Ch. 16— Regulation of Animal Use in Selected Foreign Countries • 377 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
Most of the countries examined for this assess- 
ment have laws far more protective of experi- 
mental animals than those in the United States. 
Despite these protections, animal welfare advo- 
cates have been applying considerable pressure 
for even stronger laws, and many countries, 
including Australia, Switzerland, West Germany, 
and the United Kingdom, are considering major 
changes. 
Many of the laws have similar requirements. 
Almost all require anesthetics or analgesics for 
painful experiments unless these would frustrate 
the purpose of the experiment. Switzerland goes 
so far as to require that certain experiments be 
forgone because they are too painful . Some coun- 
tries balance the importance of the experiment 
and the level of pain it would cause before giving 
approval. 
Several countries require euthanasia after a pain- 
ful experiment is finished; some require destruc- 
tion of an animal even when it is no longer in pain, 
rather than allowing it to be reused. Euthanasia 
requirements sometimes apply only to certain ani- 
mals, such as dogs, cats, and monkeys. These spe- 
cies are also preferred in other ways, such as re- 
quiring that lower animals be substituted for them 
wherever possible. 
Many countries encourage the use of alterna- 
tives, and Denmark, West Germany, the Nether- 
CHAPTER 16 
1. Australia, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Reg- 
ulations, New South Wales Government Gazette, 
No. 68, May 24, 1929. 
2 . Australia , Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act Reg- 
ulations, New South Wales Government Gazette, 
No. 200, 1979. 
3. Balls, M., Chairman of the Trustees, Fund for the 
Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, 
Nottingham, England, personal communication, 
March 1985. 
4. Balls, M., Riddell, R.J., and Worden, A.N. (eds.), Ani- 
mals and Alternatives in Toxicity Testing (New York: 
Academic Press, 1983). 
lands, Norway, and Sweden require that non- 
animal alternatives be used if they are available. 
Sweden and the United Kingdom have provided 
funding for the development of alternatives, and 
West Germany is considering doing so. Many coun- 
tries restrict educational uses of animals to profes- 
sional or vocational training, and Switzerland pro- 
hibits even this. 
All West European countries reviewed for this 
assessment require that facilities that use experi- 
mental animals be licensed. Some also license 
dealers, breeders, or experimenters. Many also 
require that individual experiments be approved, 
some by Government authorities, some by com- 
mittees. Such committees, except in Sweden and 
the United Kingdom, do not require lay represent- 
atives, although Switzerland and Denmark have 
such representatives on national advisory boards . 
The use of ethics committees within the facilities 
that use animals is growing; their use is presently 
most well developed in Canada and Sweden. 
The experiences of these selected countries can 
serve as useful models for various protections that 
are being considered in the United States. How- 
ever, in trying to apply them, it is necessary to con- 
sider the size of a country, and perhaps more im- 
portantly, those cultural considerations that affect 
compliance with the laws. 
REFERENCES 
5. Barany, E., "The Swedish System of Ethical Com- 
mittees in the Laboratory Animals Field ,” Conquest 
172:10-15, March 1983. 
6. Canada, Animals for Research Act of 1970, Revised 
Statutes of Ontario, 1:103-117, 1980. 
7. Canada, Animals for Research Act, Revised Regu- 
lations of Ontario, 1980, Regulations 16 and 18, 1:79- 
98, 1980. 
8. Canada, Dog Control and Procurement Regulations 
for the Treatment of Animals, Alberta Regulation 
33-72, November 1972. 
9. Canada, the Universities Act of 1966, Province of 
Alberta, Section 50. 
38-750 O 
86 
13 
