Responsible science

Reliable methods of toxic risk assessment are simpler, quicker, and cheaper than animal tests. Why is industry not using them?

Reliable methods of toxic risk assessment do exist. In fact, they are simpler and less expensive to conduct than animal tests, and they yield results more quickly too. Why, then, is industry not using them? This is one of the central questions that Antidote Europe has put to the authorities.

By carefully selecting an appropriate species of animal, it is possible to prove that a particular chemical may cause cancer – or that it is harmless. On this basis, animal tests may be helpful in obtaining the regulatory approval necessary to put a product onto the market, while protecting the manufacturer from being sued for negligence. Whereas this regime may spell profits for industry, there will be a price to pay in terms of the damage done to public health and the environment.

Antidote Europe calls upon those in private or state-owned laboratories conducting this sort of research to face up to their responsibilities. Killing animals will not improve human health, nor will it help to prevent chemical pollution of the environment.

Antidote Europe also calls for transparency and accountability in all dealings between national or European regulatory authorities and chemical corporations, whose profits should not be put above human health.