All text 
Fullständigt förhandlingsreferat
XML 42k
Torsdagen den 8 juli 2021 - Strasbourg Reviderad upplaga

15. Planer och åtgärder för att påskynda övergången till innovation utan djurförsök inom forskning, lagstadgad testning och utbildning (debatt)
Anföranden på video

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission betreffend die Pläne und das Vorgehen zur Beschleunigung eines Übergangs zu Innovationen ohne die Verwendung von Tieren in der Forschung, bei vorgeschriebenen Versuchen und in der Bildung (2021/2784(RSP)).


  Adina-Ioana Vălean, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the European Union is committed to supporting animal welfare, to improving public health and protecting the environment. We recognise that animals have intrinsic value and the Commission is convinced that animal testing should be phased out in Europe. We are working towards this goal in particular by means of the directive on the protection animals in science, which, as I will explain, is a strategic approach.

At the global level this directive is unique as its ultimate goal is the full replacement of animal use in science. The directive is also among the most stringent legislation in the world for protecting the welfare of animals that are still needed for use in scientific research.

In the European Union all living animals used in science are protected by this very strict legislation. It applies to the use of animals in all disciplines, from basic research to applied research, the development of medicines, and the safety testing of chemicals.

The directive is overarching. All Member States have enacted it in their national legislation. All sector-specific pieces of legislation such as on pharmaceuticals, food or chemicals, must be in line with the objectives of the directive. That means in practice that the use of animals is only allowed if there are no suitable alternatives.

Any new initiatives that the Commission is taking, such as the chemical strategy for sustainability, must fully respect the directive’s ultimate goal of phasing out all animals used in science. And let me recall that the use of animals is already forbidden if there are alternative methods available and that the EU already has a ban on using animal testing for cosmetics.

As part of our commitment to the eventual replacement of all animals in science, the Commission actively supports the development of alternatives by funding research. This amounts to some EUR 800 million over the past 20 years. We also host the European Union Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing. This way we make tangible contributions to the development and validation of non-animal alternatives. The laboratory has some 50 staff at the Commission’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra.

In addition, the Commission is actively involved in, finances and co-chairs the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing. This is a public-private partnership that includes five directorates-general of the European Commission, 37 companies and 8 European industry federations, each representing a separate industrial area. The partnership aims at replacing animal testing by innovative non-animal testing methods, to reduce the number of animals used, and to refine procedures where no alternatives exist or are not sufficient to ensure the safety of substances.

The directive on the protection of animals in science obliges the Member States and the Commission to be fully transparent on the use of animals in science and we recently launched ALURES, a database of statistics that is publicly available. The level of transparency is unique in the world. It helps determine which disciplines use the most animals and use the most severe tests and hence it helps us to better focus the research into alternative methods in these areas. This transparency is a tool showing how many animals are being used in science in the EU and helping us to focus the research.

Another tool is knowledge-sharing, showcasing alternatives that are already available and others that are being developed. By shining a light on this progress on alternatives and engaging in the debate, we want to stimulate more change.

Recent examples include two very well-attended scientific conferences, including one in February this year. Scientists showed, for example, 3D human kidney tubules for drug-efficacy testing and stem cell models that mimic the function of human organs. We also aim to stimulate trust in those new methods.

As I said at the outset, our ultimate goal is to replace the use of animals for scientific purposes. That goal is reflected in EU legislation. We are working towards this goal with all the means we have – research policy, legislation and funding. While science is making progress, we are always looking for ways to accelerate the move towards this goal and reduce the use of animals in science. The different sectors for which we have European legislation, such as human and veterinary medicine, chemicals, food and feed, are all bound to the objectives of this directive to replace the use of animals. We are making targeted efforts. We are pursuing a collaborative and gradual approach, but more scientific knowledge is needed for phasing out animal testing and research completely.

So thank you very much for your attention. I’m looking forward to your comments to take to my colleague in charge of this dossier.


  Michal Wiezik, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I didn’t plan to speak in plenary this week, but I had to replace a colleague of mine, to whom I wish a full and fast recovery from his injuries. But now to the topic.

Commissioner, without a doubt, the Commission has been investing significantly in very promising, innovative research projects. They have shown the possibilities of advanced non-animal models. At the same time, however, the investments in these innovative methods are still dwarfed in comparison to the current investments in animal studies. In 2017, over 23 million animals were impacted by science. The majority of them were bred and killed without actually being used in the experiments. It all happens despite specific provisions in REACH to promote alternative methods and to only use animals as a last resort.

Today, the EU has major challenges to face: infectious diseases, the fight against cancer and ensuring a clean and safe environment. These challenges are complex and the EU is addressing them on many fronts, one of them research and testing. The rapid emergence of advanced non—animal models offer immense opportunities to replace animals and improve research. The Joint Research Centre has listed many of these methods for several disease areas, but they have not yet been followed by concrete measures.

What we are asking from the Commission is to do more of what it already does, but in a coordinated manner and with concrete goals that can replace animals in specific scientific areas. Targeted funding, education and broad collaborations are key to making innovative advanced models and technologies the new normal. The Commission should work towards inter—agency alignment by setting up a dialogue on the regulatory use of non—animal models in anticipation of the ‘one substance, one assessment’ approach, and to ensure a proper share of the agency’s budget is dedicated to these models.


  Jytte Guteland, för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! I direktivet om skydd av djur som används för vetenskapliga ändamål anges att direktivet är ett viktigt steg mot att uppnå det slutliga målet, att ersätta alla försök på levande djur i vetenskapliga syften, och att det är önskvärt att ersätta användningen av levande djur i försök med andra metoder som inte kräver användning av levande djur. Syftet i direktivet är att underlätta och främja användningen av alternativa metoder.

Vi vet dock att verkligheten ser totalt annorlunda ut. Drygt tio år efter antagandet av direktivet fortsätter de plågsamma djurförsöken med oförminskad styrka. Miljontals möss, fiskar, fåglar men också katter och hundar används varje år i djurförsök i EU. Djuren tvångsmatas med farliga ämnen, deras vitala organ opereras bort. De genmodifieras. De utsätts för brutala övergrepp som brutna ben eller regelbunden exponering av giftiga ämnen.

Att djur fortfarande ska behöva genomgå så kallade smärttester där de bränns på heta plattor, det är helt oacceptabelt. Vetenskapen har utvecklats så snabbt att vi nu, om inte förr, verkligen är redo att påbörja en utfasning av djurförsök i vetenskapliga syften.

Pandemin har ju visat att forskning och vetenskapliga beslut och försök behöver göras på människor. Djur har inte visat samma symptom som människor. Samtidigt kan vi se också hur nya tekniska hjälpmedel hjälper oss att bättre förstå virusets effekter i mänskliga lungor, i hjärnan och njurarna.

Det är inte heller enbart inom forskningsfältet för infektionssjukdomar den vetenskapliga utvecklingen går framåt. I kommissionens egna granskningar från det gemensamma forskningscentret, om icke-djurbaserade metoder inom den biomedicinska vetenskapen, där redovisas den inriktning som forskningen behöver ta för att vinna kampen mot cancer, neurodegenererativa sjukdomar och hjärt-och kärlsjukdomar.

Vi har nu två val som medlagstiftare. Antingen fortsätter vi på den väg som kommissionen anträtt, med otillräckliga investeringar och bristande koordinering av innovativa lösningar som inte kräver djurförsök. Eller också investerar vi i smarta metoder, sätter konkreta målsättningar och samordnar våra åtgärder för att gemensamt som union möta de hälsorisker som ligger framför oss. EU måste investera mer för att bli världsledande inom innovation, vilket stärker vår ekonomiska motståndskraft men också rustar oss för kommande kriser.

Nästa steg är att kommissionen inrättar en övergripande arbetsgrupp som inkluderar de relevanta generaldirektoraten, för att samarbeta med medlemsstaterna och berörda aktörer i syfte att utarbeta en handlingsplan för att fasa ut de vidriga djurförsöken inom forskningen.


  Katalin Cseh, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, animals are not disposable equipment. Inflicting pain and suffering on them has no place in 21st century science. For many of us, this is an ethical and moral imperative. And we see that despite minimum standards, cruel practices still take place within the Union.

Just a couple of months ago, we witnessed video footage revealing shocking levels of cruelty and animal suffering that breached European animal-testing laws. Findings from a major investigation in Spanish contract-testing laboratory Vivotecnia showed deliberate acts of cruelty and repeated bad practice. And all of this happens only 18 months after similar findings were revealed in a German laboratory.

And even health scientists are questioning the reliability of animal studies. Let me quote the British Medical Journal, which says that the claim that animal experimentation is essential to medical development...

(... inaudible ...)

So science and morality point into the very same conclusion: there are cruelty-free alternatives like computational biology that can enable us to get rid of animal testing once and for all.

But ever since I started looking into these issues, I kept on hearing that complete change is impossible, and I get it – old habits die hard, and I even accept that this won’t happen by the...

(... inaudible ...)

... is doing better than the rest of the world, but even here, progress is way too slow.

We need a credible plan, a plan that measures, targets, and a binding, ambitious timeline. We need to promote and fund cruelty-free alternatives. We want to see increased funding for animal-free research methods and new, advanced non-animal models under Horizon Europe, and then we have to start creating...

(... inaudible ...)

... testing bans.

This is what our citizens demand, 7 in 10 adults in EU Member States believe that enabling the full replacement of all forms of animal testing with non-animal testing methods should be a priority for the EU. And this is what we are asking from the Commission.


  Tilly Metz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes is among the strictest legislation in the world, but this piece of legislation does not provide a clear strategy for transitioning to innovation without the use of animals.

And as a consequence, every year nearly 10 million animals suffer in EU laboratories, with very limited research results. Indeed, there is a high failure rate – above 90% of new drugs tested on animals – and also a growing number of scientific reviews indicating that they contribute very little in understanding human diseases.

Non-animal methods are game-changing technologies...

(... inaudible ...)

... better coordinated, cross-sectoral and EU-wide approach, across all Member States and all European agencies.

Based on these elements I have some questions for the Commission: does the Commission agree that after 10 years of no progress, we need a plan to accelerate the transition to animal-free methods? That it could work more with the Member States to promote the key competences and knowledge required to use non-animal methods? That it could create mechanisms for preferential funding of non-animal methods? That it could set reduction targets through a more proactive implementation of existing regulations that deal with the safety of chemicals and other products. And lastly, there is a plan to develop the European research area and to set up priority areas where Member States should collaborate.

So does the Commissioner agree that the phasing-out of the use of animals should be one of these priority areas?


  Annika Bruna, au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, il est plus que temps d’agir pour remplacer les expériences sur les animaux par des alternatives plus modernes et plus fiables et de se conformer à la méthode des 3 R qui prévoit le remplacement des animaux quand c’est possible, la réduction du nombre d’animaux utilisés quand les expériences sont inévitables, et le raffinement pour diminuer la souffrance des animaux pendant la détention et lors de l’euthanasie, si elle a lieu.

Le remplacement est déterminant, car la technologie progresse très vite dans le domaine des expérimentations in vitro, de la modélisation informatique ou encore du microdosage, sans compter les technologies génétiques comme CRISPR-Cas9. Ces nouvelles technologies sont bien plus efficaces pour faire avancer la recherche, mais il y a des blocages, des inerties. Par exemple, les universités utilisent trop souvent les tests sur les animaux faute de moyens financiers pour utiliser ces nouvelles technologies. Quant aux laboratoires, ils subissent eux-mêmes l’inertie réglementaire. Ils doivent encore recourir à des tests sur les animaux pour obtenir les précieuses autorisations de mise sur le marché. Parfois, cela confine à l’escroquerie puisque certaines de ces expériences sont menées mécaniquement pour continuer à avoir du financement. C’est le cas notamment des chiens testés depuis plusieurs décennies pour trouver un traitement contre la myopathie, avec les résultats qu’on connaît. Il est donc important de légiférer au plus vite sur les alternatives à ces expériences. Les attentes des citoyens, tout comme les progrès technologiques, vont aujourd’hui dans le sens de la fin de cette terrible maltraitance animale.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Ja bardzo dziękuję Pani Komisarz za przedłożoną propozycje. Wiem, że jest Pani osobą rozważną i w sposób rozważny i rozsądny podchodzi również do tematu zapewnienia dobrostanu zwierząt.

Szanowni Państwo! Liczba wykorzystanych zwierząt w nauce i badaniach, mimo zobowiązania złożonego 30 lat temu przez Komisję, spadła niestety nieznacznie, więc z całą pewnością czas na zmiany. Jak wynika z badań, około 12 mln zwierząt, które są hodowane na potrzeby naukowe, finalnie jest niestety zabijanych bez docelowego wykorzystania. Można by te zwierzęta w jakiś sposób zagospodarować. Chociaż w dyrektywie 2010/63/UE określono podstawowe przepisy dotyczące ochrony zwierząt wykorzystywanych do badań, niestety nie przewidziano strategii zastąpienia zwierząt alternatywnymi formami. A więc zachodzi potrzeba przygotowania działań ułatwiających przejście na innowacje technologiczne, transformację poprawy dobrostanu zwierząt. Wyzwania zdrowotne i środowiskowe, ochrona bioróżnorodności, ochrona klimatu nakładają na nas obowiązek, by zintensyfikować wysiłki, inwestować przede wszystkim w naukę, w badania regulujące oraz edukację. I ta rosnąca przede wszystkim wrażliwość społeczna, o której tutaj mówimy, przejrzystość instytucji unijnych, transparentność powinny położyć większy nacisk na te kwestie.


  Anja Hazekamp, namens de The Left-Fractie. – Voorzitter, undercoverbeelden uit het Duitse lab LPT en het Spaanse Vivotecnia laten zien dat honden, katten, knaagdieren en apen grof mishandeld worden, dat ze pijnlijke experimenten moeten doorstaan zonder verdoving, dat ze worden geschopt en geslagen en aan hun lot worden overgelaten.

Hoe kan het dat dit pas aan het licht komt nadat klokkenluiders aan de bel trekken? En waarom maakt de Commissie nog steeds gebruik van de gegevens die door deze labs zijn verzameld voor de besluiten die zij neemt – bijvoorbeeld voor de toelating van het landbouwgif glyfosaat – terwijl de wetenschappelijke waarde van deze gegevens heel erg laag is?

Het doel van de richtlijn die dieren moet beschermen die voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek worden gebruikt, is klip-en-klaar. Alle dierexperimenten moeten worden vervangen door methoden zonder dieren. En toch daalt het aantal experimenten op dieren slechts langzaam. In veel Europese landen neemt het aantal dierproeven zelfs weer toe.

Wereldwijd zijn er al geweldige ontwikkelingen, innovatieve en betaalbare cel- en weefselkweken en computersimulaties. Ook ons eigen Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor onderzoek en het CEVMA hebben indrukwekkende alternatieven gevalideerd, maar daar wordt veel te weinig gebruik van gemaakt.

Commissaris, wat gaat u doen om deze alternatieven te promoten en om volop in te zetten op de ontwikkeling van nieuwe technologieën? Al sinds 1993 is het doel in de Europese Unie dat we minder dierproeven doen. Het stoppen van dierproeven is in het belang van dieren én mensen. Gaat u hier na dertig jaar eindelijk voor zorgen?


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, animal welfare can often be overlooked, but I am pleased to say that this is not the case in the European Parliament. Last month, we passed a resolution calling for a ban on the use of cages in animal agriculture by 2027. This was in response to ‘End the cage age’, a European Citizens’ Initiative. Some 1.4 million citizens signed it and we responded in kind. For nearly 30 years, the EU has been committed to reducing the use of and improving the welfare of animals in science.

Since 2009, the marketing of any cosmetic products containing animal-tested ingredients have been banned in the EU. Considering that Europe’s cosmetic products market is the biggest in the world, it’s clear that this was a significant step in the promotion of animal welfare.

The 2010 EU directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes promotes the three Rs: (1) replacing animal experiments wherever possible; (2) reducing the number of animals used and (3) refining experiments to minimise the impact on animals.

This directive also notes that the final goal is full replacement for procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. While the progress made on the three Rs is most welcome, unfortunately, we are not yet close to reaching the final goal and the number of animals being used in research, regulatory testing and education remains high.

Thankfully, new developments have been made, the advancement in animal models and these are very relevant because they are human-relevant and therefore present an opportunity for more accurate data. A comprehensive approach will accelerate the transition away from animal testing.


  Eleonora Evi (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quando l'Unione europea si pone un obiettivo, normalmente si dà una strategia, fissa dei target a medio e lungo termine e vengono stanziati dei fondi. Eppure, nonostante l'Europa si sia data l'obiettivo di mettere fine all'uso di animali nella ricerca e nella sperimentazione, ad oggi non c'è nulla di tutto questo.

Al contrario, a distanza di anni, sono ancora circa 10 milioni gli animali che vengono impiegati nella ricerca scientifica ogni anno in Europa e i finanziamenti europei dedicati ai metodi animal free sono una goccia nell'oceano se confrontati a quelli di cui beneficiano i metodi tradizionali.

Ma non è solo una questione etica. Così facendo stiamo mettendo un freno al potenziale dei metodi innovativi e human-based, che hanno già dimostrato di poter portare ad avanzamenti concreti nella comprensione e nella cura di malattie, penso ad esempio al cancro e all'Alzheimer, dove i metodi tradizionali hanno fallito.

Chiedo quindi alla Commissione di presentare il prima possibile un piano di azione con target e tempistiche certe, impegni concreti e misurabili e finanziamenti dedicati ed adeguati a raggiungere finalmente l'obiettivo di una scienza animal free.


  Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Wir sind uns anscheinend alle einig, dass Tierversuche abgeschafft werden müssen. Ich frage mich nur: Wie konnte es so lange dauern, und warum hat das so viele Probleme hervorgerufen? Wieso gibt es Millionen von Tieren, die wirklich unnötig leiden? Da vermisse ich ein bisschen, dass wir uns mal Gedanken darüber machen, wieso es überhaupt dazu gekommen ist.

Natürlich sind wir Menschen verantwortlich für unsere Mitgeschöpfe, und wir können nicht einfach so tun, als wäre das etwas außerhalb von uns. Wir müssen uns mit dieser Sache wirklich beschäftigen und unsere grundlegende Haltung überdenken. Der weise König Salomo hat einmal gesagt: Der Gerechte kümmert sich um sein Vieh. Kümmern wir uns wirklich um diese Tiere? Oder ist es uns egal? Wir müssen wieder dahin zurück, dass wir uns verantwortlich fühlen und wissen für diese Mitgeschöpfe, und dann brauchen wir Lösungen, um das zu ändern.


  Francisco Guerreiro (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner, the EU has made a clear commitment to proactively reduce and replace animals in science since 1993. However, we are now in 2021, 20 years later, and despite almost three decades long, the number of animals used has decreased very, very slowly.

So why doesn’t the EU have relevant policy initiatives on the line to reduce, replace and actively phase out animal testing? Why don’t we have an action plan setting out a proactive strategy to phase out animal experiments with milestones and timetables? Is the Commission just expecting Member States by their own initiative to invest in the phasing-out of animal testing? Since when has this reality really worked in EU policy?

We know that without binding targets, there are no real incentives to progress. And Commissioner, what happens in laboratories cannot just stay in laboratories. We must end animal experimentation now.


  Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, lorsque l’on parle de l’utilisation d’animaux à des fins scientifiques, j’ai toujours cette image qui me revient dans la tête, celle d’un singe attaché par les poignets et qui fixe la caméra que tient le lanceur d’alerte. On voit la souffrance dans ses yeux. Il semble demander: «Pourquoi?» Puisque ces animaux ne parlent pas, je le répète ici: Pourquoi?

La directive de 2010 sur la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques avait représenté un pas en avant important. Elle prévoyait que soient utilisées dès que possible des procédures n’impliquant pas l’utilisation d’animaux vivants. Pourquoi le nombre d’animaux utilisés n’a-t-il quasiment pas baissé?

Un plan d’action complet, assorti d’objectifs chiffrés et de moyens dédiés est nécessaire. Nous devons former les jeunes scientifiques à l’utilisation des méthodes alternatives. Nous pouvons donner la priorité dans l’attribution des fonds pour la recherche aux projets qui ont recours à des alternatives. Nous pouvons accompagner les acteurs privés qui souhaitent réduire l’utilisation d’animaux. Les alternatives ont souvent de bien meilleurs résultats que l’expérimentation sur les animaux. Nous avons donc tous à y gagner, animaux humains ou non humains.


  Adina-Ioana Vălean, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as I have said from the beginning, the message my colleagues wanted to bring to you today is that we are strongly committed to animal welfare, while mindful of our responsibility to ensure the protection of health and the environment.

The Commission chose for the regulation a stepwise approach to this directive with the ultimate goal of replacing all animals in science. The directive ensures that other EU initiatives, such as for research programmes, are aligned with the aims established by the directive, and this horizontal approach makes additional strategy documents and actions redundant.

For example, we are gathering right now more details on how the specific sectors plan to reduce their dependence on the use of animals. These sectors are human and veterinary medicines, medical devices, food and feed safety, biocides, pesticides, chemicals and possibly others. They are covered by DGs SANTE, Environment and GROW.

In accordance with the directive, I will give you a couple of examples of how some of the abovementioned sectors are working on replacing or reducing animal tests. Concerning veterinary medicines, we have a regulation from 2019, which becomes applicable on 28 January 2022. It calls for assessing the feasibility of an active, substance—based review system for the environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products. In fact a system could involve applicants joining efforts to generate the required data, thereby reducing necessary testing on vertebrates. We have an ongoing feasibility study and we are going to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council by the date of the application of this regulation.

Regarding animal feed additives, the preparatory work for the revision of the regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition, includes the objective of reducing animal testing by imposing mandatory data sharing between applicants for feed additives authorisation as regards the toxological tests on vertebrate animals. This would prevent duplication of tests in view of the authorisation process.

In the domain of food safety, specifically marine biotoxin testing, the Commission has proposed to discontinue most bioassays. The proposal received the support of the Member States at the end of 2020 and will be published in mid—August this year. In addition, we have other initiatives, like the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, which will include a strong commitment to promote alternative methods and the use of digital technologies and advanced methods to move away from unnecessary animal testing in both the EU and beyond.

As I said, my colleagues are very committed to this subject. We believe that this directive will ensure the gradual replacement of animals in testing and science and, where replacement is not yet possible, the legislation ensures that fewer animals are used over time and that the procedures they undergo are constantly being refined to lessen the effects on their well—being.

We look forward to the continued and close cooperation with the Parliament on such a sensitive and important matter.


  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet während der nächsten Tagung im September statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)


  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Eläinkokeiden käytölle ei enää ole ihmisen turvallisuuteen perustuvia tarpeita. Niiden käytöstä on luovuttava vähitellen – mieluiten mahdollisimman pian. Vaadimme viimeksi vuonna 2018 eläinkokeiden maailmanlaajuista lopettamista, ja olen lähettänyt komissiolle lukuisia kysymyksiä aiheesta. Eläinkokeet eivät ole luotettavia, ja ne eivät takaa tuotteiden turvallisuutta tai lääkkeiden vaikuttavuutta ihmisille. Vaihtoehtoiset menetelmät, kuten testit kantasolualustoilla, antavat ihmisvaikutuksista luotettavampaa tietoa ja kaiken lisäksi eläinkokeita edullisemmin. Ne kattavat jo nykyään lähes kaikki testaustarpeet. Vaihtoehtoisten tutkimusmenetelmien kehittämistä, hyväksymistä ja käyttöä on aktiivisesti edistettävä sekä siirryttävä hyödyntämään jo olemassa olevia vaihtoehtoisia menetelmiä. Euroopan kemikaaliviraston ECHA:n tulkinta eläinkokeiden vaatimuksista on jälkeenjäänyt, eikä vaihtoehtoisia menetelmiä ole otettu riittävästi käyttöön.

Senaste uppdatering: 11 oktober 2021Rättsligt meddelande - Integritetspolicy