Better Science Mandatory Alternatives Petition Filed November 14, 2007 On November 14th, a coalition of animal organizations – of which NEAVS is a founding member – submitted a precedent setting petition to the U.S. government that would potentially save tens of millions of animals from unthinkable suffering and death. The Mandatory Alternatives Petition (MAP) would require that instead of using living animals, valid non-animal testing methods must be used whenever they exist. Coalition leaders, including NEAVS President Dr. Theodora Capaldo, are hopeful this comprehensive 62 page petition will serve to bring protection to the millions of animals that suffer and die as a result of archaic and inhumane animal testing. "Non-animal test methods spare significant numbers of animals from pain and distress, are typically less costly and time-consuming, and may require lower investment in personnel and other resources." -Excerpt from MAP Says Dr. Capaldo, “Millions of animals die every year in lethal drug and product testing when scientifically sound, humane alternatives already exist to replace these cruel and unnecessary animal tests – reprehensible tests that cause egregious suffering. The petition is groundwork that will advance an important and long overdue change in science and ethics. It demands that our government at long last put compassion and science hand in hand and make the development, validation, and use of alternatives a top priority.” Currently there is no U.S. law mandating the use of alternatives. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates drugs and devices, has the authority to vastly reduce the number of cruel and unnecessary animal tests. As it now stands, the FDA merely allows alternatives and suggests that they be considered. As long as pharmaceutical companies and others are not required to use existing alternatives, they have little incentive to change the way they operate. The MAP will, in essence, ask the U.S. to catch up to its European counterparts where, already by law in the European Union, animal tests cannot be used when validated alternatives exist. As a result, Europe has become the world leader in non-animal methods, with far more alternatives validated and used than in the U.S. Animal testing is immensely cruel and causes animals enormous pain and suffering before their death – s uffering that is not only severe but also prolonged, such as in tests for toxicity, carcinogenicity, and skin irritancy and corrosivity. According to protocols established by the National Toxicology Program, animals used in chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies receive the test substance daily, seven days a week, for two years with no recovery periods. Many, if not most, animals die before the end of the study. In addition to their cruelty, animal testing methods are frequently inaccurate, misleading, and even dangerous for human health. 92% of drugs that are tested in people after “successful” animal tests do not get approved because they don’t work or they aren’t safe. Of the few drugs that do get approved for marketing, more than half are later withdrawn or relabeled for serious or lethal adverse effects that were not detected in animal tests. Adverse drug reactions cause more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year – making them the fourth or fifth leading cause of death for Americans. The arthritis drug Vioxx is a well-known recent example: it appeared to be safe in animal studies but was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after causing over 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. Studies show that an animal’s response to a drug is a poor predictor of how humans will respond. If you flipped a coin to guess how a human will respond to a certain drug, your prediction would actually be slightly more accurate than if you tested the drug on an animal. Alternative testing methods have been shown to produce safer and more effective drugs than animal testing. These alternatives include in vitro or test tube research, computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, human cell and tissue methods including human skin models and “human-on-a-chip” technology, genetic testing methods, sophisticated non-invasive imaging techniques, and microdosing, among many others. Alternative non-animal methods are also consistently faster, cheaper, and more efficient. DakDak, for example, is a test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreens. Charles River Laboratories, one of the major breeders and suppliers of animals for research in the world, reports that this test does in days what it takes animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals. Despite all this, the U.S. has made little progress in developing and adopting alternative methods. Notes Dr. Capaldo, “The bottom line is that alternatives benefit human health and save millions of animals from living and dying in agony. NEAVS, together with BUAV, PCRM, IDA, AVAR and Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a D.C. based public interest law firm, is a formidable coalition that will move this petition forward and inevitably – for the benefit of humans as well as for the benefit of millions of other animals – change the way science does science.” For more info: Mandatory Alternatives Petition Website

Other NEAVS Fact Sheets: Benefits of Non-Animal Tests | Xenotransplants | Animal Welfare Act | Limitations of Animal Tests | Non-Animal Product Safety Test Alternatives << Back to Better Science  | Home

Examples of the photographic
documentation submitted with
Mandatory Alternatives Petition

Read the Petition

Executive Summary

Background Q&A