International NewsDraft Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Amendment Regulations 2001
Ban on Antibiotic Use in Denmark Lowers Resistance in Food Animals
OECD Guidance on Humane Endpoints
Press release Number: 58
04/05/2001
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen
(Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science)
More information is available at http://prex.las.vet.uu.nl/nca
Use of other small non-human primates for biomedical research unfortunately still necessary. Medical testing on chimpanzees must stop.
The medical tests performed on chimpanzees at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) must stop. Testing on other (smaller) non-human primates will, however, have to continue in the interests of public health. There are no alternatives available to researchers studying hepatitis, malaria, tuberculosis, rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and transplant rejection. These are the conclusions reached by the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Loek Hermans, i n a letter that he sent to the Lower House of Parliament today. Hermans bases his conclusions on the recommendations of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) concerning the usefulness and necessity of performing medical tests on non-h u man primates. The minister wishes to do everything possible to reduce the number of tests carried out on laboratory animals. He will continue to encourage researchers to explore other alternatives, and the BPRC will have to demonstrate that it performs o n ly the most necessary tests in a responsible manner.
Mr. Hermans wishes to reduce the number of tests performed on non-human primates as quickly as possible and to improve the conditions in which they live. In October 2000, he made a sum of NLG 15 million available to upgrade the animal housing at the BPRC , which, although it complies with current regulations, could be improved upon. A supervisory committee, whose members include the managing directors of two zoos (Artis and Apenheul) and officials from the Inspectorate for Health Protection and Veterinary Public Health, is currently reviewing plans to build new housing. Two years ago, the Advisory Council on Health Research (RGO) argued that scientists should continue to use chimpanzees for research on malaria, hepatitis C and HIV. Based on the recommenda t ions of the Royal Netherlands Academy, Mr. Hermans has now concluded that it is no longer necessary to perform tests on chimpanzees in the Netherlands. It will, however, be necessary to continue using other small non-human primates in biomedical research , in the interests of public health. The Royal Netherlands Academy does not anticipate that alternatives will become available in the foreseeable future. The Advisory Council on Health Research wrote as early as 1999 that it is not that more small non-hum a n primates are required, but that there is a greater need for well-characterised ones. The BPRC has a group of small non-human primates that meet this requirement and they are hence indispensable for biomedical research in the Netherlands. The BPRC is lo c ated in Rijswijk and has approximately 1,600 primates, including over 100 chimpanzees.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom
Current Animal Welfare Consultations
More information is available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/animindx.htm
Introduction
1. European Union Member States are required to implement EU Council Directive 99/74/EC laying down minimum welfare standards for the protection of laying hens in all production systems by 1 January 2002. In England, this will be achieved by amending the “Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000" (SI No 1870). Similar legislation will be produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
2. Directive 99/74/EC amends the existing EU rules on laying hen welfare contained within Directive 88/166/EC. Directive 88/166/EC will be repealed from 1 January 2003; however, many of its provisions have been carried forward in Directive 99/74/EC.
3. In drafting the domestic implementing legislation, we have followed the wording of the Directive as closely as possible and avoided any “gold-plating” of EU measures in line with the Government’s Action Plan for Farming. Definite interp r etations (where none already exist in Community law) have also been avoided since these may stifle welcome welfare developments and create an unlevel playing field for our producers.
Procedures
4. After completion of the consultation exercise, debates will be held in both Houses of Parliament before the regulations are made and come into force.
5. As noted above, the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be making similar regulations.
This Guide
6. The purpose of this guide is to identify points in the regulations which may be of particular interest or require further explanation. It is not intended to be an exhaustive description of their content and, we accept, may not answer all the points th a t concern the reader. The summary provides a look-up table for which part of the Regulations apply to each production system and the effective implementation date. As indicated in the MAFF covering letter dated 1 May, any queries or comments should be ad d ressed to Jean Kennedy at the above address, telephone 020 7904 6525, email Jean M. Kennedy@maff.gsi.gov.uk.
Interpretation and application
7. Regulation 2 (1) of “The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000” is amended to include a revised definition for “laying hens” and new definitions for “litter,” “nest,” and “usable area” a s required by the Directive.
8. Regulation 4 and Schedule 2 of “The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000” ( subtitled “Additional duties on owners and keepers of laying hens in battery cages”) - will continue to apply to hens kept in battery cages until 31 December 2002. They will be revoked from 1 January 2003 and from that date, the provisions detailed in Schedule 3B of the new draft regulations will apply to hens kept in Conventional (“Battery”) Cages. Comments are being sought on the possibility of including all caged birds within the draft regulations, as is the case with the current domestic legislation for battery cages. This would go further than the Directive, which does not apply to establishments with less than 350 laying hens .
9. Regulation 5 and Schedule 3 of “The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000” - will be revoked and replaced by the new regulation “Additional duties on owners and keepers of poultry (other than those kept in systems referre d to in Schedules 3A, 3B and 3C).” The new Regulation 5 and Schedule 3 will cover all poultry such as ducks, turkeys and geese. They exclude laying hens except those kept in establishments of less than 350 birds or for breeding purposes. Note: This m a y change as a result of the consultation.
10. Regulation 5A - “Additional duties on owners and keepers of laying hens” - is added to indicate that all owners and keepers of laying hens should ensure that the conditions the birds are kept in comply with the requirements in Schedules 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. This Regulation does not apply to establishments with less than 350 laying hens and those rearing breeding laying hens. Note: This may change as a result of the consultation.
Schedule 2 (Laying hens kept in battery cages)
11. The draft “Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Amendment Regulations 2001,” revoke Schedule 2 of the “Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000” with effect from 1 January 2003. Schedule 2 of the 2000 regulations will, h owever, continue to apply to hens kept in battery cages until 31 December 2002. From 1 January 2003 the provisions detailed in Schedule 3B of the new draft regulations will apply to hens kept in Conventional (“Battery”) Cages.
Schedule 3 (Additional duties on owners and keepers of poultry (other than those kept in systems referred to in Schedules 3A, 3B and 3C))
12. The draft “Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Amendment Regulations 2001,” amend Schedule 3 of the “Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000" to extend coverage to any poultry (other than those kept in the systems ref e rred to in Schedules 3A, 3B and 3C). The amended Schedule 3 covers all poultry such as ducks, turkeys and geese. It excludes laying hens except those kept in establishments of less than 350 birds or for breeding purposes. Note: This may change as a resul t of the consultation.
Schedule 3A (Non-cage systems)
13. This Schedule lays down minimum standards for laying hens kept in non-cage systems e.g. barns, percheries, and free-range.
14. These minimum standards apply from 1 January 2002 for all newly built or rebuilt non-cage systems of production and any brought into production for the first time. They apply to all non-cage systems from 1 January 2007.
15. Minimum standards are laid down in terms of feeding and drinking equipment, nests, perches and litter area. Provisions are also made for minimum requirements in multi-level systems and systems where there is access to open runs.
16. Maximum stocking density is specified. Systems already in place on 1 January 2002 can continue to stock at their current levels until 1 January 2007 when a maximum stocking density of 9 birds per square metre must apply. However, where an establishme n t was stocking at 12 or more hens per square metre on 3 August 1999, and the usable area corresponds to the available ground surface, it is permitted to continue to stock at a maximum of 12 hens per square metre until 31 December 2011, after which the ma x imum figure of 9 laying hens per square metre will apply. Any systems newly built or rebuilt after 1 January 2002 will have to comply with the maximum stocking density of 9 birds per square metre with immediate effect.
Schedule 3B (Conventional cages)
17. This Schedule lays down minimum standards for laying hens kept in conventional (“battery”) cages from 1 January 2003. No such cages may be built or brought into service for the first time after this date.
18. Minimum standards are laid down in terms of feeding and drinking equipment, cage height and floor slope. This Schedule also requires the fitting of claw-shortening devices.
19. Rearing of laying hens in this type of cage is prohibited with effect from 31 December 2011.
Schedule 3C (Other cages)
20. This Schedule lays down minimum standards for laying hens kept in “enriched” (“furnished”) cages from 1 January 2002.
21. Minimum requirements are set out in terms of stocking density and cage height, feeding and drinking equipment, and minimum aisle width and floor space below the bottom tier of cages.
22. This Schedule also provides for “enrichment” i.e. provision of a nest, litter such that pecking and scratching are possible and appropriate perches as well as the fitting of claw-shortening devices.
Schedule 3D (Conditions applicable to all systems)
23. This Schedule sets out conditions applicable to laying hens kept in all systems of production from 1 January 2002.
24. The Directive bans all mutilation, but allows Member States to authorize beak trimming in order to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism providing it is carried out by qualified staff on chickens that are less than 10 days old. Comments are sought o n the following options: banning beak trimming in all systems; or permitting beak trimming in non-cage systems only, provided it is carried out by qualified staff on chickens that are less than 10 days old; or allowing beak trimming for all laying birds, but with a time limit, for birds destined for cage systems.
A Good Practice Guide to the Administration of Substances and Removal of Blood, Including Routes and Volumes - February 2000 Draft Document
EFPIA (the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations) and ECVAM (the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods) -
This publication is the result of an initiative between EFPIA (the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations) and ECVAM (the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods). Its objectives are to provide the researcher in t h e safety evaluation laboratory with an up-to-date, easy to use set of data sheets to aid in the study design process whilst at the same time affording maximum welfare considerations to the experimental animals.
You can obtain the complete document by going to http://www.eslav.org/efpia.htm
Five years after the country of Denmark began banning the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in food animals, resistance rates of bacteria to these antibiotics have fallen significantly, suggesting that it is possible to reduce resistance by curbing a ntibiotic use in food production. Researchers from theDanish Veterinary Laboratory in Copenhagen report the results of their research in the July 2001 issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
The researchers analyzed antibiotic resistance patterns of over 2,500 samples of enterococcal bacteria taken from pigs and broiler chickens in Denmark over a five year period beginning in 1995, the year when Denmark first banned the useof the antibiotic a voparcin in food animals. During that time the resistance rate for avoparcin and related antibiotics fell from 72.7% in 1995 to just over 5% in 2000. In addition, the researchers also noted a significant decrease inresistance rates associated with the ban on use of the antibiotic virginiamyciin 1998.
“Our observations show that it is possible to reduce the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in a national population of food animals when the selective pressure is removed,” say the researchers. “The results discussed [in thi s study] represent the first documented effects of large-scale interventions to reduce the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. They demonstrate that the exposure of humans to bacteria resistant to antimicrobialdrugs and to resistance genes throu g h food can be reduced effectively by intervention.”
(F. M. Aarestrup, A.M. Seyfarth, H.-D. Emborg, K. Pedersen, R.S. Hendriksen and F. Bager. Effect of abolishment of the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion on occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci from food animals in Denmark. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 45: 2054-2059.)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidance Document No. 19 entitled Guidance Document on the Recognition, Assessment, and Use of Clinical Signs as Humane Endpoints for Experimental Animals Used in Safety Evaluation is n ow available at http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(2000)7
The purpose of this Guidance Document is to apply the principles of the Three Rs to the use of animals in regulatory toxicity tests. The OECD encourages the humane use of animals in regulatory toxicity and safety evaluation studies and fully end o rses the principles of the 3Rs, Replacement, Reduction, Refinement, which were defined by Russell and Burch (1) as:
This document specifically addresses Refinement.
This guidance is based on best current knowledge available from Member Countries’ experts, through personal contacts with investigators, peer-reviewed literature, and presentations at meetings and symposia, and is intended to be flexible so that it c an change with improved knowledge in the future. It is expected that with increasing knowledge and experience, investigators in animal research will be able to identify more specific, early humane endpoints in the form of clinical signs for impending dea t h or severe pain and distress. This would permit international harmonization of these humane endpoints.
Although the principles of the 3Rs are applicable to all animal species, it is generally accepted that there are differences among species in many clinical signs of pain or distress. Variables due to the species and strain of animal involved, the type of toxicity study being performed, and the types of materials being tested, are not addressed in detail. Although there are a number of similarities between mammals and other vertebrate species, the differences among the different classes of vertebrates do n ot allow them to be easily addressed in a single document. The general principles contained in this Guidance Document are specifically designed to be applicable for all mammalian species used in toxicity testing and other experimental studies.
OECD’s guidelines for the testing of chemicals and monograph series on testing and assessment are available at http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34377_1916054_1_1_1_1,00.html. The test program homepage is at http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34377_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.
The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are a collection of the most relevant internationally agreed testing methods used by government, industry and independent laboratories to identify and characterize potential hazards of new and exi s ting chemical substances and chemical preparations/mixtures. They cover tests for physical-chemical properties of chemicals, human health effects, environmental effects, as well as degradation and accumulation in the environment.
Paper copies are also available from OECD, Environment Directorate, Environment Health and Safety Division, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, FRANCE, tel: 33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00, fax: 33 (0) 1 45 24 16 75, e-mail: ehscont@oecd.org
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
