ON HIS website, Neil Parish, who represents the South-West in the European Parliament, proclaims his animal welfare credentials. Sadly, they appear not to extend to laboratory animals. Mr Parish has written a report for the key committee involved in revising the European animal experiments law and therefore carries considerable influence. The report is deeply disappointing, playing to the tune of the multi-billion-pound animal research industry which wants to be able to carry on exactly as before.

For example, he would allow suffering to animals which is both severe and prolonged, an utter obscenity in a civilised society. The the same animal to be used repeatedly in painful experiments, including multiple surgical procedures. Monkeys, cats and dogs to continue to be used (for just about any purpose), and monkeys to be trapped in the wild for breeding, long into the future. He would place virtually no limit on animal use, including testing for trivial household and other products, plants, stressful psychology experiments, tobacco and weapons research. Astonishingly, Mr Parish does not even think companies should have to get permission to experiment on animals from governments in the vast majority of cases, a key part of the UK system. And, although he pays lip service to the need for greater openness, his approach will result in very little.

Above all, there is no strategy to achieve the objective he and everyone else says they want, the eventual elimination of animal experiments. Mr Parish and his colleagues are way out of step with public opinion. A very recent poll by YouGov in six European countries shows large majorities wanting a ban on experiments on monkeys, cats and dogs and severe suffering, and a large majority wanting much more openness. Even where people are prepared to tolerate animal experiments, it is only for life-threatening or serious human conditions, not for the swathe of other purposes for which they are carried out.

There is still time to write to Mr Parish before a key meeting later this month. His email is neilparishmep@btinternet.com

SHARON HOWE

Sidmouth

Neil Parish MEP replies: I am, and always have been, a passionate defender of laboratory animals. I took on this report for exactly that reason and my report will significantly toughen up the rules around the EU. In addition, the efforts I have made through my report will encourage the development of alternative testing methods, ensure data on animal tests is shared and that there are regular thematic reviews on experiments involving non-human primates. This directive is therefore a significant step forward for animal welfare. However, this is a huge moral dilemma. We all want to see animal experimentation reduced; however, we also want to benefit from vaccines or medicines when we or our relatives develop illnesses. Vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella and meningitis, along with combined therapy drugs for HIV, medicines to control asthma, life support systems for premature babies and Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's disease have all been developed through experiments on on primates. Many millions of lives have been saved or improved as a result. Animal experimentation is vital in the search for the cure for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. My report, far from achieving very little, sets the framework for animal experiments to be phased out as soon as we have alternatives in place while ensuring research can continue in Europe, rather than just being exported to China where welfare standards are non-existent. I believe that this is the most sensible way to deal with this immensely difficult and emotional subject.