Chapter 16 
Regulation of Animal Use 
in Selected Foreign Countries 
The protections afforded animals vary greatly 
among countries, from almost complete disregard 
of animal welfare to the many cultural and legal 
protections provided in Western Europe and Can- 
ada. These protections are currently the subject 
of heated debate in many countries, particularly 
where animal protection is already significant. In 
1985, for example, Switzerland's voters rejected 
a referendum that would have virtually banned 
the use of animals for experimental purposes . The 
use of the LD 50 in safety testing continues to be 
given careful scrutiny by Government and scien- 
tific organizations in Switzerland (73,76, 77) and 
the United Kingdom (4,67,69). 
Actions taken in other countries are relevant to 
U.S. policies for several reasons. First, steps taken 
by trading partners can lead to political and eco- 
nomic pressures to take similar actions. Second, 
decreased use of animals abroad, particularly by 
multinational corporations, can lead to an in- 
creased use in the United States. Finally, the ex- 
periences of other countries can serve as instruc- 
tive models , both for policies and for their effects . 
This chapter describes the laws of Australia, Can- 
ada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, 
Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Swit- 
zerland, and the United Kingdom. The most com- 
mon provisions are prohibitions against painful 
experiments without anesthesia unless anesthe- 
sia would frustrate the purpose of the experiment; 
requirements for licensing or permitting of facil- 
ities, investigators, or experiments; limitations on 
animal use for education; and requirements for 
internal or external review of experiments by 
interdisciplinary committees. Two of the more 
unusual provisions are the protection of crusta- 
ceans (Norway) and of native nonvertebrates (the 
Netherlands). 
The impact of these laws on the welfare of ani- 
mals is affected by several factors other than the 
substantive requirements of the laws, including 
societal attitudes toward animals; training of scien- 
tists and technicians, both in techniques and in 
ethics; the composition and procedures of review- 
ing committees; and the vigor of animal welfare 
advocates. This chapter discusses the substantive 
and procedural aspects of these various laws and, 
where information was available, criticisms and 
comments on the effectiveness of the systems. 
In addition to the array of national laws, there 
are international agreements— both in effect and 
proposed— that affect animal welfare. Among 
these, the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species, bans on trade in primates, 
the Draft Convention of the Council of Europe, 
and the guidelines of the Council for International 
Organizations of Medical Sciences, are discussed 
in appendix E. 
AUSTRALIA 
In Australia, as in the United States, animal wel- 
fare is primarily a State concern. Each State has 
its own legislation and regulations for animal ex- 
perimentation. At the Federal level, a select com- 
mittee of the Australian Senate is in the early stages 
of an 18-month examination of animal welfare, and 
in 1985 the National Health and Medical Research 
Council revised its Code of Practice for experimen- 
tal animals (41a). 
Of the States, New South Wales has the most 
extensive laws. Its Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- 
mals Act, passed in 1901 and amended many times, 
prohibits activities such as inflicting unnecessary 
pain; killing, mutilating, or poisoning; and failing 
to provided proper food, drink, shelter, or exer- 
cise. Experimentation is permitted only in the most 
humane manner available and pain must be al- 
leviated. The most recent amendments, in 1979, 
359 
