We are encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement this week that it would rededicate itself to a phaseout of animal testing. We’ve been working toward that end because over the years, we’ve seen a series of initiatives within the EPA and other federal agencies launch and then falter. We’re pushing for decisive action and definitive results, and we’re ready to support an approach that gets the job done by 2035, consistent with an EPA commitment that was not as aggressively pursued as we would have preferred during the last administration.
In the very same week, we’ve seen announcements that other federal agencies will also take steps to reduce and eliminate animal tests, including the Food and Drug Administration. We’ll have more to say about these developments soon.
With respect to the EPA, the fate of tens of thousands of animals is involved, since the agency has traditionally relied on animal tests to assess the probable effects and toxicity thresholds for human exposure to chemicals and pesticides.
As you would imagine, these procedures take a terrible toll of misery and death on the animals used. They’re suffering and dying for no good purpose, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to adopt methodologies worthy of the 21st century. We’re on the cusp of a new era, one in which technological opportunities dovetail perfectly with our better instincts, our compassion and our sense of justice toward all creatures.
Our history with this issue goes back at least as far as the Clinton administration’s proposal for a High Production Volume Chemical Testing Program to expand the number of animals used in tests. We moved quickly to negotiate a firm commitment to the reduction and elimination of new testing, and we helped to secure dedicated funding to support those goals at both the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Over the intervening three decades, through every presidential administration and every session of Congress, we have succeeded in securing authorization and appropriations support for what we knew would be a long-term process.
It has taken much time and effort to reach this point, and there were substantive accomplishments along the way. We led the campaign to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, making it the first federal statute to call for an end to new animal testing. We have also pressed the federal government to clarify its position on animal testing requirements. Last year’s legal petition to modernize FDA regulations and guidance governing testing for new drug approvals was just the latest example of our work on that front.
We don't focus on taxpayer-funded testing alone. Federal policy is one of our strong suits, but most EPA-related testing involves private companies’ submissions for registration of chemicals and pesticides. For that reason, we have also concentrated on accountability for corporations seeking regulatory approval. We have pushed them to make their own strong commitments to reduce and eliminate animal tests, and to join us in pressing for the adoption of sophisticated new-approach methods (NAMs) that are cheaper, faster, more relevant to human safety and don’t involve harm to animals.
We have also worked directly with the scientific community worldwide to address the scientific challenge of moving away from animal use. Our recent collaboration with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs staff resulted in a published paper showing that an in silico model is a suitable replacement in most cases for an acute toxicity test in which rats are fed increasing doses of pesticides.
When it comes to the humane treatment of animals, we have never shied away from taking the fight to federal agencies, including the EPA and the FDA. In this instance, though, there is a true alignment of interests in play—the interests of the regulatory agencies involved, the interests of animal advocates, the interests of the public and, best of all, the interests of animals, who have too long suffered in crude, disturbing and frequently lethal tests.
We all have something to gain from the development and implementation of reliable and relevant chemical safety testing methods that protect human health and the environment while reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the use of animals. We shouldn’t waste any more time or dollars in the old way of doing things. Because we can do better than that.
Sara Amundson is president of Humane World Action Fund.
Please, take just a moment to contact the EPA and express support for their commitment to end chemical and pesticide testing on animals to avoid further animal suffering.
