Home » Bulletin 2004
Demonstrators protest at European chemical industry association...
CEFIC, the Brussels-based European chemical industry association, was the target of a small demonstration on 20 April, during World Week for Laboratory Animals. The demonstration was small - no more than 20 people - but received some media coverage in Belgium, where animal rights activity is relatively rare.
The protesters, who included members of the European Campaign to End Animal Experiments, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and the Belgian group GAIA, called for "the chemical industry's cruel and scientifically outdated animal poisoning experiments to be replaced by humane non-animal tests."
Jan Baszak, Director of Communications and Advocacy at CEFIC, said: "The demonstration did not cause any disruption. Protesters stayed outside the main gates, and we subsequently held a meeting with them to discuss their issues in greater depth. The meeting was conducted in a calm and non-threatening manner, and we agreed to meet again to discuss their concerns in more depth."
CEFIC says that, while it shares public concern about animal testing, it believes that testing of chemicals for safety assessment is essential in order to protect humans and the environment from unwanted effects.
...while European Scientific Committee dismisses their views
During the debate about the European Commission's REACH proposals to carry out animal-based safety testing on a large number of chemicals, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection produced a report The Way Forward - Action to End Animal Toxicity Testing. This report criticised the existing animal toxicity tests, claiming that they were not reliable or predictive, that alternatives already existed to many of them and asserting that it would be possible to obtain sufficient information to assess the safety of these chemicals without conducting any animal testing. The European Commission referred this report to their Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment and asked them to assess the validity of these claims.
The committee's lengthy report concluded that BUAV's conclusions and recommendations were "based on unsubstantiated assertions rather than scientific evidence" and that many of its conclusions were "not justified by the available scientific data." There were almost no words of support for the BUAV report, which was described as failing to recognise "the complexity of biological systems and the importance of the interaction between physiological pathways which may only occur in vivo." If the BUAV report were adopted, said the committee, it "would lead to a significant reduction in the current levels of human health and environmental protection