Animal testing likely to decline

Dr Virginia Williams says while the numbers of animals used for these purposes are down by 25% for the year ended 2013, she says more relevant is the figures relating to the rolling three-year average.

In 2013 the number of animals used for testing, research and teaching was 224,048, the rolling three-year average 284,000.

“We are always aiming to reduce the number of animals and replace them wherever possible. While there is quite a substantial fall this year, we look more at the three-year rolling average because you get  projects that go on for three years and only get reported at the end of that period. So it’s likely that next year the numbers will go up, though it would be nice to think that they wouldn’t.”

Globally New Zealand is a minor player in animal testing, Williams says. And our research focus is mainly on production animals whereas in the UK it’s more on rodents. In New Zealand in 2013, cattle made up 51.4% of the farm animals used, sheep 20.6%. This reflects the focus in New Zealand on veterinary research, animal husbandry and testing the efficacy of products used to maintain the health of other animals.

“One of NAEAC’s aims is to promote what we call the three ‘R’s’: ‘refinement’ (reducing pain and distress); ‘reduction’ (reducing the number of animals to the minimum possible to get a statistical result, but not so small that no result is obtained); and ‘replacement’ – worldwide there are places where animals can be replaced. 

“It’s expensive to use animals. Note that it is one thing to find replacements, and another to have that validated as a testing programme so that the regulatory authorities will accept it.”

Dr Williams says a challenge for her organisation is getting the public to understand the issues – and it’s not all bad news. Often there is a ‘shock horror’ reaction when the number of animals used for testing goes up, but New Zealand has strict controls governing their use. 

“Any use of animals has to be approved by an animal ethics committee of three independent people: a veterinarian nominated by the NZVA, a nominee of the SPCA and a lay person nominated by a territorial authority. They have to approve, by looking at the cost to the animal versus the potential benefit. So obviously the higher the cost to the animal the greater the supposed benefit from the research. We have a good system to oversee that and it’s well regarded around the world.”

Williams says the public don’t understand animal welfare issues because few people in cities have any contact with a farm, though they may have a companion animal.