Response to interpellation 2023/24:215 on measures to replace, reduce and refine the use of animal testing
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns measures to replace, reduce, and improve the use of animal testing according to the 3R principles. KD argues that Sweden is a leading country where all actors shall act based on the 3R principles and that the goal is to replace all tests as soon as it is scientifically possible 1 2 3. KD emphasizes that the 3R center is included in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's instructions and that research on alternative methods is funded 1 2 3. MP criticizes the government for the budget lacking funding for the 3R center, which they see as words without action 4 5. MP argues that animal testing is an outdated and uncertain method 4. MP claims that they are the only party with an animal policy program 6. KD points out that MP's budget increase for the Swedish Board of Agriculture concerns civil defense and zoonoses, not the 3R center 2. KD notes that MP's budget lacks specific investments in the 3R center 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me what measures and strategies I intend to take to ensure that the work to replace, reduce and improve the use of animal testing is maintained.
I want to begin by stating that all animal testing activities shall be permeated by the fundamental premise that animals may only be used if the purpose of the experiment cannot be achieved without the use of animals, that as few animals as possible are used, and that the animals are not subjected to greater suffering than is absolutely necessary - this according to the 3R principles, from the English replace, reduce and refine. This means that all actors who handle laboratory animals shall act based on these principles.
Furthermore, the member states shall ensure at the national level that alternative methods are promoted and that information about these methods is disseminated. In Sweden, this work is carried out, among other places, at the Swedish Board of Agriculture which, in accordance with its instructions, has a competence center for 3R issues with the aim of promoting and coordinating the work to replace, reduce and refine animal testing.
Just as the interpellator states, Sweden, in accordance with the European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/63/EU of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, strives towards the ultimate goal of replacing all experiments on living animals for scientific purposes and for educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so.
The development of alternative methods to animal testing is an important step toward achieving this goal. Sweden has a long tradition of supporting research for the development of animal-testing-free alternatives, and through the Swedish Research Council, research on and development of alternative methods to animal testing is funded. Earmarked funds are also allocated for Swedish laboratories' participation in projects on the validation of alternative methods at the EU level.
I want to emphasize that Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to animal welfare, and it is my and the government's ambition that Sweden shall continue to be so.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! As a member of the EU, Sweden naturally has various important directives to comply with, not least the one that the Minister for Agriculture himself mentioned: the directive on laboratory animals, where 3R plays a major role. It stands for replace – replace, reduce – reduce the number, and refine – refine the experiments.
This is something that we must carry out as part of the EU, and so far there has been great consensus on this in Swedish politics, which I find pleasing but also very reasonable. Late this year, we could read about motions from the Moderaterna demanding that we go further and develop an action plan to phase out animal testing, something that we in Miljöpartiet also are pushing for.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is very surprising and a great disappointment that the government is now presenting a very contradictory budget. It states in the text that they safeguard the work with 3R, but there is no money. There have been earmarked funds since the start, but now there is no funding. It is, therefore, words without action.
Many have become concerned about this and have signed petitions to put pressure on the government and try to get it to come to its senses and change its position and continue to fund the important center.
Madam Speaker! Animal testing belongs to an outdated view both of animals and of research. Many believe that animal testing must be done to obtain a good and accurate medicine, for example, but of the medicines that are approved after having been tested on, for example, rats and mice, it is only 1-2 out of 100 that subsequently work well on humans.
Even though there are many similarities, animals and humans are not identical. What can be a successful medicine for one can mean a certain death for the other. It is an uncertain method, it is an expensive method and it is time-consuming. But of course, it is the animals that pay the highest price.
According to the stricter definition of what animal testing entails, which also includes criteria regarding suffering and that it must be painful, in 2021 in Sweden, 2,798 rabbits, 65 cats, 566 dogs and 59 primates were used in animal testing, which was therefore painful.
We must remember, Madam Speaker, that these are individuals who feel emotions and who are subjected to great suffering. Dogs are kept in cages indoors in laboratories, cats are kept in groups in small, windowless rooms, and rabbits are kept alone in small cages. Most animals die at the end of the experiments. Some animals, such as primates and dogs, can however, so to speak, be reused in several experiments, and then the experimenting begins again.
Seven out of ten in Sweden do not accept animal testing on larger animals, according to the Swedish Research Council, and yet they continue and increase.
Madam Speaker! There are alternatives, which is positive. I would like to know whether it is by mistake or intentionally that the investment in the 3R center is being discontinued.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Sweden has strong animal welfare legislation, and it naturally also covers the animals used for experiments. Every animal experiment must be reviewed and approved by a regional ethics committee for animal experiments. The goal is, as stated, to phase out animal experiments as soon as it is scientifically possible.
I want to remind that the funding for the 3R center has been time-limited special investments. It is natural that such an activity becomes part of the regular operations.
Sweden supports the final objective of the Directive on the use of laboratory animals to replace all testing on living animals for scientific purposes and for educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. To achieve that objective, it is a prerequisite that new animal-free alternatives exist and are developed, and that the use of these methods is promoted and facilitated.
In addition to the involvement of Swedish laboratories at the EU level, the Swedish Research Council also annually funds research into and development of alternative methods. The work is therefore not standing still.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I am receiving somewhat different signals. In the budget, the funding simply is not there, but from the Minister for Rural Affairs, it sounds as if one is talking oneself into a phase-out and for fulfilling the EU's directives.
I am very curious and would really like to get a straight answer. Will the 3R center remain? Will it survive the government's budget, or will it become as it seems? Christina Nordin, who is the Director-General of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, says as follows: "For Sweden's 3R center, it is about the fact that we have not received any funding for the operations in the upcoming budget." She adds that this will also affect the EU-support activities, which the government usually emphasizes as being particularly important when it comes to animal welfare.
Now, 39 positions have been notified of layoffs. It sounds very good on paper that the 3R center is to remain, but if there are no people with funding to work there, it will not become a workshop. Then we cannot phase out animal testing, and then we cannot achieve our directives.
The Minister for Rural Affairs mentioned that it should happen as soon as it is scientifically possible. But it is not science that is putting spokes in the wheels, it is about when it is politically possible.
If one does not have the sense to finance the activity, which functions as a successful hub for connecting researchers, spreading method development and promoting the dialogue on how we can implement the directive and phase out painful animal experiments, it just becomes words on paper.
Madam Speaker! One can often believe that animal testing is something that belongs to history, but I want to briefly remind of such things as animals are subjected to today in Sweden: infections that make animals seriously ill or die, deliberate induction of severe disease states that are painful and lead to death, breeding of animals with genetic diseases to see expected and perceived significant and lasting impairment, forced swimming or physical exercise to exhaustion, and testing of poison on animals to see what the consequences will be. Of course, many animals die as a result of these tests.
I want to emphasize once again that there are alternatives – that is the good news here. One can work with cultured cell cultures. One can work with computer models, mathematical models, and chemical analysis methods. One can choose organisms that do not have as well-developed nervous systems, for example bacteria, yeast, algae, fungi, and plants.
So there are alternatives, but it requires politics to stimulate this. In that regard, the 3R center is an incredibly important part. They do not conduct research themselves, but they link researchers together so that they can learn about other methods that actually work better, which do not involve unnecessary suffering and an enormous amount of death, which do not cost as much and which are more accurate.
Therefore, I want to ask again and would like to receive a clear answer: Will the 3R center survive, not just on paper but with people who can work to promote research and incorporate the directive? Will it survive the government's budget? Will the Minister for Rural Affairs take an active role in correcting any mistakes?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The EU's Directive on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes has been incorporated into Swedish legislation. This means that the so-called 3R principles shall permeate all activities involving laboratory animals and that everyone who works with laboratory animals shall have the objective that animal experiments shall, to the greatest extent possible, be refined, reduced, and, if possible, replaced.
I can also note that it is written in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's instructions that there shall be a competence center for 3R issues within the agency with the aim of promoting and coordinating the work to replace, reduce and refine animal experiments.
I cannot read out any specific numerical commitment in the Green Party's budget in appropriation 1:8 regarding this purpose. Based on that, correct me if I am wrong, I interpret it as that the Green Party, in like manner with the government, finances the work within the Swedish Board of Agriculture's framework. What is stated is that the Green Party wants to strengthen appropriation 1:8 Swedish Board of Agriculture by 77 million more than the government for 2024. But these funds shall enable financing of work with civil defense, preparedness, increased threats of zoonoses and animal diseases such as salmonella.
This is what Miljöpartiet writes in its budget, so I can throw the question back: Will the 3R-center survive with Miljöpartiet's budget?
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! A big thank you to the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is doing an incredibly good job of promoting the Green Party's policies! I am incredibly proud that we were involved in financing the 3R center from the start.
Just as the Minister for Rural Affairs mentions, we write in our budget that we want to strengthen the funding, and we stand by that. If you are interested in a budget cooperation that focuses on the animals, you are absolutely welcome to contact us with good ideas. We are the only party in the Riksdag that has an animal policy program. Feel free to read it and take inspiration from it! I offer that. I am also happy to talk.
The 3R-centre has absolutely survived. It started thanks to Miljöpartiet and has absolutely survived. I am very happy about that.
What I am not particularly happy about is the lack of clarity. I would like to know if it is a deliberate choice not to include the 15 million in the budget that has been the funding previously, or if it is a mistake. I want it to be stated in the next reply, so that the people who are watching and those who have signed the petition – it is almost 30,000 people, so there is a great interest in this – know whether it is deliberate or a mistake. It is actually important to know, because most people think this is extremely obvious. A large part of the governing parties also think so. If it is a mistake, let it be, but then it is important that the Minister for Rural Affairs now takes on the role of fixing it. That can be done in regulatory letters, and a dialogue can be had if it is the case that the Swedish Board of Agriculture's gd has misunderstood something. Now it is very unfortunate, because the staff has already been laid off.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The Government is of the opinion that high animal welfare is extremely important. This is especially important when it concerns laboratory animals that sometimes need to be subjected to intentional suffering.
As I have just said, it is clearly stated in the instructions to the Swedish Board of Agriculture that the 3R competence center shall be there.
I can only observe from the member's enumeration that you do indeed write things, just as the member said the government does, but that there is no money. It is also a good clarification that there are no longer any specific investments in a 3R-center in the Green Party's budget either, and that the increase in appropriation 1:8 concerns entirely other matters. But it is good that it is also clarified.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.