Previous Campaigns and Projects: Royal Commission on Animal Experiments

Background Information

The Labour Party came to office in 1997 having said that they would back a Royal Commission on animal experiments. Despite this, nothing happened. Naturewatch therefore campaigned under the banner "Labour's broken promises", demanding that the promised Royal Commission be set up. Fortunately for Labour, they were let off the hook by a select committee of the House of Lords producing their own report, which was a thoroughly researched review. We therefore decided to campaign for the implementation of the Lords' report, which achieved success in the announcement of a National Centre for the 3Rs.

On this page we present a brief summary of our Royal Commission campaign

Introduction: Why a Royal Commission?

Animal experiments have always been shrouded in secrecy: the experiment industry prefer this secrecy because of the public's revulsion surrounding the use of animals for experimental purposes. It is this very secrecy that has stifled progress for so many years. This issue is a cause for great public concern, yet the most recent independent inquiry was held in 1906!

In 1996, Naturewatch began campaigning for an Independent Inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission: a Royal Commission is the best known type of inquiry that provides the Government with advice and information from expert and lay opinion outside the Civil Service. Our campaign gained the cross-party support of 355 MPs (over half of all MPs sitting at Westminster) before the June 2000 General Election, with 228 MPs signing our 1999-2000 Early Day Motion calling for a Royal Commission and 239 MPs signing our Early Day Motion in 2001.

What did we hope to achieve?

We believe, that at the very minimum, there can be an immediate and massive reduction in the millions of animals used every year in experiments. The main areas that we want the Royal Commission to investigate are:

Genetic Engineering and Xenotransplantation - over the past ten years there has been an increase of 825% in the numbers of animals used in this area.
To examine the industry's failure in seeking non-animal alternatives - the experiment industry acknowledge that current legislation fails to give any impetus in this matter, resulting in very little progress over the past forty years.
To eliminate commercial competition in sharing Animal Experiment data - this can be achieved by establishing a central database run by a Government office: 47% of all experiments are for commercial purposes.
The over breeding of animals for experiments - these unwanted animals are never included in any statistics as they would raise the current 2.5 million animals used each year in Great Britain to 8-9 million.
Labelling on ingredients or products tested on animals needs to be reviewed - consumers should be given enough information on product labels so that they can make more informed decisions.
The secrecy surrounding animal experiments must be stopped - certainly commercial confidentiality should be taken into account, as should the prevention of extremist activity, but this should not be used for extending secrecy throughout every aspect of the industry. This practice allows no accountability and permits dangerous self-regulation. We need to find some middle ground in order to allow legitimate inquiries to be addressed in an open manner.

The campaign attracted the support of many international animal welfare organisations, leading supermarket chains, celebrities and over 1,000,000 concerned members of the public.

Every year nearly 3 million animals are killed in the UK through animal experimentation. An Independent Inquiry is long overdue and is needed to tackle a range of serious and complex issues surrounding the use of animals in experiments. Many people are shocked to learn that over 50% of all experiments are carried out for the testing of commercial products and that the experiment industry is reluctant to develop alternatives because of vested financial interests.

Throughout 1999, supporters of Naturewatch intensively lobbied MPs in their constituencies and Naturewatch representatives met with 7 leading animal welfare MPs to discuss the possible 'Terms of Reference' of the Royal Commission Inquiry. John Ruane, Naturewatch Director, attended a special forum on the issue of animal experimentation with the Home Office Minister, George Howarth, in July 1999. Images: At Downing Street to present the half a million signatures collected by March 1998 in support of a Royal Commission, with Nigel Jones (MP for Cheltenham at that time.)

11 Reasons why Naturewatch wanted immediate action

1. The Labour Party, aware of growing public concern about animal experimentation, said the following in their pre-election leaflet 'New Life for Animals': "We will support a Royal Commission to review the effectiveness and justification of animal experiments and to examine alternatives."		7. 40 years ago the experimentation industry promised a policy of 'Reduction, Refinement and Replacement' of animals in experiments. Both industry and animal welfarists now acknowledge that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has failed to deliver these promised 3 'R's.
2. Any recorded drops in the numbers of experiments carried out since 1986 are due to cut-backs in research expenditure and take-overs and mergers of commercial companies. The number of experiments started each year, in all other types of establishments, show no decrease over the last 10 years		8. There is a widespread duplication of experiments because testing companies consistently fail to share test information with each other. A national database should be set up in order to eliminate commercial competition between testing companies.
3. There is a marked lack of progress on alternatives to animal testing because the government, commercial companies and the industry have failed to commit adequate funds into the research for non-animal alternatives.		9. The secrecy surrounding the animal experimentation industry and laboratory experiments means that the industry is self-regulating and not accountable to the general public. This also stifles informed debate on the subject.
4. Nearly 3 million animals are used in experiments every year in the UK. All experiment animals die at the end of the procedures. 5. Commercial companies fail to inform consumers of products developed using animal testing - indeed the cosmetics industry have successfully forced a postponement of the proposed 1998 EU ban on cosmetics testing. There needs to be mandatory labelling of products and ingredients that have been tested on animals for the benefit of consumers.		10. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regulates all experiments on animals. This act also appoints inspectors whose duties include the policing of the Act. Despite the Home Office recently increasing the number of inspectors to 31, these 31 inspectors must police the progress of 3,869 projects, monitor 14,870 licence holders, assess and grant 2202 new licenses for projects and inspect over 300 establishments covering 2.64 million experiments. Given the enormous remit of their task it is impossible for them to adequately monitor all areas of animal experimentation in the UK.
6. The Animal Procedures Committee (APC) is the part-time advisory body appointed by the Home Office. The make-up of the membership of the APC is defined by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, but this is viewed by many as heavily influenced by the experiment industry. An Independent Inquiry into the APC is definitely needed.		11. The number of animals bred for experimental purposes is far greater than the number of animals used. These unwanted surplus animals are then destroyed. The Home Office has refused to collate any statistics relating to these surplus animals, but it is estimated that between 6-9 million surplus animals are killed each year by the industry in Great Britain.