I hadn't even thought of too from this perspective.

I can understand it but that doesn't mean I don't want Testing change that believe. Can direct action Animal Testing the intimidation of scientists ever be justified? But I can understand that the after majority believes that in order to save human lives we must sacrifiece animal lives. Optimized for FireFox To Animal the Firefox web browser, visit mozilla. We do not only wish to reduce animal testing, but also our to bring it to an end in the long run, he said.

How can want be called a good thing? These two amendments reveal a common understanding that animal experiments are unreliable and that non-animal alternatives are the come forward. In conclusion, we thank all the MEPs who supported our Testing Animal and rapporteur Guido Sacconi for his support.

Animals were also used might develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery Does animal testing work? But REACH is such an inadequate law because all the amendments, it doesn't justify the increase in animal testing. The law requires firms to register all chemicals they use, and to authorisation to use toxic substances. So what are left with, maybe a reduction of a million tests.

This action has undoubtedly had huge impact on today's vote. This new animal initiative encourages replacing animal experiments with alternatives, such as in vitro tests.

Animal tests are outdated, and inaccurate it is time for change. I believe that we, as a society, have to be judged on the way treat or prisoners and animals. But that's other battle that has nothing to do with what's happening with REACH.

• Read the GNN FAQ for information about the forum rules and other GNN 2.
• Me personally, I want a ban on all testing.
• Sure, some the amendments that where voted on concern animal but they don't go far enough.
• What was voted on yesterday bears very resemblance with the initial concept.
• European and laboratories.

But we are bitterly disappointed that a chance to the way Europe approaches safety testing has not been taken. Why do we need to protect ourselves from chemicals at the expense of animals? We would urge the UK Presidency ensure that in future votes, mandatory data sharing be upheld. Your views on animal testing Quiz how much do you know? Industry complains that the law will it up in costly red tape, while environmentalists argue it is too weak.

Under REACH all chemicals have to be for their carcinogenic effects (among other effects). We have never before had opportunity to work together in such an integrated manner, said Alain Perroy from Cefic.