We push for interpretation of UK law to remove unjustified blocks to information on animal testing.
We have taken our fight for the right to know about experiments on animals in the UK to the Upper Tribunal, at a hearing held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London last week.
We had made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for information about licences which authorise cosmetics testing on animals in the UK. Cosmetics testing is part of regulatory toxicity testing, to gauge the safety of a product, and we wanted to know why the Home Office had concluded that the trivial benefit of new cosmetics outweighed the often significant harm caused to thousands of animals – especially when the department had for decades said that such experiments could not be ethically justified.
The Home Office, which regulates animal experiments, refused to disclose this information, relying on Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which prohibits the disclosure of information given to it in confidence.
We argue that Section 24 is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights has decided that this protection can extend to the right to demand important information from the state so that it can be shared with the public.
Signalling the importance of the case, the Upper Tribunal took the unusual step of convening a three-judge panel to hear oral submissions from us, the Information Commissioner and the Home Office.
We have long maintained that the public has a right to know why animals are used and suffer in the cruel toxicity and other tests which have been approved by the government, especially since we know that only a small part of the picture is given in the summaries the Home Office does release.
Our Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs, Dr Emma Grange, said: “We want to see an end to all animal testing The UK Strategy for replacing animals in science charts a welcome path for the elimination of animal tests and the uptake of non-animal methods across many more types of consumer products. Maximum transparency on the uses of animals, and the reasons for it, is essential for ensuring existing alternatives are properly implemented and for making progress in the overall transition away from animal testing.
Vital information on animal testing must no longer be hidden from public view. We await the outcome of the Upper Tribunal decision over the next few months.”
