Comparative Analysis of the Revised Directive 2010 / 63 / EU for the Protection of Laboratory Animals with its Predecessor 86 / 609 / EEC – a t 4 Report

In 1986 the european Council of Ministers adopted Directive 86/609/eeC (european Commission, 1986) on “the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes”. At this time, the european institutions had no formal mandate for animal welfare, but the legislation was justified as harmonising product access to the common market. The Directive focused on improving the control of the use of laboratory animals, structuring minimum standards for housing and training of those responsible for animals and monitoring the experiments. the Directive also aimed to reduce the numbers of animals used for experiments by requiring that an animal experiment may not be performed when an alternative method exists, and by encouraging the development and validation of alternative methods to replace animal methods. Why was it necessary to revise the Directive? First of all, europe has evolved and animal welfare has become an integral part, enshrined for example in the lisbon treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Article 13). Already the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 included an Animal Welfare Protocol. In 1998, by adopting Decision 1999/575/eC of the european Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes prepared by the Council of Europe, to which the eU is party, the eU acknowledged the international importance of this area. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 and helped shape the field. The European Commission committed to a Community Animal Welfare Action Plan in 2006. Beyond this, there is technical progress in laboratory animal sciences, animal-using research and industries and their regulation, all requiring adaptation of the Directive to technical progress (Recital 6 of the revision1). Thus, in 2002, the European Parliament called on the European Commission to revise the Directive. The process to revise the Directive thus started (louhimies, 2002; Binder and Lengauer, 2006; Ruhdel, 2007). In the meantime, the Summary On 8th September 2010 the long process of revising the EU Directive for the protection of laboratory animals was concluded. Here a comparative evaluation of the new and old Directive is provided. While its ultimate goal is to replace the use of animals, the new Directive acknowledges that animals, including nonhuman primates, are still needed for scientific purposes today. Importantly, animals have an intrinsic value, which must be respected. There are some major advances for animal welfare, many of which had however already been common practice in the more progressive Member States. The new Directive prohibits new, more progressive legislation if not already in place and thus harmonises but also freezes the 27 Member States at a relatively high level. The revision was an important opportunity for the European Commission, on the one side to demonstrate its commitment to improve human health and safety by enabling animal testing and on the other side to improve animal health and welfare by setting minimum standards. By this Directive Europe is again taking a leading role in research and development for new non-animal tests and technologies by introducing a series of measures that strengthen the evaluation of the need of animal use in each case. It also represents a formal implementation of the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal tests) put forward by Russel and Burch 1959.


Introduction
In 1986 the european Council of Ministers adopted Directive 86/609/eeC (european Commission, 1986) on "the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes".At this time, the european institutions had no formal mandate for animal welfare, but the legislation was justified as harmonising product access to the common market.The Directive focused on improving the control of the use of laboratory animals, structuring minimum standards for housing and training of those responsible for animals and monitoring the experiments.the Directive also aimed to reduce the numbers of animals used for experiments by requiring that an animal experiment may not be performed when an alternative method exists, and by encouraging the development and validation of alternative methods to replace animal methods.
Why was it necessary to revise the Directive?First of all, europe has evolved and animal welfare has become an integral part, enshrined for example in the lisbon treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Article 13).Already the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 included an Animal Welfare Protocol.In 1998, by adopting Decision 1999/575/eC of the european Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes prepared by the Council of Europe, to which the eU is party, the eU acknowledged the international importance of this area.The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 and helped shape the field.The European Commission committed to a Community Animal Welfare Action Plan in 2006.Beyond this, there is technical progress in laboratory animal sciences, animal-using research and industries and their regulation, all requiring adaptation of the Directive to technical progress (Recital 6 of the revision 1 ).Thus, in 2002, the European Parliament called on the European Commission to revise the Directive.The process to revise the Directive thus started (louhimies, 2002;Binder and Lengauer, 2006;Ruhdel, 2007).In the meantime, the

Summary
On 8 th September 2010 the long process of revising the EU Directive for the protection of laboratory animals was concluded.Here a comparative evaluation of the new and old Directive is provided.While its ultimate goal is to replace the use of animals, the new Directive acknowledges that animals, including nonhuman primates, are still needed for scientific purposes today.Importantly, animals have an intrinsic value, which must be respected.There are some major advances for animal welfare, many of which had however already been common practice in the more progressive Member States.The new Directive prohibits new, more progressive legislation if not already in place and thus harmonises but also freezes the 27 Member States at a relatively high level.The revision was an important opportunity for the European Commission, on the one side to demonstrate its commitment to improve human health and safety by enabling animal testing and on the other side to improve animal health and welfare by setting minimum standards.By this Directive Europe is again taking a leading role in research and development for new non-animal tests and technologies by introducing a series of measures that strengthen the evaluation of the need of animal use in each case.It also represents a formal implementation of the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction and chemicals (Hartung, 2010a), nanoparticles (Hartung, 2010b), cosmetics (Hartung 2008b), food / pesticides (Hartung and Koëter, 2008) or drugs.The revision is promoting paradigm changes, e.g. in toxicology (Hartung and Leist, 2008, Leist et al. 2008, Hartung 2009), prompted by shortcomings of animal tests (Hartung 2008a).This will stimulate further support and progress towards novel in vitro (Hartung, 2007a) and in silico approaches (Hartung and Hoffmann, 2009) and their validation (Hartung, 2007b).

Analysis of changes
The new legislation is introduced with 56 recitals.Recitals, i.e. "whereas" clauses, are found in contracts and in legislation.The old Directive did not include recitals.There is a general discussion on how recitals should be interpreted in view of the operative provisions of the articles and on whether they have any legal consequences (Klimas and Vaiciukaite, 2008).Courts must choose to view recitals as subordinate to, dominant over, or even equal to operative provisions.Recitals in EC legislation are supposed to be general statements and must specify the reasons the operative provisions were adopted.They thus describe the situation before and at the time of the legal act and the discussion that led to the legislation or regulation.They thus mainly aid in the interpretation of the articles.
For the scope of this journal, especially Recital 47 is of interest: (47) The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, a policy action within the Joint Research Centre of the Commission, has coordinated the validation of alternative approaches in the Union since 1991.However, there is an increasing need for new methods to be developed and proposed for validation, which requires a reference laboratory of the Union for the validation of alternative methods to be established formally.This laboratory should be referred to as the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM).It is necessary for the Commission to cooperate with the Member States when setting priorities for validation studies.The Member States should assist the Commission in identifying and nominating suitable laboratories to carry out such validation studies.For validation studies that are similar to previously validated methods and in respect of which a validation represents a significant competitive advantage, ECVAM should be able to collect charges from those who submit their methods for validation.Such charges should not be prohibitive of healthy competition in the testing industry.
Noteworthy, this is the only place ECVAM is explicitly mentioned, in line with the Commission's policy not to specify in Council of europe in 2006 developed guidelines for the accommodation and care of laboratory animals, which were adopted as Commission Recommendation 2007/526/eC in 2007; they now form the basis of Annex III of the new legislation.
the european Commission made a proposal for the revision of the Directive in November 2008 to the european Council and the Parliament.This proposal, compounded under the lead of Directorate General (DG) environment, was based on input from a technical expert Working Group (representing science/ academia, industry, Member States, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other experts) and relevant eU committees, i.e. the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) and Scientific Committee on Health and environmental Risks (SCHeR) of DG Health and Consumer, the Animal Health and Welfare panel (AHAW) of the european Food Safety Authority (eFSA), as well as an expert group on severity.The process also included two public internet consultations in which more than 12,000 comments from 283 individuals were received.Remarkably, an impact assessment was carried out (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/ia_en.htm), which aimed at qualification, quantification and monetisation (financial quantification) of impacts, which is obviously not always possible when ethical or welfare considerations are at stake.
Following the respective readings, positions and a tripartite compromise of April 2010, the revised Directive was adopted at its second reading in the european Parliament on 8 th September 2010 (European Commission, 2010).It will enter into force (EiF) 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal this fall.the new Directive will take effect on 1 st January 2013.While its ultimate goal is to replace the use of animals, the Directive acknowledges that animals, including non-human primates, are still needed today (Recital 10)2 .However, the revision clearly acknowledges the intrinsic value of animals (Recital 12)3 , an important concept to distinguish them from goods and other possessions.European Environment and former Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik said in the respective press release on 9th September 2010: "today's vote ends a long negotiation process, which has shown how sensitive and important the issues at stake are.However, everyone agreed that it is vital to improve the situation for animals still needed in scientific research and safety testing, whilst maintaining a high standard of research and improving the focus on finding alternative methods to animal testing.The European Union will soon have the highest standards of experimental animal welfare in the world." this systematic analysis demonstrates and interprets the differences between the old and the new Directive  At this moment, the laboratory animal welfare provisions in different Member States are very different.Since Directive 86/609/eeC is binding, it can be considered the common minimum standard.However, many aspects were not very detailed or explicit.Some Member States go considerable lengths beyond these standards, and in general the new Directive now harmonises all Member States on this higher level.Thus, in practice, little will change for the countries already applying high standards of animal welfare and many new demands of the revised Directive may long be in practice in a given country.A comparison of the relevant legislation of the different Member States is beyond the scope of this article.
the main elements of change are: a) Significant increase in animal welfare First, the scope of the Directive is expanded to include basic research and education (Article 1).In 1986, the European Economic Community (eeC), the predecessor of the eU, had no mandate for animal welfare other than regarding aspects related to trade: the Directive gives as a whereas clause "there exist between the national laws at present in force for the protection of animals used for certain experimental purposes disparities which may affect the functioning of the common market".The use of wild animals (Article 9), endangered species (Article 7) legal acts which part of the Commission must execute an obligation.The only laws referring to ECVAM so far are the 7 th amendment of the cosmetics directive (european Commission, 2003; Directive 2003/15/eC in Recitals 5 and 7 and Article 2) and the ReACH regulation (european Commission, 2006;Regulation No. 1907/2006).ECVAM was established by a communication of the Commission to the Council and Parliament only, which is difficult to retrieve (Bottini et al., 2008) and of unclear binding legal status.The new Directive now introduces a Union Reference laboratory and the role is assigned to the Joint Research Centre of the Commission, which includes eC-VAM.Article 47 demands that both Commission and Member States "shall contribute to the development and validation of alternative approaches", which goes further than the requirement to "encourage research" in the old text.The Union Reference Laboratory is introduced in Article 48 and specified in Annex VII; a delegation clause allows the Commission alone to change its role and who is charged with this role (Articles 50 to 53, see below).The duties and tasks of the Union Reference laboratory, beside that it shall "participate in the validation of alternative approaches", which implies an active role of EC-VAM in the execution of studies, not only their peer-review as is the case in large part for the US and Japanese counterparts, but does not state whether it implies laboratory work, according to ANNEX VII are:

"(a) coordinating and promoting the development and use of alternatives to procedures including in the areas of basic and applied research and regulatory testing; (b) coordinating the validation of alternative approaches at Union level; (c) acting as a focal point for the exchange of information on the development of alternative approaches; (d) setting up, maintaining and managing public databases and information systems on alternative approaches and their state of development;
(e) promoting dialogue between legislators, regulators, and all relevant stakeholders, in particular, industry, biomedical scientists, consumer organisations and animal welfare groups, with a view to the development, validation, regulatory acceptance, international recognition, and application of alternative approaches." They are very similar to those defined in the communication establishing ECVAM 1991.Notably, the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, introduced in the Communication from 1991 as the peer-review body, is not included, but a Member State role to establish priorities for validation is called for (Article 47).Interestingly, in future ECVAM can ask fees for services which do not "directly contribute to the further advancement of replacement, reduction and refinement".This most likely refers primarily to the validation of me-too developments, i.e. methods which copy a validated method.
The new legislation also includes eight Annexes.Articles 50 to 53 give the Commission the right to change these Annexes, which allows adapting the legislation to technical progress without necessitating a revision involving Parliament and Council.This shortcut reflects that it was very difficult to achieve agreement on the revision as a whole, a process that ran from the 2. This Directive shall apply where animals are used or intended to be used in procedures, or bred specifically so that their organs or tissues may be used for scientific purposes.This Directive shall apply until the animals referred to in the first subparagraph have been killed, rehomed or returned to a suitable habitat or husbandry system.The elimination of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm by the successful use of anaesthesia, analgesia or other methods shall not exclude the use of an animal in procedures from the scope of this Directive.
3. This Directive shall apply to the following animals: (a) live non-human vertebrate animals, including: i) independently feeding larval forms, and The aim of this Directive is to ensure that where animals are used for experimental or other scientific purposes the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative provisions in the Member States for their protection are approximated so as to avoid affecting the establishment and functioning of the common market, in particular by distorsions of competition or barriers to trade.

Article 3
This Directive applies to the use of animals in experiments which are undertaken for one of the following purposes: (a) the development, manufacture, quality, effectiveness and safety testing of drugs, foodstuffs and other substances or products: (i) for the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or other abnormality or their effects in man, animals or plants; (ii) for the assessment, detection, regulation or modification of physiological conditions in man, animals or plants; (b) the protection of the natural environment in the interests of the health or welfare of man or animal.
Article 2 For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: (a) 'animal' unless otherwise qualified, means any live non-human vertebrate,

Comments
New: -educational purposes -reference to 3Rs -inclusion of breeding and supply -no positive list, to which type of procedures the Directive applies.This is a fundamental difference in comparison to the old Directive, which defined 'the scope' with the positive list.Thus anything outside the scope was merely just not regulated.The new Directive uses the positive list to state the areas for which purposes animals can be used.Thus any other use will be prohibited in the future (within the context of the area of competence of the Community e.g.excluding use of animals for the benefit of national for security).

New:
-inclusion of "intended to be used" -inclusion of animals bred for their organs and tissue -redefinition of end of procedure

New:
-extension to foetal organisms and cephalopods

Tab. 1: Comparison of the Directives of 2010 and 1986 -excerpt of the articles most relevant to alternatives to animal experiments (the full version of this table is to find at www.altex.ch)
ii) foetal forms of mammals as from the last third of their normal development; (b) live cephalopods.
4. This Directive shall apply to animals used in procedures, which are at an earlier stage of development than that referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3, if the animal is to be allowed to live beyond that stage of development and, as a result of the procedures performed, is likely to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm after it has reached that stage of development.Change in attitude, which led to strong concerns by animal welfare groups.

This
Compare to recital (7): "In the interests of the animals, and provided is does not affect the functioning of the internal market, it is appropriate to allow the Member States certain flexibility to maintain national rules aimed at more extensive protection of animals in so far as they are compatible with the treaty."

Consequence of Common Market
EiF = Entry into Force, i.e. 20 days after publication in the Official Journal in fall 2010.

Article 3 Definitions#
Article 4 Principle of replacement, reduction and refinement 1. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.
2. Member States shall ensure that the number of animals used in projects is reduced to a minimum without compromising the objectives of the project.

Member
States shall ensure refinement of breeding, accommodation and care, and of methods used in procedures, eliminating or reducing to the minimum any possible pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animals.
4. This Article shall, in the choice of methods, be implemented in accordance with Article 13.

Article 5 Purposes of procedures
Procedures may be carried out for the following purposes only: -broader definition of "procedure" and "project" instead of experiment, including education, organ donation, genetic modification and use of animals for routine production.
-Often confused issues: Killing is not within the scope of a "procedure", however, it does not exclude those animals from the scope of this Directive i.e. animals bred for the purpose of their organs and their tissue are within the scope throughout their lifetime (cross ref. housing and care requirements) and the killing has to be carried out as per Article 6.
This has led to enormous discussions about the legal difference between "wherever possible" and "reasonably and practicably available".Most probably they are minor, but interpretation might be influenced by Article 13, especially because of Article 4 (4).-requirement to move over to second or higher generation purpose-bred nonhuman primates subject to a feasibility study -explore self-sustaining colonies for nonhuman primate breeding New:

See above (1)
-stricter wording for exemptions for use of stray and feral animals New: -no isolated experiments that are not part of a larger project shall be authorised New: -accepted alternative methods have to be used This led to enormous discussion, whether this weakens the "alternative clause" of Article 4, since the requirement is only for methods accepted in legislation (validated # = details available in the complete table available at www.altex.chor http://altweb.jhsph.edu/. 2. In choosing between procedures, those which to the greatest extent meet the following requirements shall be selected, that is to say those which: (a) use the minimum number of animals, (b) involve animals with the lowest capacity to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, (c) cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and are most likely to provide satisfactory results.
3. Death as the end-point of a procedure shall be avoided as far as possible and replaced by early and humane endpoints.Where death as the end-point is unavoidable, the procedure shall be designed so as to: (a) result in the deaths of as few animals as possible; and (b) reduce the duration and intensity of suffering to the animal to the minimum possible and, as far as possible, ensure a painless death.

Article 17
End of the procedure#

Article 18 Sharing organs and tissues
Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the establishment of programmes for the sharing of organs and tissues of animals killed.

CHAPTER IV AUTHORISATION SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR BREEDERS, SUPPLIERS AND USERS
Article 7 3.When an experiment has to be performed, the choice of species shall be carefully considered and, where necessary, explained to the authority.In a choice between experiments, those which use the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and which are most likely to provide satisfactory results shall be selected.
or not).Common interpretation is that this only stresses in addition to Article 4 the need to use accepted alternative methods for regulatory testing.
-reduce, refine and use of lower species, i.e. with lowest capacity to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm New: -avoidance of death as endpoint

New:
Neuromuscular blocking agents cannot be used without anaesthesia or analgesia.

New:
-concept of severity -ban of very severe procedures which are long lasting and cannot be ameliorated New Definition on until when the creation of a GM-line continues to be considered a "procedure"

New:
-facilitate sharing of organs and tissues

New:
-From housing and care guidance (legally not binding) to standards (legally binding), a key element to achieve good animal welfare New: -requirement to work under supervision until competence has been demonstrated.
-minimum requirements for curriculum in Annex V New: -requirement for a named person responsible for the competence of staff -explicit animal welfare obligations for person named responsible New: -institutional animal welfare body

New:
-requirement to decrease captured nonhuman primate use in experiments and as breeders New: -more explicit definition of animal records to be kept for dogs, cats and non-human primates -individual history file also covering social information is introduced, not only for non-human primates but also for dogs and cats New: -detailed definition of standards of care in Annex III, which can be amended without revision of the entire legislation # = details available in the complete table available at www.altex.chor http://altweb.jhsph.edu/.

New:
-improved frequency of inspections -unannounced inspections and use of a risk based approach New: -Commission to inspect Member State inspection systems New: -detailed list of elements for applications for authorisation in Annex VI New: -strict minimum requirements for a systematic and comprehensive project evaluation covering ° criteria ° the steps (including a detailed list of minimum elements to cover the application of the Three Rs as specified in Annex VI) ° expertise that needs to inform the process ° impartiality and transparency New: -tailor-made retrospective evaluation of projects involving procedures with severe harm, projects involving non-human primates as well as those selected within the evaluation of applications New: -detailed requirements for authorisations New: -detailed requirements for authorisation process New: -option for simplified authorisation process New: -publication of anonymous non-technical project summaries New: -further detailed requirements for authorisation process New: -further detailed requirements for authorisation process # = details available in the complete table available at www.altex.chor http://altweb.jhsph.edu/.
Each Member State shall accept data from other Member States that are generated by procedures recognised by the legislation of the Union, unless further procedures need to be carried out regarding that data for the protection of public health, safety or the environment.

Article 47
Alternative approaches

The Commission and the Member
States shall contribute to the development and validation of alternative approaches which could provide the same or higher levels of information as those obtained in procedures using animals, but which do not involve the use of animals or use fewer animals or which entail less painful procedures, and they shall take such other steps as they consider appropriate to encourage research in this field.

Member States shall assist the
Commission in identifying and nominating suitable specialised and qualified laboratories to carry out such validation studies.
3. After consulting the Member States, the Commission shall set the priorities for those validation studies and allocate the tasks between the laboratories for carrying out those studies.
4. Member States shall, at national level, ensure the promotion of alternative approaches and the dissemination of information thereon.
5. Member States shall nominate a single point of contact to provide advice on the regulatory relevance and suitability of alternative approaches proposed for validation.
6.The Commission shall take appropriate action with a view to obtaining international acceptance of alternative approaches validated in the Union.

Article 48 Union Reference Laboratory
1.The Union Reference Laboratory and its duties and tasks shall be those referred to in Annex VII. 2. The Union Reference Laboratory may collect charges for the services it provides that do not directly contribute to the further advancement of replacement, reduction and refinement.

Detailed rules necessary for the implementation of paragraph 2 of this
Article and Annex VII may be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 56(3).

Article 49
National committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 1.Each Member State shall establish a national committee for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.It shall advise the competent authorities and animal-welfare bodies on matters dealing with the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures and ensure sharing of best practice.
2. The national committees referred to in paragraph 1 shall exchange information on the operation of animal-welfare bodies and project evaluation and share best practice within the Union.(e) promoting dialogue between legislators, regulators, and all relevant stakeholders, in particular, industry, biomedical scientists, consumer organisations and animal welfare groups, with a view to the development, validation, regulatory acceptance, international recognition, and application of alternative approaches.
3. The Union Reference Laboratory shall participate in the validation of alternative approaches.

New:
-ECVAM can ask for fees New: -Member State obligation to create national committees New: -network of Member State committees # = details available in the complete table available at www.altex.chor http://altweb.jhsph.edu/.
and stray or feral animals (Article 11) is largely prohibited.Animals under protection now also include (Article 1) cephalopods and foetal forms of mammals in the last third of (uterine) development, as well as earlier treatments if the animals are allowed to survive until this stage of development.It is not clear yet what this will mean for statistics of animal use, especially due to the strong increase in the use of fish, especially zebrafish, in recent years.It sets a first time line for the developmental stages, defining from which point on procedures are to be counted as animal experiments.This will probably impact on experimental protocols, e.g. using fertilised fish eggs.
Second, experiments on great apes are practically banned ("great apes shall not be used in procedures").third, a process is detailed that includes the application for compulsory authorisation of establishments and projects (Articles 22 to 33, 36 to 45), with detailed requirements for the establishments, including competence of personnel (Article 23 and 24, Annex V), animal welfare bodies (Article 26) and designated veterinarians (Article 25) for each place, their more transparent evaluation and reporting based also on severity of procedures (Article 15), under national inspection (Article 34) including eU control of the national inspection services (Article 35), and retrospective evaluation (Articles 38 to 40, 43, 45 and Recital 40).The latter introduces a type of control of success of projects, especially those with a certain severity or those which use non-human primates.Systematic project (the term "ethical" was dropped in the political discussion) evaluation as part of the authorisation addresses the aims and objectives of the project, the application of the 3Rs (Annex VI), the severity classification of the procedures (Annex VIII), the harm-benefit analysis of the project and determines the need for a retrospective assessment at the end of the project.Noteworthy, very severe procedures are banned (Recital 23 5 and Article 15: "Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not performed if it involves severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated.")though this is under a safeguard clause.Death as end-point of an experiment "shall be avoided as far as possible and replaced by early and humane end-points."(Article 13) the mandatory humane killing of animals is regulated by Article 6 and Annex IV, which give specific guidance for different laboratory animal species.The transparency of the evaluation is improved by the publication of non-technical summaries (with full regard to confidentiality), a transparent project evaluation process, which may incorporate the opinion of independent parties, and improved reporting.Increased transparency and better enforcement shall re-enforce self-compliance and facilitate earlier detection of non-compliance.Annual inspections (Article 34) of one third of user establishments, all establishments housing/using non-human primates and an appropriate proportion of unannounced inspections are an important part of this control.the possibility for eU controls of national inspections systems (Article 35) further strengthens these provisions.Noteworthy, Member States also "shall facilitate, where appropriate, the establishment of programmes for the sharing of organs and tissues of animals killed" (Article 18).Fifth, animal welfare bodies (Article 26-27) must be created in each establishment to foster a climate of care and ensure incorporation of the 3Rs, advising the staff on welfare of animals, on the application of the 3Rs and especially on developments for their applications, establishing/reviewing internal operational processes, following the development and outcome of projects and advising on re-homing schemes.A named person responsible for ensuring the training/education and competence is required in each establishment as is a "designated veterinar-4 "Having regard to the present state of scientific knowledge, the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures is still necessary in biomedical research.Due to their genetic proximity to human beings and to their highly developed social skills, the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures raises specific ethical and practical problems in terms of meeting their behavioural, environmental and social needs in a laboratory environment.Furthermore, the use of nonhuman primates is of the greatest concern to the public.Therefore the use of non-human primates should be permitted only in those biomedical areas essential for the benefit of human beings, for which no other alternative replacement methods are yet available.Their use should be permitted only for basic research, the preservation of the respective non-human primate species or when the work, including xenotransplantation, is carried out in relation to potentially life-threatening conditions in humans or in relation to cases having a substantial impact on a person's day-to-day functioning, i.e. debilitating conditions." 5 "From an ethical standpoint, there should be an upper limit of pain, suffering and distress above which animals should not be subjected in scientific procedures.To that end, the performance of procedures that result in severe pain, suffering or distress, which is likely to be long-lasting and cannot be ameliorated, should be prohibited." 6"On 15 June 2006, the Fourth Multilateral Consultation of Parties to the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes adopted a revised Appendix A to that Convention, which set out guidelines for the accommodation and care of experimental animals.Commission Recommendation 2007/526/EC of 18 June 2007 on guidelines for the accommodation and care of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes incorporated those guidelines."tres, as they exist as governmental institutions in Germany and the UK, formerly in Sweden and is currently established in the Netherlands.However, non-governmental 3Rs centres, as created in Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and Finland, might also be appointed.The development, validation and use of alternative approaches are thus more firmly anchored.c) Administrative flexibility Some flexibility for implementation is foreseen, aiming to be output-not process-driven.For example, Member States can allow group authorisation of multiple generic projects if they are for regulatory or production/diagnostic purposes with established methods and simplified administrative procedures (excl.severe procedures or those using non-human primates).
3 Implementation the implementation of the Directive by 1 st January 2013 requires a number of measures and the creation of institutions by the Commission and Member States: Member States have to designate one or more competent authorities (Article 59), national inspections systems (Article 35), single points of contact to provide advice on the regulatory relevance and suitability of alternative approaches proposed for validation (Article 47), national committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (Article 49), nominate on a per case basis suitable specialised and qualified laboratories to carry out validation studies (Article 47), ensure the promotion of alternative approaches and the dissemination of information thereon (Article 47), revise their reporting scheme (Article 54), etc.It is obvious that many of these functions could be bundled in National Centres.
The European Commission has to transform ECVAM into a Union Reference laboratory (Article 48), establish reporting systems on the implementation of the Directive and animal use statistics (Article 57), set up an advisory Committee (Article 56), review the Directive (Article 58) and adapt the annexes to technical progress (Articles 50 and 51).

Criticism and conclusions
the new Directive is a compromise between different stakeholder groups.It has earned criticism from all sides, though all-together the compromise appears to be acceptable to most parties.
Animal welfare organisations (e.g.Dr. Hawden Trust, Our Paws and Humane Society, 2009), while recognising the advances, have lobbied for stronger animal welfare requirements.they especially criticise the fact that individual Member States can no longer promote more rigorous animal welfare laws.There ian" (Article 25).The provisions for qualification of staff are also more detailed now (Article 24).
Several aspects have not been changed but represent important animal welfare requirements, which will benefit from stronger reinforcement now, i.e. mandatory inspections (Article 35) and penalties (Article 60).These include mandatory anaesthesia (Article 14) if not "inappropriate", avoidance of reuse of animals for severe procedures (Article 16), mandatory use of alternatives (Article 4 and 13) and mutual acceptance of data between Member States (Article 46) to avoid duplicate procedures.
b) Active promotion and implementation of the principle of the 3Rs (Article 1, Article 13) the Directive spells out the principle of the 3Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement in Article 1.It is ensured that Refinement is not limited to scientific procedures but is also relevant in relation to care, accommodation and breeding of animals.Like the 1986 Directive, the 2010 Directive also calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote alternative methods, also referring to research funding in Recital 467 and Article 47.To promote this, an EU Reference Laboratory for the validation of alternative approaches shall be created (Article 48), which shall be ECVAM as part of the Joint Research Centre (see above).Member States shall, according to Article 47, assist by identifying and nominating suitable laboratories for validation studies (Article 47.2: "Member States shall assist the Commission in identifying and nominating suitable specialised and qualified laboratories to carry out such validation studies"), appointing a single point of contact for assessment of regulatory relevance of a method (Article 47.5: "Member States shall nominate a single point of contact to provide advice on the regulatory relevance and suitability of alternative approaches proposed for validation.")and set up national committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (Article 49).This is what remained from the original Commission proposal to establish National Reference laboratories to participate in validations; they were meant to co-finance and execute validation studies, but the concept did not survive the political decision process.Member States shall also promote alternatives at national level (Article 47.4: "Member States shall, at national level, ensure the promotion of alternative approaches and the dissemination of information thereon.")and the Commission at international level, which is now a more explicit obligation (Article 47.6: "The Commission shall take appropriate action with a view to obtaining international acceptance of alternative approaches validated in the Union.").A single contact point in the Member States has to be established and national committees for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes shall support the Member States (Article 49).Member states also have the obligation to disseminate information on alternatives.This in the end still calls for the creation of national cen-next to the general provision to use alternatives in general (Article 4) the need to apply accepted alternatives in the field of regulatory testing.
the criticism made by animal welfare organisations is exemplified by the response of the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE, http://www.eceae.org/a1_directive.php):"For example, the Directive will not include: -A ban on the use of wild-caught animals within short deadlines -Clear restrictions on the use of non-human primates -Strong restrictions on the repeated use of animals -A complete ban on experiments which involve severe and prolonged suffering And many important issues that received strong public support were not addressed during the revision process: -A strategy to reduce and ultimately replace animal experiments is a certain discrepancy that Recital 7 recognises the need that individual Member States pursue more progressive approaches 8 , while Article 2 explicitly excludes this.There has been enormous discussion about the rephrasing of the animal welfare clause (new Article 4 versus old Article 13), i.e. the mandatory use of alternatives and the legal difference between "wherever possible" (new) and "reasonably and practicably available" (old).Most probably they are minor, but interpretation might be influenced by Article 13, especially because of Article 4.4: "Without prejudice to national legislation prohibiting certain types of methods, Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of a live animal, is recognized under the legislation of the Union."This refers explicitly only to methods accepted by regulatory authorities after successful validation, i.e. currently only relatively few methods.the common interpretation, however, is that this only stresses -Funding to develop non-animal alternative methods An immediate ban on certain experiments such as those which do not relate to serious or life-threatening human conditions -The inclusion of a system of data-sharing to avoid the duplication of animal experiments" Industry has brought forward concerns for competitiveness: the revision would create in many areas an enormous workload, excessive costs and also restrictions to research, without positive and clear benefits to animal welfare.This will make it very difficult to create international scientific collaborations with countries outside the EU.In this context it might result in market distortions and consequences will include being unable to face a global market and render the EU globally uncompetitive.However, we should be clear that most of the provisions, which are now going to be implemented in all Member States, are currently common practice and law in some of the more economically successful Member States.It is not clear whether animal studies and projects will now increasingly take place outside the eU under lower standards of welfare.The level of bureaucracy and increase of costs has to be considered: the revision of the Directive is complex (Fig. 1) and several levels of authorisations and review prior and during the project of research are introduced.Again, most of this is already done in some countries without major distortion of markets.
the research community was concerned during the discussion toward the revision mainly about the following aspects (eURO-HORC, 2009; i.e. by the organisation of European Heads of Research Councils), which were considered to limit research: For alternative methods, the Commission proposal from 2008 had suggested the creation of National Reference laboratories to collaborate with the Commission (ECVAM) on validation.This proposal was abandoned during the decision process.The nominated national laboratories and national contact points represent a start, but not necessarily a financial commitment to further the case.
All together, the new Directive harmonises the Member States on a high animal welfare level.It further enhances the european legislation's pilot role in advancing these standards world-wide.
. The Directive is horizontal to the different regulations for products such as mid-Nineties to 2010.Noteworthy, Article 58 foresees a report by the Commission after seven years on the functioning of the Directive, another measure to achieve timely adaptation where appropriate.The Annexes detail: -ANNex I: list of animals referred to in Article 10 (species needed to be purpose-bred) -ANNex II: list of non-human primates and dates referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) -ANNex III: Requirements for establishments and for the care and accommodation of animals -ANNEX IV: Methods of killing animals -ANNEX V: List of elements referred to in Article 23(3) (minimum requirements with regard to education and training and the requirements for obtaining, maintaining and demonstrating requisite competence) -ANNEX VI: List of elements referred to in Article 37(1)(c) (minimum elements to be included in an ap plication for project authorisation) -ANNEX VII: Duties and Tasks of the Union Reference laboratory -ANNEX VIII: Severity classification of procedures the comparison of the legal texts from 1986 and 2010 was based on the articles of the body of the legislation.Recitals and annexes were considered where necessary.
Directive establishes measures for the protection of animals used for scientific or educational purposes.To that end, it lays down rules on the following: (a) the replacement and reduction of the use of animals in procedures and the refinement of the breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures; (b) the origin, breeding, marking, care and accommodation and killing of animals; (c) the operations of breeders, suppliers and users; (d) the evaluation and authorisation of projects involving the use of animals in procedures.
(a) basic research; (b) translational or applied research with any of the following aims: (i) the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or other abnormality or their effects in human beings, animals or plants; (ii) the assessment, detection, regulation or modification of physiological conditions in human beings, animals or plants; or (iii) the welfare of animals and the improvement of the production conditions for animals reared for agricultural purposes.(c) for any of the aims in point (b) in the Article 72.An experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.[see also new Article 22, old Article 19] [see also new Article 1, old Article 3] New: New:-extension to basic research, welfare of animals / production conditions, preservation of the species, higher education / vocational training and forensic inquiries -restriction of development, manufacture, quality, effectiveness and safety testing to aims under (b) See also Article 1 # = details available in the complete table available at www.altex.chor http://altweb.jhsph.edu/.development, manufacture or testing of the quality, effectiveness and safety of drugs, foodstuffs and feed-stuffs and other substances or products; (d) protection of the natural environment in the interests of the health or welfare of human beings or animals; (e) research aimed at preservation of the species; (f) higher education, or training for the acquisition, maintenance or improvement of vocational skills; (g) forensic inquiries.prejudice to national legislation prohibiting certain types of methods, Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of a live animal, is recognized under the legislation of the Union.[see also new Article 4, old Article 7] List in Annex IV New: -restriction of non-human primate use, though "A debilitating clinical condition for the purposes of this Directive means a reduction in a person's normal physical or psychological ability to function."-ban of great ape use, though with a safeguard clause New: -stricter wording against use of wild animals List in Annex I New: Union Reference Laboratory shall be responsible, in particular, for: (a) coordinating and promoting the development and use of alternatives to procedures including in the areas of basic and applied research and regulatory testing; (b) coordinating the validation of alternative approaches at Union level; (c) acting as a focal point for the exchange of information on the development of alternative approaches; (d) setting up, maintaining and managing public databases and information systems on alternative approaches and their state of development; The safeguard clauses of Article 55 represent strong hurdles, as the eU committee established in Article 56 has to agree on the need for the given project and objections from various Member States are likely) and those on other non-human primates are discouraged (Article 8, Recital 17) 4. Non-human primate research is restricted to medical research and development, i.e. "translational or applied research with … aims [of] the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or other abnormality or their effects in human beings, animals or plants" or "in the development, manufacture or testing of the quality, effectiveness and safety of drugs, foodstuffs and feed-stuffs and other substances or products" and to "basic research or preservation of the species".The Directive further requires scientific justification that no other species can be used and that a debilitating clinical condition is being studied, i.e. a certain severity of the disease under study, though the definition of debilitating provided, i.e. "a reduction in a person's normal physical or psychological ability to function", is very open.
Fourth, minimum, binding housing and care requirements are included (Article 22, Annex III).They represent the standards the european Commissions has signed under agreements of the Council of europe in 2007 (Recital 5 6 ) and are thus already incorporated in the eU legislative framework through a Commission Recommendation 2007/526/EC.

Fig. 1 :
Fig. 1: Schematic diagramme of processes and interactions of the 2010 EU Directive on the protection of animals used scientific purposes 1. Restriction of use of Non-Human Primates (Article 8) 2. Severity Levels (Article 15) 3. Restrictions on reuse (Article 16) 4. Extension of scope of Directive to cover invertebrates and larval forms (Article 2) 5. Care and accommodation (Article 33 and Annex IV) Similar concerns were voiced by the european Coalition for Biomedical Research (http://www.ecbr.eu/).

Table 1
Article 22 1.In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of experiments for the purposes of satisfying national or Community health and safety legislation, Member States shall as far as possible recognize the validity of data generated by experiments carried out in the territory of another Member State unless further testing is necessary in order to protect public health and safety.