[Revision of the EU Directive 86/609/EEC: results of the Internet consultations of the European Commission]

ALTEX. 2007;24(1):41-5. doi: 10.14573/altex.2007.1.41.
[Article in German]

Abstract

In the context of the process of revising EU Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used in experiments, the European Commission conducted a public internet consultation for EU citizens in mid-2006. Simultaneously, the Commission requested opinions from experts on specific animal welfare issues. The results of both consultations were published in the internet in December 2006. An overwhelming majority of EU citizens answered that the protection of laboratory animals currently is poor and that efforts are needed to improve the level of welfare for these animals. Additionally, they request increased transparency and public participation in the determination when and how the use of animals in experiments is to be considered acceptable. They also asked for an increased promotion of the research for replacing animal experiments. Amongst other issues, the experts called for an extension of the scope of the Directive to also cover animals used in basic research and the establishment of a compulsory authorization procedure which should include a concrete ethical review process. The estimations put forward on the consequences of introducing a retrospective analysis of projects with animal experiments were controversial just as the opinions submitted regarding different options regarding a ban to using wild caught primates and their direct offspring. All in all, both the responses of the citizens and experts consultations are a promising basis to justify the need to improve the protection of animals used in experiments within the EU.

Publication types

  • English Abstract
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Animal Rights
  • Animal Testing Alternatives / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Animal Welfare / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Animals
  • Animals, Laboratory
  • Europe
  • European Union
  • Humans
  • Internet*
  • Public Opinion*
  • Remote Consultation / methods*