Animal testing ‘needed’
A scientist is calling on the Government to amend a drug law to allow animal testing, saying the current system is ineffective.
The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (PSA), which covers everything from coffee to cocaine, was amended in 2014 after a 60,000-strong petition and multiple protests put pressure on the Government to disallow the use of drug testing on animals.
Massey University scientist Dr Marta Rychert has studied the act, even writing her thesis on it, and said there was a general consensus among academics that animal testing was needed to run certain tests.
Her comments come after a mandatory review of the PSA showed the act failed to decide whether new psychoactive drugs were of ‘‘low risk’’ – therefore making them all illegal.
However, a spokesperson for Health Minister David Clark said amending the act was not on the Government’s agenda.
That meant the law would continue to fulfil only a small part of its function, Rychert said.
‘‘There are no alternatives to animal testing to prove certain aspects of product safety, such as whether or not it would cause cancer,’’ she said.
‘‘For the PSA to be fully workable, some modification of the ban is needed. This could involve allowing the use of evidence from already concluded animal trials (that is, no new animal trials would be conducted and no animals would be hurt).’’
The act is able to make psychoactive substances legal but due to its inability to provide accurate test results it can’t safely allow the manufacture, distribution or sale of these drugs, if they were to be deemed ‘‘low risk’’.
Before a drug can be legalised there needs to be evidence from pre-clinical and clinical trials – and no ethics committee will allow a human clinical trial if the products haven’t been animal tested first, she said.
A statement from the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee concluded that ‘‘the tests required to address the following aspects of safety are currently only satisfactorily determined in animal models ...’’
They go on to list safety aspects such as the effects on pregnancy, cancer, the immune system, addiction and other aspects of the human body.
Animal rights groups Safe and the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (NZAVS) were ‘‘concerned’’ a government report would even mention bringing animal testing back.
‘‘I was shocked’’ said executive director of NZAVS Tara Jackson. ‘‘I take that quite seriously.
‘‘I talked to the minister’s office and it really sounded like they weren’t going to listen to the review ... but saying that it isn’t on the agenda isn’t a solid enough statement – if they genuinely won’t [repeal the ban] then why can’t we have a statement saying that.’’
When asked by Stuff if they could provide such a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of health said they would not be adding any more comment.
Safe head of campaigns Marianne Macdonald agreed, emphasising that it was essential the ban stayed in place.
Both Safe and NZAVS argue that animal tests are pointless as we aren’t ‘‘6 foot rats’’ and our bodies will react differently to drugs.
The PSA Advisory Committee stated that their position was that until a ‘‘suitable and internationally recognised non-animal alternative exists’’ it may be unable to approve of any psychoactive products.
Rychert said there was potential for psychoactive drugs to move into the black market if they were not able to go through the formal process.