Ensuring Protective Chemical Regulations That Avoid Animal Testing

The Physicians Committee

21st-Century Chemical Regulation: Ensuring Protective Chemical Regulations That Avoid Animal Testing


CAMPAIGN UPDATE: PCRM Testimony before the Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Assessing the Safe Chemicals Act, S.847

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates industrial chemicals through a statute called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In 2011, the U.S. Senate introduced a bill that would change TSCA dramatically, and would result in a large increase in the number of toxicity tests using animals conducted each year. Please help PCRM ensure that this legislation becomes a launch pad for better methods—techniques that rely on modern cell-based tests instead of animals.

The Senate bill, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, S. 847, included landmark provisions that would reduce and eventually eliminate the use of animals over the long term, including:

  • compelling the EPA to reduce the use of animals in chemical testing using strategies recommended by testing reform advocates;
  • directing the EPA to fund research into nonanimal methods, including those recommended by the National Academy of Sciences; and
  • giving the EPA the flexibility to tailor testing requirements to the chemical in question, which allows nonanimal tests to be used and avoids superfluous animal tests.

However, the bill did not go far enough. PCRM is calling for:

  • a requirement for the use of nonanimal test methods where available;
  • establishment of a public oversight body for nonanimal methods development and implementation; and
  • designation of dedicated appropriations funding for the development of nonanimal tests.

Read more about what PCRM is calling for in the fact sheet titled Notes on The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847).

Use the links on the right side of this page to learn more.

Marge P.

“As a physician, I know we need research but think our current reliance on animal tests is outdated, bad science. All animals are similar in that they all feel pain and are capable of fear and suffering, but it is well known that except for that similarity, many react quite differently to chemical substances. I, therefore, think that reliance on animal testing risks having a false sense of security with some harmful substances and false worries over others. That fact plus my deepest conviction that animals are not test tubes and deserve humane care makes me want to do everything I can to try to bring chemical testing into the 21st century with less cruelty and better science.”

- Marge P., Massachusetts

Share why you are concerned about animal testing here>

Read more personal testimonials against animal testing here>