experimental animals are killed, whether this is done in an animal-friendly manner.

There is a lot of regulation on housing. For example, the number of mice per cage is regulated. Scientific media often say that there is more interest in the quality of life of the trial animals than in the quality of life of the researchers because with regard to them there is no regulation on the number of persons per square meter in scientific research.

An inventory is prepared every year. Each institution, university or business, must include the number of test animals used, the type of test animals and the type of experiments in an inventory. The inventories are ⁇ ined by the FOD Public Health.

A substantial reduction in the use of test animals can only be achieved if alternative methods are used which can lead to a similar result, or at least, in an initial stage, a result can be achieved on the basis of which to decide whether or not to test on humans, depending on whether to test drugs or chemical products.

An alternative is the use of cells derived from humans that can be cultivated in a laboratory in vitro. Chemicals can then be added to the test tube to see how the cells react to the presence of a toxic substance. One can examine the genetic reactions and that is called toxicogenomics, but one can also study the reaction of the different proteins and that is called toxicoproteomics.

You can also work very easily in silico. One can make computer models from the knowledge one has today of proteins. Simulations can be done. And comparative studies can be used to determine whether certain products are toxic or not before experimenting in the laboratory.

However, it is important to say here too that although there are several alternatives that can be tested in advance, there are situations where one will still have to test on humans to be sure that the results obtained in a laboratory prove that the toxicity is not to that extent dangerous to humans.

This bill, which has a long life since 2006 and now in 2009 in the House after discussion in the committee for Public Health, has been approved almost unanimously with 10 votes for and 1 abstinence, regulates two matters.

First, encouraging new methods, alternative methods for testing toxic substances or medicines where the number of trial animals should be drastically reduced. That is the most important.

Second, the planning and establishment of a centre, a Belgian center for toxigenomics. I would like to make a rand note. This may also be communicated to the Minister. In this case, a Belgian center for toxigenomics is a little overlooked because it uses not only genomics but also proteomics. The Center for Toxicology would probably be a better name.

In any case, they want to establish a center. This center does not stand by itself. That’s the Minister’s wish, I read. This national center will work together at European level, with various institutions already looking at alternative methods at European level to avoid the use of trial animals or at least trying to reduce the number of trial animals or looking at the toxicity of substances through other methods.

It would be a complement at our national level to what is already happening at European level. This can be seen as a kind of coordination of methods. It can also be considered as an inventory of information on different methods used at European level in the different Member States, allowing them to penetrate scientific research much faster. As the minister said during a hearing in the Senate Social Affairs Committee, it could also act as a reference centre.

The SP has also supported this proposal from the Senate from the beginning. Furthermore, the proposal has received a lot of support from the beginning because it is an inevitable thing that one should reduce the number of trial animals through alternative methods.

This center is not yet fully defined in the bill. We hope that the Minister will develop a comprehensive framework for this.

In 2010, this center, as predicted, will be able to start.

As a scientist who uses experimental animals, I would also like to point out that there is ⁇ no resistance from scientists to the use of alternative methods and that science welcomes a coordinating reference centre, such as this center should be.

The SP-A-Fraktion will support this bill.

Today, as you know, the bill establishing the Belgian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing is on the vote. I would like to add a few elements in this regard.

Animal testing is really a thorn in the eyes of many citizens. From Open Vld, I have committed myself several times to gradually ban animal testing and to seek and use alternatives to animal testing – 800,000 animals in this country. All this is related to the so-called three V’s: replacing animal testing with alternative methods, reducing the number of test animals, and improving the experiments. However, this is all but simple. Let us just think of the medical and pharmaceutical world.

In the final implementation of this amended bill, the Chamber Committee for Public Health did not go ice overnight. This proves that we have thought about it thoroughly and that we have taken careful action. That is a good thing.

It is important to keep an eye on some elements that led to the realization of this design.

In the previous legislature, the government was requested by a resolution to establish a Centre for Toxicogenomics. Toxicogenomics enables the decryption of the human genome, and thus the further development of biomedical science, as well as the verification of the toxic content of products, to be carried out without animal testing.

The draft law presented in the Senate was fully oriented to this. Open Vld has always called for a sound and transparent task description of the center during the discussions in the Committee on Public Health. The Flemish Institute of Biotechnology was therefore consulted before the voting. As a result, the text was thoroughly amended. The focus is no longer exclusively on toxicogenomics, as this, as you know, is only one of the various methods.

In addition, a centre will be established to serve scientific research for universities and private laboratories. The latter, colleagues, is really crucial. It will be necessary to cooperate with all Belgian research institutions. It is therefore logical that all parties have reacted very positively to the proposed amendments.

The amended draft is returned to the Senate due to the amendment. Once adopted by the Senate, the European Parliament shall draft the implementing decisions as soon as possible, as well as provide for the necessary budgets so that this draft can be effectively implemented on the ground as soon as possible.

You understand that if we want to work on sound alternatives to animal testing, we should not waste time. The present bill deserves our support. Only then can the Senate re-examine it as soon as possible and implementing decisions can be written.

From Parliament, we would like to call on the government to release the necessary budgetary resources in a timely manner so that the law does not remain a dead letter. We owe it to many animal lovers. They have been working for years and acting for a more humane treatment of animals and consequently for a sensitive reduction and – who knows – one day an abolition of animal testing.

After all, colleagues, the degree of civilization in a society depends largely on the handling of its animals, as the great Mahatma Gandhi justified.

Open Vld has always held such ethical principles high and will continue to consistently follow that line in the future. However, we realize that this can only happen step by step if all stakeholders are willing to cooperate today.

To this day, commercial and industrial interests are still pushed forward too often and too quickly to actually change something on the large-scale animal suffering.

Colleagues, let us now decide together to improve the degree of civilization of our society.