Animal Testing - Pharmaceuticals [UK]

The UK regulations are considered some of the strictest animal testing regulations in the world. They are regulated by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) which was revised again in 2013. This act makes it illegal to use great apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees for testing, but the use of other primates is still legal. Animals such as dogs and primates are used the least due to the time and expense of keeping them in captivity. Rodents are used for about 80% of animal tests. Three licences must be obtained from the Home Office to carry out animal testing under the scientific procedures act. A project licence, personal licence, and an establishment licence. Each establishment must have appropriate accommodation and veterinary facilities to obtain a licence. The licence will specify which areas are suitable for certain procedures. For example some areas may be suitable specifically for dispatching animals after use, while other areas may only be used for certain types of testing. An establishment licence remains in force until it is revoked and should be reviewed annually. A personal licence is required by any person carrying out testing procedures. All researchers and technicians must have necessary training, skills and experience. They must carry out an accredited modular training course for each species being used and an additional course if they are going to carry out surgical procedures. The licence specifies where they can carry out procedures, the supervision in place, what types of procedures can be carried out and on which species. The licence remains in place indefinitely or until it is revoked, and is reviewed every 5 years. A project licence specifies the numbers and types of animals used, types of experiments carried out, purpose of the testing, and requires a certificate to confirm there are adequate facilities and staff for the procedures. A project licence can be issued for any length of time up to 5 years. After 5 years the holder must apply for a new licence. If the licence has been issued for less than 5 years the holder can apply to extend the licence up to 5 years. In 2015 approximately 570 project licences were granted and around 1400 inspections were carried out. 

Each project is also evaluated on the 3 R's:

Replacement: A project will only be granted a licence is there is no reasonable scientific alternative. They must prove that non-animal methods will not provide satisfactory or reliable results.

Reduction: They must use the smallest number of animals needed to give reliable results. It is the responsibility of the project licence holder to ensure there is no unnecessary or surplus breeding of animals. Procedures should not be carried out if there is data already available and sharing data should be encouraged to minimise the testing required. A project licence must justify any need for the duplication of tests (to confirm the accuracy of results). 

Refinement: Stress and pain must be reduced as much as possible in methods of testing, breeding, accommodation and care of the animals. Animals must be given pain relief where possible and when it will not disrupt the accuracy of results. Death should be avoided as an end-point when possible. A 'humane' end should be provided as soon as possible. 

Most animals will be euthanized after testing as they will be in too much pain and stress to justify keeping them alive. There are a few places that have been set up to rescue animals after lab testing, however, too many animals are used during testing to put them all up for adoption. Animals such as primates will have been born in captivity and can not be released into the wild. Often, the injuries and health problems sustained are so severe that it is kinder for them to be euthanized. 

More Information:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291350/Guidance_on_the_Operation_of_ASPA.pdf

https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-regulations-in-the-uk/

http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/project-licences-animal-testing.html

Animal Testing - Household Products [UK]

Household Products

Household products include items such as washing up liquid, polish and air fresheners. On the 1st October 2015, the government implemented a ban on the testing of household products on animals. However, animals had not been used in the UK in this way since 2010 as it is usually the chemicals being tested, not the product as a whole. The government also included a 'qualified ban' for testing ingredients, where any ingredient expected to make up at least 50% of the final product can not be tested. All other ingredients and any chemicals that require testing under legislation such as REACH are still allowed. In addition to this, products that have been tested on animals abroad may still be imported. PETA described this new legislation as a 'step in the right direction' however the RSPCA believed 'it'll make little difference to animal welfare'. Since thousands of ingredients have already been tested and proved as safe, these will not need to be tested again. Testing of ingredients in household products is still allowed, despite cosmetic testing being banned, as substances used in these products (such as bleach) are more hazardous to consumers and the environment. They are also more likely to end up in the environment in larger quantities (bleach put down toilets, air fresheners in atmosphere etc). It is often questioned why new testing needs to be carried out when there are thousands of ingredients already proven to be safe. However, new ingredients still need to be tested as an attempt to find safer, less environmentally damaging chemicals. 

More Information:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/testingchemicals/householdproducts

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/householdcleaningproductsreport/animaltesting.aspx

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/chemical-toxicology/testing-household-products-animals/

Animal Testing - Cosmetics [UK]

Cosmetics

Cosmetic products are usually thought of as make up, however this also includes things such as shampoo, toothpaste and deodorant. In 2009 animal testing was banned for the use of cosmetic products in the EU. However, products could still be tested outside the EU then imported and sold in countries within it. This was changed in 2013 when new legislation was put in place to prevent the sale of cosmetic products, or products with ingredients that have been tested on animals, anywhere in the EU. Israel and India introduced similar legislation and India became the first country in Asia to ban animal testing for cosmetic products and their ingredients. Many people believe animal testing is now unnecessary as we already have thousands of products and ingredients that we know are safe. The RSPCA stated that 'there are more than enough cosmetic products available'. However, new chemicals can be tested under REACH (Regulation for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). REACH is an EU regulation which carries out toxicity tests for chemicals on animals to ensure they are safe. New chemicals are required to be tested for the effect that they will have on workers who will be handling them and their environmental impact.They believe that hazardous chemicals can not be determined using only non-animal methods but require companies to share data so that the number of tests carried out will be limited. Although the products sold in the UK will not be tested on animals, products from the same company can be tested and sold outside the EU in countries such as USA and China, so some feel that buying from these companies is still indirectly funding animal testing. 

More Information:

http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-experiment-on/cosmetics/

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/testingchemicals/cosmetics

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/policy/cosmetics/

The Aintree Grand National Video

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (part 2)

Patella luxation
Patella luxation is a condition that involves repetitive dislocation of the patella (knee cap). It is seen in all types of dog but is most common in toy and miniature breeds of dog, such as the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. It is also thought to be more common in females than males. Symptoms include abnormal movement in the hind limbs, lameness, skipping, and an abnormal posture while sitting. Clinical symptoms can be seen in dogs as early as four moths old. It is usually diagnosed during a physical examination from a veterinarian and is then confirmed by an x-ray. It is thought that it can lead to ruptured cranial cruciate ligament in 15-20% of cases. Dogs with intermittent or permanent lameness will be considered for surgery but most cases will be treated with pain killers, physiotherapy, and/or weight management. 

Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS)
KCS (also known as dry-eye syndrome) is a disease that affects the precorneal tear film and prevents the production of moisture in the eye. It results in the inflammation of the cornea and tissues in the eye due to dryness. It is thought to affect around 1% of dogs. The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is one of the breeds more commonly affected, along with breeds such as pugs and the English bulldog. Symptoms include redness and yellow/green discharge. If untreated it will eventually result in a cloudy film over the cornea and scarring around the eye. It can cause blurred vision, or loss of vision completely and causes the eyes to be more prone to infection. It can be diagnosed by a schirmer tear test which checks whether there is adequate tear production in the eye. KCS can not be cured and requires life long medication. Two commonly used medicines are cyclosporine and tacrolimus which must be administered in the eyes once or twice a day, every day. 

Syringomyelia

Syringomyelia MRI
http://cavalierhealth.org/syringomyelia.htm

Chiari-like malformation (CM) is a condition seen in cavaliers causing their brain to be too big for their skull. The back part of their skull puts pressure on the brain and some of the brain is squeezed out the back of the skull (foramen magnum). This is known as syringomyelia when the skull partially blocks the flow of cerebrospinal fluid from the brain, which is pushed through the central spinal canal. This causes a variation in pressure and creates fluid-filled cavities within the spinal cord, known as syrinx.
It is thought that this produces a pins-and-needles feeling around the head, neck and spine, while in severe cases it is thought to cause a burning sensation. Symptoms include being sensitive to touch, walking/moving slowly, problems jumping, scratching, phantom scratching, biting hind legs, or weakness in limbs. The symptoms seem to be worse during exercise, when excited, at night, and can even worsen due to changes in weather. It is thought that this is because of the changes in atmospheric pressure. It can be diagnosed by an MRI scan but there is no cure. Some dogs may have surgery to remove the back parts of the skull which are putting pressure on the brain. This will result in an improvement in about 80% of dogs, but 50% of these will have symptoms recurring within 2 years. In the most severe cases the dog will have to be euthanised as the condition is so painful. It is most commonly found in cavaliers and other toy breeds such as pugs, chihuahuas and yorkshire terriers. Symptoms will usually be seen after 2 years of age and a study showed that about 70% of cavaliers will have syringomyelia by the age of seven. It is a progressive illness which means it will get worse with time. It may end up destroying parts of the spinal cord, and the dog's legs will become progressively weaker. Some medications may be given to help limit the pain and reduce symptoms. Dogs with syringomyelia prefer to have their head elevated so keeping food and water bowls raised can help make them more comfortable. 

Video of cavalier with syringomyelia: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UGp45LMCis

Animal Fat vs Palm Oil [£20 note] Video

Animal Fat vs Palm Oil [£20 note]

After a new £5 note was released fairly recently in the UK, there were a number of complaints among vegans and vegetarians due to the fact that they were made using animal fat. Now that a new £20 note is due to be released in 2020, the bank of England has considered using palm oil as a replacement. However, despite them doing this in an attempt to please the 134,000+ people who signed a petition against the use of animal fat, they have now sparked new outrage from people claiming that the use of palm oil will have a severely negative environmental impact.

Pro Animal Fat

Palm Oil deforestation

By using animal fat, no populations of wild animals or indigenous people will be affected as it is already a by-product from slaughterhouses. Animal fat is already used in thousands of products, in much larger quantities. According to the Humane Slaughter Association, approximately 2.6 million cattle are killed per year in the UK and yet the Bank of England estimates that the entire production of new £20 notes would only 'equate to the usage of tallow by-products from around 25-30 cattle'. An insignificant amount in comparison. Palm oil was responsible for 8% of the world's deforestation between 1990-2008. This act of deforestation releases large quantities of carbon pollution and is a major contributor to climate change. Deforestation for the sake of palm oil is responsible for bringing Sumatran orangutans to near extinction. It has also resulted in many indigenous people being brutally forced from their homes. Emma Keller, agriculture commodities manager at WWF, explained that palm oil comes at the 'expense of human rights and tropical forest'. 

Pro Palm Oil

Animal slaughter by-products

Although animal fat is found in thousands of products, people who oppose these products are able to avoid them. The £5 note makes it impossible for anybody to bypass the use of animal products. The use of palm oil will avoid offending a number of groups including vegans, vegetarians, hindus, sikhs and jains. The additional cost would only be £5 million over 10 years in addition to the £300 million already being spent. Similarly to animal fat, palm oil is already used in thousands of everyday products. The Bank has suggested that using palm oil as an alternative would only require 'one year's production of less than six hectares of palm oil plantation'. This would only be a tiny addition to the huge number of palm oil plantations that are already present. Despite speaking out against palm oil, Emma Keller stated that palm oil 'produces more oil per land than any other equivalent oil crop'. Using coconut oil would require more land space and could have a greater negative impact on the environment. Using animal fat would directly cost the lives of animals whereas the palm oil could be sourced from a sustainable plantation (RSPO). 

Why use either?

Doug Maw, who started the online petition against the use of animal fat in the £5 note, has also expressed disapproval for the idea of using palm oil, believing it is 'something they should avoid doing'. It would be possible for the bank to avoid using either of these products by sticking to the old design, however it has been shown that there are a number of advantages to polymer notes. It is thought that the polymer notes provide 'unique' anti-static and anti-slip properties and are more durable than paper notes. Professor David Solomon, developer of the first polymer note in 1988, also said that these notes are harder to forge, more hygienic, and don't require trees to be cut down. 

Only trace amounts of beef tallow are used (significantly less than 1%) and similar levels of palm oil would be required. Either way these notes will make an insignificant difference to the huge problems these products are already responsible for. 

More information:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/30/bank-england-backs-palm-oil-replace-animal-fat-plastic-20-note/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/02/5-animal-fat-bank-note-british-vegetarians-being-stupid-says-inventor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/new-5-notes-why-do-they-have-animal-fat-in-them-a7448106.html

Why should we avoid palm oil? 

http://www.ecowatch.com/why-is-palm-oil-so-bad-1881907014.html

Why should we avoid animal products? 

https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/slaughter/