The use of genetically altered animals has become routine within biomedical and pharmaceutical research. However, a number of serious ethical, welfare and safety concerns arise from the creation and use of genetically altered animals.

Eurogroup for Animals is opposed to the use of animals in science, testing and education which causes animals pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.

In its response to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save cruelty-free cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without animal testing’, the European Commission proposed a European Research Area policy action to reduce animal use in research and regulatory testing. This action aims to mobilise Member States to streamline their national and regional policies to reduce the use of animals in research and testing, while accelerating the development, validation and uptake of non-animal methods.

Achieving the goal to phase-out the use of animals in science requires the active involvement of a substantial number of stakeholders operating at Member State level. These actors include national/regional regulatory agencies, ministries, industry, other funding bodies, academia and ethics committees. This working document provides examples of actions that can be taken jointly by Member States to accelerate the transition towards medical science and regulatory testing without the use of animals.

This briefing has been prepared on behalf of five animal protection NGOs campaigning at EU level to end animal testing (Cruelty Free Europe, Eurogroup for Animals, the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, Humane Society International/Europe and PETA), in follow-up to the successful European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without Animal Testing’ [1], which was declared valid on 25th January 2023 with 1,217,916 signatures and promoted by over 100 national organisations.

This Position Paper reflects the key elements that Eurogroup for Animals would like to see included in a European wide strategy for the transition to non-animal science.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Austria’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Belgium’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Czechia’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Denmark’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Finland’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve France’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Germany’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Hungary's reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Ireland’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Italy’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Poland’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Spain’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve Sweden’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

This report provides recommendations that can improve The Netherlands’s reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

The present report provides recommendations that can improve Member States’ reporting on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

A better and more harmonised reporting by Member States will further increase transparency and openness, and will enable the assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU among all Member States.

Our recommendations are based on the new reporting requirements set out in the sections of Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2020/569/EU, and on best practices among the replies of the Member States to the EC 2018 survey on the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU.

The five animal protection groups – Cruelty Free Europe, Eurogroup for Animals, the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, Humane Society International/Europe and PETA – which together represent over 100 member organisations from 26 EU member states, strongly support the introduction of an oral question with motion for resolution calling for an EU Action Plan to phase out animal testing. Opinion polling carried out in June 2020 shows that nearly three quarters (72%) of adults in EU member states agree that the EU should set binding targets and deadlines to phase out testing on animals.

Eurogroup is opposed to the use of animals in science, testing and education which causes animals pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. Our definition of ‘animal’ includes foetal, embryonic and larval forms.
Our primary goal is to end the use of animals for science, testing and educational purposes, by replacing them with humane alternatives. We strive for a paradigm shift in society, politics and academia towards a humane, modern and animal-free research and regulatory approach. We are convinced that much greater effort can and must be made to develop, accept, implement and promote experimental and test methods and approaches that either replace or avoid animal use.

Genetic manipulation involves the deliberate modification of the genome - the material responsible for inherited characteristics. There are specific welfare concerns associated with genetic modification of animals. The crossing of boundaries between species and the interference with the genetic integrity of animals has also evoked strong moral objections.

Laboratory use of genetically modified (GM) animals continues to increase dramatically. Within the EU, statistical comparison of figures of GM animal use is not available, but where GM animals are listed by member states they are generally increasing. For example, in Sweden a recent 27,000 increase in the number of mice used is attributed to increase in genetic modification and in the UK GM animals now count for one quarter of all procedures .

In the field of biotechnology the pace of scientific development often outstrips meaningful ethical debate and Eurogroup is extremely concerned about the ethical and welfare implications of the use of biotechnology techniques on animals.