Resources & Archives

NEAVS Calls for Immediate End to All Animal Toxicity Testing; Submits Comments to Government Agencies

Rats like this one are often used in toxicity testing.

NEAVS' Comments to NIEHS/NICEATM

(Winter 2002) — Scientists have concluded that in vitro (non-animal) data could be used to set starting doses for animal toxicity testing, reducing animal use by up to 30 percent or more.

However, this is a very small accomplishment when the goal is a 100% replacement of the use of all animals in all such egregiously cruel testing. Their opinion was that non-animal methods would require "further development" before they could be used to totally replace animals.

In responding to these conclusions, NEAVS President Dr. Theodora Capaldo and NEAVS Scientific Advisor Dr. Cecilia Clemedson pointed out that there is already ample evidence showing the benefits of using non-animal alternatives in toxicity testing. A key example is the work of the late internationally recognized Swedish toxicologist, Björn Ekwall, MD, PhD. A key researcher on Ekwall’s team, Clemedson is continuing his work.

Rather than supporting the half-measures of reducing and refining animal use, NEAVS has called for an immediate end to all animal toxicity testing and the incorporation of in vitro non-animal models into all existing and planned toxicity testing programs.

Dr. Ekwall’s model of human cell culture tests has proven to be considerably more accurate in measuring and understanding toxicity than are the animal tests currently used, NEAVS noted. Collaboratively funded by NEAVS and other animal advocacy and scientific organizations in the U.S. and Europe, the tests were evaluated in a 10-year, multi-center study involving 29 laboratories in 15 countries.

Research such as Ekwall’s has shown that animal testing, which animal advocates oppose as barbarously painful and lethal to animals, is also flawed and misleading science. In fact, the predictive accuracy of the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) tests on rats and mice has been estimated by Ekwall’s team to be only 60 and 65% respectively, while the non-animal tests Ekwall developed, using human cell line cultures, are 75% accurate in predicting human toxicity.

Using animals to assess the risk of acute human chemical poisoning has serious shortcomings. For example, animal testing can point out toxic symptoms, but cannot directly point out toxic events such as specific organ damage.

With the addition of two types of in vitro tests to Ekwall’s existing test battery, it also will be possible to determine key kinetic events such as passage over biological barriers and crucial organ-specific mechanisms, said Clemedson.

It is far better to wait for results from these new cell tests and other validation studies before starting any large-scale toxicity testing that would be based on individual animal tests. Even if the proposed chemical testing were postponed for a few years while waiting for the validation of further in vitro tests, it is entirely likely that the testing still would be completed earlier than if the chemical testing started immediately using standard animal tests, according to Clemedson.

NEAVS’ comments to the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Methods (NICEATM) can be viewed online at http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/invidocs/iv_comm.htm.

Action Alert!
> Kraft Foods Commercials
> Help pass H.1252
> Chimps in Commercials

Your support saves animal and human lives.


The State of the Anti-Vivisection Movement in America