Thank you for contacting me about animal testing and labelling.
I completely understand that using animals in science, including toxicity testing, is a sensitive issue.
Animal research plays a vital role in providing safety information for potential new medicines. As a result of findings from animal studies, a large number of potential new drugs never get as far as being tested in humans. Some aspects of the toxicological assessment of new medicines cannot be adequately assessed in humans, and animal data will be the only kind available. While I understand that the UK leads the world in the development of non-animal methods, I share the Government’s ambition to ensure that animal research and testing is fully replaced by effective alternatives.
The Government actively supports and funds the National Centre for 3Rs (the NC3Rs) and its development and dissemination of the three Rs: to replace the use of animals not necessary for research; to reduce the use of animals in the meantime; and to refine to eliminate or reduce distress to those animals already involved. Since inception, the NC3Rs has invested £89.3 million in research and £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions, with a focus on safer assessment of pharmaceuticals. The Government announced, in 2024, that its investment to the NC3Rs was to increase from £10 million to £20 million per year, and that further plans would be published later this year.
A voluntary ban on the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals was secured in the UK in 1998. As a result, animal testing may still be legally performed, as a last resort, where no alternatives exist. This could include ingredients for which, at the time of testing, the sole anticipated use is in cosmetic products.
Additionally, in 2015, the Government implemented an additional ban on the testing of finished household products on animals as well as a qualified ban on household product ingredients. This is a clear statement of the UK’s commitment to animal welfare.
Regarding the labelling of products, I understand that the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 already prevent deceptive commercial practices and should enable consumers to make informed choices about which products they want to buy. The Regulations also cover the omission of material information where goods are offered direct for sale to consumers and where the omission would be likely to affect the transactional decision of the average consumer.
Additionally, there are controls in place on advertising in the UK which requires all forms of advertising to be legal, decent, honest, truthful and prepared with a sense of responsibility to both consumer and society.
The Home Office licences programmes of work using animals in science, including testing to satisfy regulatory requirements set out in legislation. I understand establishments must only conduct work for limited permissible purposes, according to the terms of their licences, which the Home Office assures through audit and inspection processes.
I note concerns raised with regards to animal testing on beagles. I welcome that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) provides protections for animals bred in the UK for use in scientific procedures.
I am aware that all establishments licensed to breed protected animals under ASPA are required to comply with the published Code of Practice, which sets out standards for the appropriate care and accommodation of animals, including dogs.
I hope that this reassures you that legally, animals can only used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used, and potential harm is the minimum needed to achieve scientific benefit.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.