EU: Using Alternative Technology to test chemicals in our Homes

[Guest guest]

To all European Citizens in Alternative Answers

 

Our health must be protected by removing the most toxic chemicals

from our homes and the environment. There are concerns that this

cannot be achieved with current testing procedures, and that food

additives and household products in particular are not being tested

to the highest standards. The latest alternative techniques based

on human biology are being ignored. As a consequence we fail to

fully understand how the chemicals we use everyday react with

the human body and their detrimental effect on the environment.

 

The Environment and New European Legislation

 

At the start of November the European Commission published

its proposal for the revision of directive 86/609 which controls

all animal experiments. Since the directive was written in 1986

many Member States have passed their own national laws with

varying standards. The review intends to unify these standards

and include the latest technology. The Commission responded

to demands to promote the validation of alternatives with an

intention to set up research facilities for this purpose. This is

especially relevant to the protection of our rivers, countryside,

cities and homes because most new regulated alternatives are

for toxicity testing of chemicals. It must be done soon if we are

to stop releasing toxic substances into our environment.

 

The Environment and the testing of thousands of chemicals

 

The current European chemical testing policy, called REACH, came

into full effect on 1st June. Some 30,000 chemicals in general use

by the public (acids, solvents, glues etc) have to be pre-registered

at the European Chemicals Agency by 1st December 2008. This is

to access their toxicity and will mean millions of more animal tests.

The European Commission have estimated that REACH will cost

industry up to 5.2bn euros over the next eleven years. They defend

the huge cost by saying it is an investment to protect human health

and to control the most toxic chemicals. This defense may not be

justified if the testing methods used are not the latest technology

based on human biology. Many such procedures to test chemicals

exist and are already being used in industry. Some are awaiting

validation and regulatory acceptance. A commitment in Europe

to make medical progress a priority is needed to validate more

alternatives to test chemicals.

 

Approximately a million animals are used every year in Europe to

test chemicals. But the testing methods used do not reflect today's

scientific progress. Technologies such as In Vitro (cell culture),

bioinformatics, genomics and in silico (computer-based) systems

offer alternatives which are quicker, cheaper and more reliable

than animal tests but are being ignored. The criterion necessary

to validate alternatives are strict and comprehensive. However,

the Commission's Regulation list of approved methods does not

include non-animal techniques that were approved for scientific

validity in 2007 by the European Centre for the Validation of

Alternative Methods. This delay has been criticised by MEPs as

encouraging companies to continue using animal tests that have

remained unchanged for decades. The commission must do better

and regulate approved and validated alternatives as soon as they

are available.

 

Evidence considered by the Dr Hadwen Trust concludes that the

testing of thousands of chemicals with animal tests is impractical

due to the massive number of combinations required to produce

realistic exposure scenarios. However, modern procedures such

as In Vitro should make this possible. Cutting-edge research is

developing this technique with automated machines to screen

thousands of compounds a day. By using human cells reliability

is also improved because there is no complication of species

differences. This demonstrates that traditional animal testing can

be eliminated with emphasis on more efficient modern alternatives.

 

Alternative Technology to Safeguard our Food and our Health

 

In the UK alone over 6,400 animals were used to test biotoxins

in shellfish and other marine life in 2004. The European Food

Safety Authority released an October 8th report from its scientific

panel evaluating the safety testing of biotoxins. It concluded that

regulated animal testing was not sufficiently sensitive to detect

these biotoxins to protect human health. It supported analytical

methods such as mass spectrometry as an improvement for their

detection. These methods are already being used in Germany for

detection of marine biotoxins, where scientists have responded to

criticism with evidence that supports this approach as superior to

animal testing. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment are now

calling for European law to endorse analytical methods as the

regulated and preferred procedures to detect marine biotoxins.

Also, researchers in Spain have developed In Vitro techniques

to detect marine biotoxins and have expressed confidence that

they provide improved results.

 

To satisfy the REACH regulations chemicals can be tested now

with alternative technology, in the many cases when it has shown

to be superior. When more investment is needed to develop these

alternatives this must be made available. This issue needs to be

resolved when the revision of Directive 86/609 is discussed in

parliament. Europeans who agree this is urgent can contact their

MEPs and tell them so.

 

Further information from

http://www.eceae.org

http://www.alttox.org/

 

Thank you for your time,

 

T. Gallett from London, England