EARLIER this year I suggested that if all medical products tested on animals
had to carry a label saying so, people who oppose animal testing would be able
to decide whether they wanted to use them
(91av, 18 March, p 51).
I am amazed at how many people seem to think they can have medicines
without animal tests.
So I was pleased when Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, told me he agrees with
my suggestion for labelling. “Although the Home Office is not in a position to
take forward this principle, it might be something that the Department of Trade
and Industry and other departments could look at. There are international
obligations and limitations on labelling of products, of course. Because of
that, I am copying your note to the trade minister, Richard Caborn, with a
covering letter from me,” said Straw.
The label should be large and clear, and on the front of the package or
bottle. I wouldn’t want it to be tucked away in small type at the end of the
sheet that details dosage and possible side effects. Those sheets are difficult
enough to read, and busy doctors aren’t likely to get around to mentioning
“animal testing” to their patients.
Advertisement
None of this should stop us vigorously searching for alternatives to animal
tests. But we need to know as much as we can about a drug’s mode of action or
any harmful side effects before granting it a licence or giving it to people.
Much effort has gone into cell testing and computer-based techniques. However,
as yet there is no satisfactory alternative to animal testing.
KURT KLEINER reports that the latest weapon in the war against cocaine may
soon be spread on the coca fields of Colombia
(91av, 11 March, p 5).
The UN International Drug Control Programme (IDCP) is negotiating with the
government of Colombia to conduct open field trials with a strain of the fungus
Fusarium oxysporum to attack coca plants, the source of cocaine. It all
sounds good. However, as Kleiner explains, the idea has fallen foul of some
critics who fear that the fungus could spread to other vegetation and even lead
to further deforestation of the Amazon.
I’m told by experts that F. oxysporum is a notoriously changeable
fungus and may be able to invade many non-target hosts. It could thus pose a
serious threat to even legitimate crop plants and indigenous wild species.
I intend to ask ministers responsible for the British input to the IDCP
whether it is appropriate to use F. oxysporum as a weapon against coca
in Colombia. If experiments are to go ahead, then the precautionary principle
must be fully enforced. Certainly, politicians must be careful before
encouraging the introduction of alien species for whatever reason.
FRED PEARCE’s interview with Nakibae Teuatabo, the elder statesman of the
South Pacific state of Kiribati, greatly moved me
(91av, 12 February, p 44).
The only time that I can remember agreeing strongly with
Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister was on her concern over the effect
of climate change on the Maldive Islands. Now it seems that many South Pacific
islands could be washed away, too.
George Foulkes, the junior minister at the Department for International
Development, tells me that his department actively supports a regional disaster
programme, run by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission. The DFID has
also agreed to fund a water and sanitation programme and pay for an adviser to
help develop sustainable ways of using water resources.
Britain also supports a community theatre group in Kiribati. It stages plays
with environmental themes, both on the main atoll and on the remote outer
islands, spreading the message to the poorest and most disadvantaged
communities.
