Animal Testing

Companies such as Lush have demonstrated that through science, we can do better by advocating for non-animal methods which can be more accurate than using animals in experiments.

Acknowledged the strength of public feeling about animal testing, noting that petitions received over 140,000 signatures. Stressed Labour's commitment to reducing unnecessary suffering for animals, citing historical legislation like the Hunting Act and Animal Welfare Act. Highlighted the importance of non-animal methods (NAMs) in scientific research due to advancements in AI and engineering biology. Cited examples such as virtual dog models by NC3Rs and humane alternatives developed by companies like XCellR8 and Newcells Biotech. Questioned if the Government prioritises supporting British scientists in using NAMs.

The MP highlighted that more than 100 of her constituents signed the petition regarding ending animal toxicity tests and prioritising non-animal research methods. She expressed the need for a roadmap to encourage people to use non-animal methods instead of animals.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Although these technologies are developing year on year, they have been around for some time. She mentioned 10 years, but some would argue that these technologies have existed closer to 20 years. Why has there not been a corresponding decrease in the number of animal tests? Does she believe that the current project licensing regime is rigorous enough? I think everyone will welcome the significant increase in funding that the Minister has pledged today to support research on non-animal methods, but is his Department at all curious why the number of animals used in experiments has not gone down, despite huge increases in technology in this area? As part of a review of the licensing process for projects, would he consider trying to get us some analysis of whether the decision to grant a licence is objective, or subjective and based on something that some ethical committee claims?

McCarthy questioned whether the disjoint between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs handling animal welfare and the Home Office licensing laboratory testing creates a problem in terms of oversight. She suggested that no single Minister currently owns this issue as part of their portfolio.

Organisations contacted me regarding the need to look after animals post-testing where possible, especially beagle pups who have not undergone lethal testing. The industry has been resistant to engaging with rehoming centres; however, whenever an animal can have a life in a loving home afterwards, we must make that happen.

Ms. Gibson expressed concerns about the ongoing use of animals in research, highlighting that over 140,000 signatures have been collected for e-petitions calling for an end to animal testing. She mentioned that more emails are received regarding animal welfare than any other issue, indicating a high level of public concern. She cited statistics showing that 2.7 million procedures involving animals took place in the UK in 2022 and noted significant public opposition to using primates and dogs for experiments. Ms. Gibson also discussed cruel practices such as force-feeding and inhaling substances in dog tests, calling for a ban on toxicity testing on beagles and an update of animal welfare legislation. As the Minister stands here today, how confident is he that the regulatory bodies that monitor these matters are sufficiently well versed and up to date with placement and reduction opportunities to prevent unnecessary testing? Does he have confidence in that system?

She highlighted the ongoing support for animal welfare issues from her constituents, noting that nearly 110,000 signatures had been gathered on a relevant e-petition. She pointed out that while there was a decrease in animal testing procedures between 2021 and 2022, there were still too many experiments taking place. Crouch also discussed the public's opposition to testing ingredients and completed cosmetics on animals, but acknowledged the necessity of some medical tests involving animals due to lack of alternatives. For the record, I do not advocate or support any testing on dogs, particularly in the manner that was previously described. My point is that some past research involving animals has enabled positive outcomes for cancer patients, such as myself.

My constituency is an island of animal lovers, with residents actively campaigning for the rights of animals and supporting reduced use of animals in scientific experiments. They would like to know what steps the Government are taking to support the pharmaceutical industry in developing non-animal testing models.

The speaker expressed concern about the use of animals in laboratory testing, noting that constituents are passionate about animal welfare and many oppose such practices. She mentioned a petition signed by nearly 100 constituents advocating for the end of animal toxicity tests and prioritisation of non-animal methods (NAMs). The current process of checking NAM usage is criticised as not rigorous enough, leading to cases where alternative methods were available but animal testing still occurred. Hobhouse urged embracing new alternatives despite existing regulations.