The UK is lagging behind on action on circus

animal suffering, while other countries have

been swift to take action to protect animals.

Despite a 94.5% vote from the public in support

of a ban in a Defra consultation this year, the

Coalition Government has yet to take action.

Ten years after the world was shocked by the

beatings of animals in UK circuses, after ADI’s

undercover investigation ‘The Ugliest Show on

Earth’, the previous government promised

Parliament a ban on wild animals in circuses in

2006 under the Animal Welfare Act. Working

groups; examination of scientific and empirical

evidence; impact assessments; feasibility

studies and positive legal advice have followed

this promise; yet delay after delay at Defra has

kicked the issue into the long grass.

In 2009, ADI released undercover footage of the

beatings of elephants on tour with the Great

British Circus. In ten years, the circus industry

had failed to get its act together. The animals at

GBC were performing under the provisions of

the industry-standard PAWSI codes.

The horrific scenes prompted the government to

launch a new public consultation, where 94.5%

of the public on the online consultation

supported a ban. The written submissions to

Defra were still being counted, so this was an

interim figure. Defra promised that the full

results of the survey, including the submission of

a report to the minister on the findings of ADI’s

GBC investigation, would be published in June.

We are still waiting.

At a recent meeting with Coalition Government

minister Lord Henley, ADI and the other animal

protection groups were told that the minister

would be looking at the evidence again. It is

hoped that a recommendation will be made in

the autumn.

Other countries move more decisively.

Yet other countries appear to be more capable

of looking at the evidence and making a

decision: Last year, we secured a ban on the

use of all animals in circuses Bolivia and

decrees were passed in Portugal banning the

breeding and acquisition of most wild animals in

circuses, effectively phasing out wild animal use

in circuses. In Peru and Brazil, bans on the use

www.ad-international.orgwww.ldf.org.ukwww.navs.org.uk

Political Animals 2010

Animal Defenders International • Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research • National Anti-Vivisection Society

Continued delays on circus wild animal banleaves the UK behind other countries

Inside:

Directive: Transposition / Experiments

Fur

Household and Cosmetic Testing

Elephant abuse at the Great BritishCircus; images captured during ADI’sUndercover Investigation led to theoverwhelming 94.5% public supportfor a ban on wild animals in circuses.

© A

nim

al D

efe

nd

ers

In

tern

atio

na

l

Political Animals � Autumn 2010 ADI / NAVS / LDF

of animals in circuses have been voted through

all of the relevant Commissions and await final

votes in plenary – so both these countries are on

the brink of overtaking the UK. These add to the

national bans on wild animals in circuses in a

number of countries including Austria, India, and

Costa Rica. At local level, hundreds of cities,

counties and other authorities worldwide (over

200 local authorities in the UK), have banned

animals in travelling circuses from their land, or

jurisdiction.

Early Day Motion 403 urges the Coalition

Government to use the Animal Welfare Act to

introduce regulations to ban the use of animals

in circuses. The EDM acknowledges the horrific

abuse to circus elephants exposed by Animal

Defenders International in 2009 in an

investigation involving the Great British Circus.

At the time of going to press (17.9.10) this has

130 signatures.

There is no better time than now, to introduce a

ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The

public has voted. There is a legitimate public

expectation that Parliament and the Coalition

Government will work together to deliver on this

issue.

© L

isa

Mitch

inso

n / A

nim

al D

efe

nd

ers

In

tern

atio

na

l

Other countries have been swift totake action to protect animals.Bolivia has recently banned the useof all animals in circuses.

Fur farming in Europe: Do not leave wild animals out in the coldAfter exposing the horrific conditions that animals

in fur farms in Finland have to endure, ADI has

launched a campaign against the fur industry

across Europe, campaigning in Finland, France,

Italy, Israel and the UK with our Bloody Harvestreport and video.

Our 7-month undercover investigation of 30 fur

farms exposed the horrific suffering that farmed

foxes and minks endure. Severe, painful and

debilitating health issues were clearly being

ignored – for example a condition where their

gums expanded enormously and prevented

closure of the mouth, restricting eating and

drinking; widespread untreated infections and

severe illnesses were in evidence in noses,

mouth and ears; there were open wounds, self-

inflicted mutilation and malformation of limbs,

caused by their crippling cages which were

generally rusted, unclean and broken.

The Knesset (Israel Parliament) is currently

considering introducing a national ban on fur

farming and the trade in fur products. Although

there is not a high demand for fur in Israel, a

national ban would set a strong and progressive

example to the rest of the world.

Ten years ago, the Labour Government banned

fur farming – the Fur farming prohibition Act 2000

– a popular measure protecting thousands of

animals for suffering every year. We are now

urging British MEPs to press for measures to end

this cruelty across Europe.

© O

ike

utta

Elä

imill

e / A

nim

al D

efe

nd

ers

In

tern

atio

na

l

A fox in a fur farm in Finland – theworld’s largest producer of fox fur.

After a 7-year process through the European

Commission, the European Parliament and the

Council of Ministers, the revision of the

European Directive on animal experiments

concluded in September with the final vote in the

plenary session of the Parliament. This marks

the starting point of the transposition phase,

where the new Directive will be introduced into

national legislation.

The final text of the Directive could and should

have been better; the original proposals from the

Commission needed improvement, but the final

text that came out of the debates was actually

poorer than the draft. Nevertheless, this

revision is an important step. The current

legislation in the UK, the Animals (Scientific

Procedures) Act 1986 enacts the provisions of

EU Directive 86/609, passed in 1986.

The 25-year-old legislation is no longer fit for

purpose; there is no transparency of the

authorisation process, no public confidence in

the regulations, and millions of animals continue

to suffer and die in experiments where

non-animal methods are available. The Home

Office has reported a staggering 3.6 million

procedures on live animals in 2009 (albeit a

slight reduction from the 3.7 million procedures

reported in 2008). Further regulation,

particularly aiming to enforce the replacement of

animals in scientific research is necessary.

It was hoped that the new Directive would

provide a framework to make the push towards

the adoption of more advanced scientific

methods, to replace animals. That remains to

be seen. Particularly industry interests – the

animal users and suppliers, weakened so much

in the provisions on implementation of

advanced, non-animal methods during the

debates.

There are positive aspects to the new Directive,

but provisions for restrictions on the use of

primates, phasing out of the use of wild-caught

primates, regular reviews of animal use with

timetables for replacement methods – all of

these need significant improvement having been

seriously weakened.

The new Directive will set a minimum European

standard on animal experimentation. It bans the

use of chimpanzees. It will restrict experiments

on endangered species; extend the scope of

protection to certain invertebrate animals;

encouragement for Member States to share invitro methods and organs or tissues.

The NAVS, ADI and LDF have met with the

minister at the Home Office, and officials, to

discuss the transposition of the new Directive

into UK law. Naturally, we and other animal

protection groups and non-animal funding

bodies have already pressed for full

Parliamentary participation in the introduction of

the new rules, rather than the use of secondary

legislation.

We are pressing for a transposition, which will

deliver, on the desire of the public to see animal

experiments replaced by more modern

methods. There needs to be a clear mechanism

to enforce use of non-animal methods wherever

they are available and to set targets for the

development and implementation of

replacements. We believe the Coalition

Government should make a strong commitment

for the UK to ensure effective delivery of the

following animal protection measures:

� Primates: No exemptions to the ban on the

use of wild caught monkeys; rapid

implementation of ban on F1 primates;

targets to phase-out primate use.

� Thematic Review: Every two years, to

review specific animal tests and whole areas

of animal research and set timetables for

replacements.

� An effective UK National Centre for the

Replacement of Animals in Experiments.

� Prohibition of animal experiments in: Areas

such as higher education; household product

testing; forensic studies; preservation of

species.

� Wider scientific, independent and public

scrutiny of proposed animal experiments.

� Stringent regulations to implement

non-animal methods.

� Increased Transparency and public access

to information – the Freedom of Information

Act contains all the personal safeguards

necessary to allow public access to

information. The current bar on information

about animal experiments needs to be

removed.

� Compulsory data sharing to prevent

duplication.

� Retrospective review of experiments that will

enable the prevention of further unnecessary

suffering.

We applaud that the Coalition Government has

already expressed their will to end animal

testing on household products.

We urge the UK Government to fulfil its

commitment to setting the highest standards of

animal protection: A prompt transposition of the

Directive and the end of the use of animals in

testing household products is a positive starting

point. It is time to draw a line under cruel and

unnecessary animal tests and set the standard

for our neighbours in Europe to follow.

Political Animals � Autumn 2010

Setting a higher standard: EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

ADI / NAVS / LDF

© A

nim

al D

efe

nd

ers

In

tern

atio

na

l

Animal Defenders International • Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research • National Anti-Vivisection Society

Apartado Postal 359888 BOGOTÁ, Colombia. e-mail: info@ad-international.org

6100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1150, LOS ANGELES, CA 90048, USA.Toll-free: 1-800-978-ADII (2344) Local: (323) 935-2234 Fax: (323) 935-9234 e-mail: usa@ad-international.org

Millbank Tower, Millbank, LONDON, SW1P 4QP, UK.Tel: +44 (0)20 7630 3340 Fax: +44 (0)20 7828 2179 e-mail: info@ad-international.org

www.ad-international.org www.ldf.org.uk www.navs.org.uk

Cosmetics testingWhile we wait for the cosmetics testing ban to be

fully in force, the latest EU statistics show that

5,571 animals were still used to test “Products /

substances used or intended to be used mainly

as cosmetics or toiletries”.

Recently the European Commission published a

draft report on the alternative methods that are

available for cosmetic tests. A consultation

process requests input from stakeholders

regarding reports published by 5 working groups

which were given the task to look at the

establishment of alternatives to the tests which

came under the 2013 marketing ban. It was

deeply disappointing to see that four of the five

working groups did not envisage the alternatives

to these tests being at a stage where they could

be banned in 2013.

We are pressing for the original deadline to be

maintained and that these tests are banned, as

originally planned, in 2013. Indeed Europa, the

official website of the European Union (EU),

advises, “The deadlines for both the testing ban

and the marketing ban will apply irrespective of

the availability of alternative non-animal tests”

Household Product testing The EU statistics (‘Number of Animals used forExperimental and other Scientific Purposes in the

Member States of the European Union’) states

that 1,219 animals were used in household

product tests. There are already a great many

products on the market, and many ingredients

whose effects are well known, from human use.

These tests are unnecessary.

The latest UK statistics (2009) show that no

animals were used for testing household

products, which is a welcome change after the

132 animals used the previous year. Prior to this,

in 2007 it was reported that one rabbit was used,

and in 2006, no animals were used. With this low

level of use, it is clear that these tests could and

should be banned immediately.

Indeed, Lynne Featherstone MP, Parliamentary

Under Secretary of State at the Home Office,

recently announced, “The Government arecommitted to ending the testing of householdproducts on animals. Work is under way to definethe range of products affected and to determinehow this can best be achieved. I am not yet in aposition to confirm when such testing will befinally brought to an end, but hope to be able to

do so shortly.”

NAVS, ADI and the Lord Dowding Fund continue

to meet with Home Office officials, and the

minister, to press for an end to such tests.

Kick animal testing out of the house

The UK and Europe still need bettermechanisms for the implementation ofreplacements for animal experiments

17.0

9.10