Microsoft Word - UK Legislation.doc

F A C T S H E E T

THE UK LEGISLATION:

A CRITICISM

Over two and a half million experiments are still carried out in Great Britain each year. In two
thirds of these experiments no anaesthetic is used. Cruel and unscientific tests such as the
Draize eye test and acute toxicity experiments continue despite scientific and ethical criticism.

Since the passing of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, humane non-animal tests
continue to be little used and, most crucially of all, the rate at which the use of animals was
falling has slowed down dramatically. Indeed in 2002 there was an alarming 4% rise in the
number of procedures (to 2.73 million experiments) and a 3.4% rise in the number of animals
used, an extra 88,163 animals. This was the highest number of experiments recorded since
1994.

There were also increases in both the number of rhesus macaque monkeys used by 15% and
the number of procedures carried out on them 17%. There was also a massive rise of 75% in
toxicology experiments relating to household products and 51% in toxicology experiments
relating to food additives. Also very disturbing is the increase of 1317% in tests on genetically
modified animals from 1990 until the end of 2002. The trend away from animal use has
gradually been slowed virtually to a halt since the Act was passed.

Failures of the Animals (Scientific

Procedures) Act 1986

As an abolitionist organisation, the BUAV’s
ultimate criticism of the 1986 Act is of course that it
exists at all. As it is, it is a piece of legislation that
legalises and regulates experiments on live animals,
to which we are fundamentally opposed. Contrary to
popular belief, the 1986 Act was not set up to
protect animals in laboratories, but to protect animal
researchers from prosecution for animal cruelty.
Ordinarily, if an animal outside of the laboratory
was subjected to the same kind of treatment as those
inside the laboratory, the person responsible would
be liable to prosecution under the 1911 Protection of
Animals Act. Laboratory animals are specifically
excluded from the protection provided by the 1911
Act and instead their cruel treatment is regulated
under this separate legislation, the 1986 Act.
Accepting that broad opposition, the BUAV has
consistently highlighted the key problems with the
1986 Act. These include: -

The continuation of cruel, trivial and
discredited experiments:

Only one major controversial area of testing,
cosmetics testing on animals, has been eliminated
since the Act was passed in 1986. The continuation
of cruel and discredited experiments is graphically
illustrated by the continued use of thousands of
animals for the testing of trivial things such as
household cleaning products.

Section 5(4) of the Act states that licences should
only be awarded after the suffering caused to
animals has been weighed against the 'likely benefit'
of carrying out the experiment. If even tests for
toilet cleaner and carpet shampoo pass this
assessment it is hard to see exactly what tests, if any,
were meant to be prevented under this clause. Even
the total ban on animal tests for cosmetics products
and ingredients, was only introduced a staggering

THE UK LEGISLATION: A CRITICISM

twelve years after the 1986 Act was introduced and
after intensive campaigning by the BUAV.

This is far from the only example however. More
than a decade ago the then government asserted that,
"The Draize test will not be necessary for very much
longer...the same is true of the LD50".

The reality has been very different. Animals (mainly
rabbits) continue to suffer in Draize tests. And, in
1999, it took the threat of a legal challenge by the
BUAV for the UK government to finally admit that
it was continuing to illegally grant licences for the
LD50 oral toxicity test despite the existence of
alternative refinements. Therefore, even where
alternatives and refinements to animal tests do exist,
there is extreme reluctance both by industry and
government to implement them.

Failure of the project licensing system:

The government claimed that the new legislation
would mean, rigorous assessment of "each and
every"

research project through the project

licensing system. Again, reality tells a different
story. Although a project licence must be issued
before an experiment can be carried out on an
animal these licences do not usually cover
individual procedures but just seem designed to give
researchers blanket permission to carry out any
number of experiments of a given type, without each
procedure necessarily being individually assessed.
For example in 2002 an average of 970 procedures
was carried out under each project licence. It is
clearly impossible then for each of these separate
procedures to be assessed individually on one
licence, making effective scrutiny impossible.

‘Alternatives’ to animal experiments:
underfunded and underused:

Section 5(5) provides that the Secretary of State
shall not grant a project licence unless the applicant
has given adequate consideration to the feasibility of
using an alternative (refinement, reduction or
replacement). This section was expected to lead to
reductions in the numbers of animals used for
experiments. Again, it appears to have had little or

no impact. The main reason appears to be that it is
often simply ignored.

In 2001 the BUAV launched Judicial Review
proceedings against the government for failing to
apply the law properly with regards to using the 3Rs
(explanation below). UK and EU legislation states
that where there is a non-animal alternative in the
3Rs context it is against the law to licence an animal
test instead. Monoclonal Antibodies (Mabs), are
important proteins used in diagnosis and research.
The UK government was continuing to licence the
‘ascitic’ method of producing Mabs, whereby mice
are forced to develop extremely painful tumours for
up to 6 weeks. There was a completely non-animal
replacement method available thus the UK
government was breaching its own and EU
legislation. With the threat of legal action the
government backed down and agreed that the
BUAV’s interpretation of the law was correct.

Another serious problem is funding for research into
‘alternatives’. For example a budget of just
£280,000 was allocated to the Government Advisory
Body the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) for
2001-2002

. Even this very small amount is not

used in its entirety to directly replace animal
experiments as the sum is divided up between
different areas of work: including the application of
the 3R’s: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement,
to reduce the number of animals used, improve
husbandry methods and reduce the severity of
experimental methods used for example

This problem of underfunding is exacerbated by the
lack of effort that is made to encourage or co-
ordinate work to develop alternatives or more
specifically and importantly, replacement methods.
This makes it impossible to focus research and
maximise the effectiveness of what funding there is.
Lack of co-ordination means insufficient research in
key areas and duplication of effort in others. For
example with respect to animals used in toxicology,
a recent House of Lords Select Committee Report
published in 2002 observed that they “consider that
there is very little political will to reduce the need
for animals is toxicology…”

THE UK LEGISLATION: A CRITICISM

The Government’s recent proposals for a National
Centre for the 3 Rs (2004) looks unlikely to redress
this imbalance. Although an increase in funding has
been proposed, the amount available for non-animal
replacement methods would remain relatively tiny in
comparison with the billions of pounds spent on
research overall. Furthermore, the proposed Centre
will not be focused (as it should be) on non-animal
replacement methods but instead will attempt to
reconcile this with attention also on refinement
(animal) procedures.

Poor housing and care:

A Code of Practice issued under the Act

sets out

minimum standards for the care and housing of
laboratory animals. These standards are far from
adequate moreover even they are not being
enforced. Examples of this were revealed during
BUAV investigations into HRC

, Hazleton UK

Wickham Laboratories

Harlan UK

and more

recently at Cambridge University

(see fact sheet:

BUAV Undercover Investigations). Thus, years
after the Act was passed, the Home Office continues
to permit the keeping of animals in conditions which
even it regards as inconsistent with their well-being.

Ineffective implementation:

Two key bodies are responsible for monitoring and
implementing the Act. These are the Animal
Procedures Committee (APC), which was set up to
advise the Home Secretary on the Act, and the
Home Office Inspectorate.

The APC is heavily dominated by individuals who
are either researchers themselves or work for bodies
which carry out or fund animal research. The Home
Office Inspectorate is also overwhelmingly
dominated by former animal researchers and it is
also under strength for the job expected of it.

Investigations by the BUAV and others have
revealed the repeated failure of the Inspectorate to
take effective care to protect animals.

The BUAV has been calling for an independent
Home Office Inspectorate system and the urgent
need for reform for many years. The House of Lords

Select Committee Report echoed this call for more
independence when it recommended that

“The

Home Office Inspectorate should be subject to
periodic review , by a body other than the
inspectorate themselves” and further that “the
current attitude of the Inspectorate and the Home
Office is insufficiently self-critical..” and that “the
Home Office would rather distance itself from
problems rather than be proactive in finding and
providing solutions”.

Gathering the evidence

A series of investigations by the BUAV and others
have produced extensive and detailed evidence of
the failure of the 1986 Act. For example:

•

A BUAV investigation into Huntingdon
Research Centre revealed rough handling and
lack of regard for the welfare of animals, as well
as breaches of the Code of Practice concerning
housing and exercise requirements;

•

In 1990, an investigation by Advocates for
Animals revealed experiments in which rabbits
were regularly burned and operated on without
adequate anaesthesia and sometimes even
without being covered by a licence, by 89 year
old Professor Feldberg;

•

Serious breaches of licence conditions at
London Hospital Medical College (LHMC)

were revealed by a BUAV investigation. Also
on two occasions staff were unable to obtain
veterinary help, with the result that one dog was
found dead the next morning and another had to
be killed;

•

In 1993, a BUAV investigation into Wickham
Laboratories Ltd revealed rabbits being used in
pyrogenicity tests for which non-animal
alternatives were not only available but actually
recommended by UK regulators.

•

BUAV investigations into Shamrock (GB) Ltd
and Hazleton UK Laboratories revealed that
staff were incompetent in care and procedures
and handled animals insensitively, including
taunting, laughing at and hitting them. Again,

THE UK LEGISLATION: A CRITICISM

housing conditions were inadequate. The Home
Office was forced to take action against
Shamrock including replacing the named day-
to-day care person.

•

A BUAV investigation into the trade in primates
for research

revealed misery, suffering and

death on a massive scale, with 8 out of 10 wild-
caught primates dying before reaching the
laboratory. Prior to 1991, the vast majority of
primates imported to the UK were wild-caught,
despite a requirement of EU law that wild-
caught monkeys can only be used in
experiments if a captive-bred animal would not
be suitable. For years the Act had done nothing
to end the use of wild-caught primates until in
1995, in response to the BUAV campaign, the
Home Office announced a ban on their use
unless there was "exceptional and specific
justification."

•

The BUAV’s investigation at animal breeders
Harlan UK revealed evidence that Harlan had
breached at least two of the conditions attached
to its licence to breed animals for vivisection.
There were also serious breaches in the Home
Office Code of Practice for the Housing and
Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and
Supplying Establishments. For example we
discovered little recognition of the special needs
of breeding animals. Despite the emphasis
placed on those needs by the Code and a
requirement to provide bedding and nesting
material; all dogs, including females giving
birth, were kept in bare pens, with no bedding
other than a handful of sawdust as substrate.
There were also failures to adhere to minimum
space requirements, to provide adequate staff
training and to check the well being of the
animals at least once daily.

•

A BUAV undercover investigation into

marmoset brain research at the University of
Cambridge revealed the sickening plight of
hundreds of monkeys who were bred to be
brain-damaged and kept in small, barren metal
cages. The Home Office conceded in its
subsequent report

that four instances of non-

compliance had been identified. In one of these

instances, were monkeys were brain damaged to
induce strokes, they also had additional mini-
pumps implanted and stitched under the skin at
the back of their necks. The project licence only
allowed for a single mini-pump to be used
however the researchers actually used and
inserted multiple minipumps under the
marmoset’s skin. This also involved additional
surgery for the marmosets to endure.

Another instance involved an actual breach of

the severity limit of the licence. Two marmosets
were so badly damaged during the insertion of a
telemetry probe into their abdomens that they
were partially paralysed and had to be killed. In
this case the Home Office stated that,
‘Unexpected animal welfare problems were
encountered’ and that ‘the early loss of two
animals was not promptly notified to the Home
Office’. After the BUAV also raised concerns
regarding anaesthesia during surgery the Home
Office recommended that ‘the relevant licence
authorities and anaesthetic practices should be
revised’.

•

Again at the University of Cambridge, the
BUAV exposed researchers who experimented
on nearly 300 mice without a licence. The
experiments (first exposed by the BUAV in
2001) involved injecting mice with
amphetamine (also known as the drug ‘speed’)
and subjecting them to excessively loud music.
Some of the mice suffered brain damage and
died. After nine months the Home Office finally
admitted to the BUAV that the researchers
breached the law but were simply
“admonished”.

Unbelievably each of these breaches of the Act and
‘non-compliances’ have been treated as isolated
incidents, or worse still defended or dismissed. Yet
taken together they show a serious malaise that is
crippling the potential of the Act.

The way forward

Despite its obvious shortcomings, certain key
provisions of the Act could actually, if rigorously
and effectively enforced, significantly reduce the

THE UK LEGISLATION: A CRITICISM

number of animals used. Whilst animal experiments
do continue, at the very least introduction of the
following measures could form the first step towards
effectively tackling the most urgent and
controversial problems. Each of these measures
could be implemented quickly and simply, without
the need for new legislation, and together would
help to encourage moves away from animal
experimentation towards more modern, humane
methods of testing and as part of a broader and
focused strategy of abolition.

•

Ending the most cruel, trivial and discredited
experiments

Animals continue to die in trivial tests such as those
for household products, or discredited tests such as
the Draize eye test and LD50 type tests. There has
been disturbingly little progress towards ending
them. By taking section 5(4) of the Act more
seriously (the 'Pain V Benefit' clause), these tests
could be ended by the Home Secretary.

•

A strategy for meeting targets to reduce animal
use.

The European Union set a target of halving the
number of animals used in experiments by the year
2000.

The UK failed to develop any plans

designed to achieve this 50% target whatsoever.
Targets play an important role in most areas of
government policy and are essential if real progress
is to be achieved. A strategy to meet this aim would
focus efforts to end the most controversial tests, end
duplication of effort and give new impetus to the
development and use of non-animal tests.

•

Development, use and validation of non-
animal replacement methods must be
encouraged and fast-tracked

Replacement methods are under-funded and
underused. Vastly increased funding is vital if
significant progress is to be made. In fact the
government’s appalling track record on non-animal
tests also came in for criticism by the House of
Lords Select Committee on Animal Experiments
which concluded that ‘we are not ….persuaded that
enough effort is always made to avoid the use of

animals’

. Not only does the Home Office need to

take the lead in co-ordinating and prioritising
research into non-animal methods to ensure the most
effective use of resources but similar efforts to
improve, clarify and speed up the process of the
validation of non-animal methods are also needed.

•

Strengthening

the institutions and guidelines

set up under the Act

The APC must be reconstituted to include a fairer
balance towards animal protection interests. It
should then play an important role in improving the
effectiveness of the 1986 Act at promoting moves
away from animal use. The Inspectorate is also in
severe need of reform if it is to be effective. The
BUAV continues to call for a truly independent
Home Office Inspectorate system.

Current standards of care and conditions are
completely inadequate. While animal use continues,
care and conditions under the Act must be improved
and fully enforced. At present, these standards are
often insufficient to meet even the very minimum
needs of animals.

Summary

It is clear that the

Animals (Scientific Procedures)

Act 1986

is not working effectively at all. Since its

enactment, the decline in the number of animals
used in experiments has been slowed down. This is
despite the assurance in 1986 that: "The reduction in
the numbers of animals used and the reduction of
suffering is at the heart of the Bill..."

The BUAV

believes that the workings of the Act must be
reviewed as a priority, and these serious issues
addressed. As we start a new century we can no
longer tolerate a situation whereby the numbers and
suffering of laboratory animals remains
undiminished.

Hansard, House of Commons Reports, London - Vol. 92 No. 59 Col.

159 - 17 February 1986.

Hansard, House of Commons Reports, London - Vol. 96 No. 97 Col.

118 - 21 April 1986.

Animal Procedures Committee's website :

www.apc.gov.uk

Dr Hadwen Trust ‘Alternative News 77’, p6, Summer 2002

House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures

Volume 1-Report (2002) The House of Lords, The Stationary Office,
London

. Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals used in

Scientific Procedures. (1989). London: HMSO.

THE UK LEGISLATION: A CRITICISM

BUAV (1990). Report of an investigation by the British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection into Huntingdon Research Centre.

BUAV (1990). Report by the British Union for the Abolition of

Vivisection into the use of primates for research in the United Kingdom.

BUAV (1993). Report of an investigation by the British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection into Wickham Laboratories Ltd

BUAV (1999) Report of an undercover investigation by the British

Union for the Abolition of Vivisection into Harlan UK.

BUAV (2002) Report of ‘An Investigation by the BUAV into Primate

Research at Cambridge University’

House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific

Procedures Volume 1-Report (2002) The House of Lords, The
Stationary Office, London

BUAV (1991). Report of an investigation by the British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection into the London Hospital Medical College.

BUAV (1993). The trade in and use of primates for research in the

EC.London. BUAV.

Response of the Home Office to a written question by Dr Robert

Spink MP. Hansard, House of Commons Reports, 1 March 1995.

‘Aspects of Non-human Primate Research at Cambridge University:

A review by the Chief Inspector’ October 2002
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/index.html

. European Union's Fifth Environmental Action Programme. (1993).

Official Journal of the European Communities C138, 1-98.

House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific

Procedures Volume 1-Report (2002) The House of Lords, The
Stationary Office, London

Hansard, House of Commons Reports, London - Vol. 96 No. 97 Col.

98 - 21 April 1986.

For more information please contact:
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
16a Crane Grove
London
N7 8NN
Tel:

020 7700 4888

Fax:

020 7700 0252

E-mail:

info@buav.org

Web: www.buav.org