No, individuals will not be able to sell their animal to labs

• The 30 million Friends Foundation has published an article on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes which has caused a lot of reaction on social networks.
• The latter is concerned about the scope of a decree published on March 17, which modifies the conditions of derogations for the use by laboratories of animals from non-approved farms.
• However, some specialists do not share the same concern and try to qualify the words of the Foundation. 20 Minutes tries to see more clearly in this passionate debate.

For several days, pet lovers have been worried about their furry friends after the publication of an article on the 30 Millions d'Amis site, relayed in abundance on social networks, entitled "Decree broadening the provenance laboratory animals: the door open for the worst. " For this famous association for the defense of animals, “the breeding of hunting dogs, pets and even individuals can now… sell their animals to laboratories! "

According to the structure, the government took advantage of the confinement to pass "in all discretion", a decree "modifying certain provisions relating to the protection of animals used for scientific purposes", which had the gift of igniting the crowds. Problem, in this case, nobody can agree on the real scope of this decree.

Oi Law authorizing the sale of his animal to a laboratory - "This decree shows the lack of political will to look for methods that substitute # animal experimentation, preferring the easy way out: that of wasting lives!" »Reha Hutin # StopExpérimentation https://t.co/ay8jRx13yn

State affair with disastrous consequences for animals for certain associations (30 Million Friends, One Voice), media buzz based on the wind for others (Brigitte Bardot Foundation and Animal Law Foundation). Not knowing on what foot to dance, we put on our most beautiful ballerinas and jumped on the dancefloor to try to unravel the true from the false.

FAKE OFF

Let us put it right at the outset: the scope of this decree is difficult to assess and we are not in a position to settle the debate definitively. Well, not exactly. Regarding the particular villain who, when storing the cooler in the trunk of his car towards the holidays, was planning to make a little bifton by selling Medor to a lab rather than abandoning it cowardly on a playground highway, everyone agrees that it is about (bad) fantasy.

Even associations are standing up against this decree, such as One Voice, agree. It is for the rest that things get complicated. For Muriel Arnal for example, president of the association in question, which has filed an appeal before the Council of State, "breeders of hunting dogs rub their hands"at the idea of ​​being able to refourgue their "surplus" in exchange for a small green ticket.

#AnimalExperimentation Really painful to see that the media do not verify their sources ... Obviously NO, the decree adopted last March does not authorize the sale by individuals, hunters, etc. animals in the laboratories! https://t.co/cfarBZ0dpA

A theory that does not share the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, yet not frankly reputed to be in the pay of the government on animal issues. “If we intervened in this story, it is because we heard totally delusional things, like what the hunters were going to be able to sell their dogs to the laboratories. It's ridiculous. I have the impression that we made a leap of thirty years back, when we said a little everything and anything to move people, "breathes Christophe Marie, spokesperson for the initial foundation" BB " .

It is therefore not a joy at heart that this association came out of its reserve: "Our goal is not to defend the decree at all costs," continues Christophe Marie. Our goal for decades has been the end of animal testing. "However, we can not say or publish anything to make the buzz," says the Brigitte Bardot Foundation on its official website. As you can see, if these associations pursue more or less the same general objectives - the defense of animals and animal welfare - this decree opposes them.

You miss a few words and everything is misinterpreted

In fact, everything is a question of interpretation. What does this famous decree say? That "animals used or intended to be used in experimental procedures [...] must have been bred for this purpose and come from breeders or approved suppliers" and that "derogations [...] may be granted by the Minister responsible for research, after advice from the other ministers concerned, on the basis of duly justified scientific information. "It turns out that until March 17, and that's the crux of the problem, the text included a few additional lines and evoked the possibility, for the labs, of requesting derogations" on the basis of scientific evidence duly justified when the production of approved breeders is insufficient or does not suit the specific needs of the project ”.

Responsible for examining the case before the Council of State, Me Arielle Moreau, lawyer for One Voice, does not understand "  why it created such a controversy". "For me, it is simple, clear, we are attacking this decree because it is simply less protective for animals from the moment when the criteria for derogating from the prohibitions on using animals from non-approved farms are less restrictive. Conversely, Christophe Marie does not see in this decree matter to be overly alarmed. "We must not forget that this modification of the derogation is a response to the request made by the European Union to France after studying the transposition of the 2010 directive relating to the" protection of animals used for scientific purposes "in national law. "

A request from the European Commission

"France has introduced a derogation allowing laboratories to obtain supplies from approved suppliers when the production of approved breeders is insufficient or does not suit the specific needs of the project," explains the Brigitte Bardot Foundation on its site. However, “this possibility of derogation was considered by the European Commission to be too loose and not in accordance with the text of the directive. This is why the decree of March 2020 eliminates this possibility. "

To gain some height, we contacted a lawyer specializing in animal law outside the file. “It is certain that this can worry the supporters of animal protection, as a lawyer in animal law this decree worries me too. However, I think we have to qualify this a little, tempers Me Estager. It is true that we have two of the three conditions which are removed today, but the implementation of these derogations is always entrusted to the Departmental Directorate for the Protection of Persons (DDPP) and there is no question of allow laboratories to buy animals directly from breeders or individuals. "

🐕🐒 🔬 I call for a calming of the debates on the modification of the decree specifying the origins of experimental animals, and for the implementation of important means to develop replacement methods.
Find my position here:
👉🏻 https://t.co/3dzXJRuvTU pic.twitter.com/hI0V70de9J

Same tone from the side of the deputy Loïc Dombreval who, after having initially expressed his fears, has since reviewed his copy.If he understands the indignation of certain associations, he nevertheless judges their remarks "too alarmist" and calls "for a calming of the debate around this decree". "There is a kind of awkwardness in the way it is written because, at first glance, it seems to give much more flexibility in the supply of animals by laboratories. But in reality, when we look in detail, we realize that the modification made makes it possible to clarify the exceptional derogatory context, which must only be based on scientific elements duly justified to the ministers concerned (research, agriculture, environment ) by removing any economic contingency. "

Yes, the @gouvernementFR will carry the 3R rule: reduce, refine, replace. Works will be presented in the fall. Our country is a major player in biology and health research. Let us put an end to this sterile opposition between recourse to animals and alternative methods. pic.twitter.com/gMmB45L7mA

For Christophe Marie, of the Brigitte Bardo Foundation, this affair is above all a lot of noise for not much. "We made a point on the number of exemptions that may have been given in the past with the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Research and there must have been four or five in the last ten years, advance- he. It is an extremely rare phenomenon and I insist, the problem is not the decree, it is animal testing as a whole.

The government, through the voice of Frédérique Vidal, the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, also reaffirmed Tuesday during questions to the government the latter's willingness to support the search for alternative methods animal testing by laboratories when possible. Finally, it should be noted that the decree of March 17 also helped restore the balance within the National Commission for Animal Experimentation (CNEA) by doubling the number of animal protection representatives, which will drop from three to six. A step in the right direction, at least everyone agrees on this.

Society

Animal protection: Associations claim 15 million euros for independent shelters

• Society
• Fake Off
• Scientists
• Animals
• Animal protection