Tag Archives: mačka

Vivisekcija, ako ste se pitali zašto?

VIVSEKCIJA, ako ste se zapitali ….zašto su mješanci traženi?!

označava “rezanje na živo”, pokusi se, bez obzira na njihovu namjenu, odvijaju tako da uzrokuju nezamislivu bol

BROJKE : Od 400 000 do 600 000 životinja se godišnje ubije u Europi za potrebe vivisekcije
( Izvor B. Fedi , Italija)


I Video :
Na dan 08.09.2010. godine Europska Unija legalizirala je uporabu mješanaca,
pasa i mačaka iz azila , napuštenih životinja, pasa i mačaka prikupljenih putem oglasnika
za potrebe vivisekcije:

PRVI VIDEO  : Objava odluke kojom se i u EU omogućuje uporaba mješanaca, pasa i mačaka ( 2010.)
u SAD-u je to uobičajena praksa zabranjena samo u manjem broju USA država.


2. Video :

Prof Bruno  Fedi, primarijus 30 godina na Univerzitetu Terni, Italija, jedan od najstarijih i najuglednijih europskih animalista, jedan od osnivača “zelenih”,  profesor, vegetarijanac  izjavio je
da velike kompanije tzv.”Big Pharma” promovira  vivisekciju i uporabu živih životinja, majmuna, pasa, mačaka jer takav tip “eksperimenata” dozvoljava falsificiranje rezultata istraživanja!

Naime, takav je tip “istraživanja” vrlo kompliciran, – nastavio je Fendi, omogućuje “velikim” da falsificiraju rezultate u svoje svrhe.  Npr. – naglasio je Fendi – da “veliki” namjerno koriste pse, mačke, majmune jer je takav tip životinja iznimno osjetljiv i svaki tip “istraživanja” daje rezultate čime se “istraživaču” otvara prostor da zakonodavcu pruži izliku da je lijek izazvao efekt na probnoj masi životinja ….tada imaju rezultat od 100% efekta ,a “zaborave” reći sve ono što im ne odgovara -zaključio je Fendi i nastavio da vivisekcija a ujedno zatvara mogućnost malim “proizvođačima” da ugroze monopol velikih jer je protokol testiranja na životinjama prilično kompliciran i skup što “mali” ne mogu pokriti.

Op.a. Uporaba mješanaca, pasa i mačaka za potrebe istraživanja promovora se iz čisto financijskih razloga. Jednostavno su puno jeftiniji od pasa ili mačaka iz uzgoja.








BUAV ORG OPPOSES EU animal testing Directive ( 22.09.2011.)

OPPOSES the massive reduction in inspections (by up to 90%) and the abolition of unannounced (“surprise” inspections), both of which are being considered by the Home Office

OPPOSES the removal of tighter regulations on the use of dogs, cats and horses

OPPOSES relaxation of rules on the marking of animals (EU proposal would allow painful marking practices)

OPPOSES relaxation of rules on experiments on endangered species

OPPOSES allowing the use of stray and feral animals, which could result in stolen or abandoned pets being used

LINK :http://www.buav.org/article/830/buav-submission-to-the-uk-government-regarding-eu-animal-testing-directive
Directive 86/609/EEC?

Stricter national measures

Article 2 of Directive 2010/63/EU provides that:

Stricter national measures

Member States may, while observing the general rules laid down in the TFEU, maintain provisions in force on 9 November 2010, aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals falling within the scope of this Directive than those contained in this Directive.

Before 1 January 2013 Member States shall inform the Commission about such national provisions. The Commission shall bring them to the attention of other Member States.

When acting pursuant to paragraph 1, a Member State shall not prohibit or impede the supply or use of animals bred or kept in another Member State in accordance with this Directive, nor shall it prohibit or impede the placing on the market of products developed with the use of such animals in accordance with this Directive.

In accordance with Article 2 above, the following stricter national measures have been notified to the European Commission:

1. “Worryingly, the new laws would also prevent member states from adopting more ambitious rules on animal testing at national level. I specially regret that stricter rules on the use of non-human primates were not adopted.”

The directive does not cover behavioural studies carried out on animals kept in zoos or those used in military experiments, or non-experimental, agricultural or clinical veterinary practices and trials. It also does not cover practices used in recognised husbandry or for marking an animal, or non-invasive research practices.

3.The Commission believes that at present it is not possible to ban outright the use of animals for safety testing or biomedical research. This conclusion is backed by the Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) which stated that there remains a need for non-human primates in biomedical research.

4. he Commission is aware that using animals for biomedical research or regulatory safety testing may sometimes be unavoidable.

5.The Commission does not believe it is possible to phase out the use of non-human primates in the foreseeable future. Non-human primates are currently used for a number of vital research programmes on infectious diseases such as HIV, malaria, hepatitis, and SARS.

6.Furthermore, in the areas of basic research and applied research in which test methods are not detailed in EU legislation, Article 4(1) provides that “Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure”. This obligation is strong and a decision not to use an available scientifically satisfactory alternative method would need to be clearly justified.

7.The 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC) establishes a testing and marketing ban on cosmetics tested on animals. The directive on animal testing does not amend the rules provided for in other pieces of EU legislation, it simply lays down how testing on animals can be carried out when it is necessary.

The testing ban on cosmetics has existed since 2009 when testing was prohibited irrespective of alternatives to animal testing being available. The marketing ban applies unconditionally to all human health effects with the exception of three toxicological effects. 2013 is foreseen as the deadline for a ban on testing for these three specific health effects.

8.Under the EU’s chemicals law REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals), industry is required to safely manufacture, import and use chemicals. To do so, sufficient information on hazardous chemicals must be available. However, the hazardous properties of chemicals cannot be sufficiently determined using currently available in vitro (non-animal) testing methods, an issue highlighted in a report published by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative methods (ECVAM). Relying solely on in vitro methods can underestimate the potentially hazardous properties of chemicals that could be harmful to humans and the environment.

REACH limits animal testing to a bare minimum by requiring the sharing of information resulting from tests where vertebrate animals were used. This data becomes publicly available 12 years after it has been submitted to the European Chemicals Agency

9.The reduction of animal testing is one of the objectives of the ongoing revision of the Biocides Directive. In light of this, the proposed Regulation, which will replace the Biocides Directive, requires that testing on vertebrate animals is undertaken only as a last resort. In the future, it will not be possible to repeat animal testing for the purposes of the proposed Regulation

The Member States will have 24 months to adopt and publish national legislation which will transpose the provisions of this Directive. The new Directive will take effect on 1 January 2013.



2. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100092683/animal-experiments-legislation-another-done-deal-from-the-eu/