Animal welfare organisations have long been concerned about the use of animals for ecotoxicity testing. Ecotoxicity testing is a necessary part of the statutory risk assessment of chemicals that may be released into the environment. It is sometimes also carried out during the development of new chemicals and in the investigation of pollution in the field. This review considers the existing requirements for ecotoxicity testing, with particular reference to practices in the European Union, including the recent REACH system proposals, before discussing criticisms that have been made of existing practices for environmental risk assessment. These criticisms have been made on scientific and ethical grounds, as well as on questions of cost. A case is made for greater investment in the development of alternative testing methods, which could improve the science, as well as serving the cause of animal welfare. It has frequently been suggested that the statutory requirements for environmental risk assessment are too rigid and bureaucratic. A case is made for flexibility and the greater involvement of scientists in the risk assessment procedure, in the interests of both improved science and improved animal welfare.
Anon. (2003). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/ec and Regulation (EC) {on Persistent Organic Pollutants} COM(2003) 644 final, 1321pp. Brussels, Belgium:Commission of the European Communities.
2.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2003). Chemicals in Products — Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health, 24th Report, Cm5827, 291pp. London, UK:Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Available at: http://www.rcep.org.uk/chemicals.htm (Accessed 14.01.08).
3.
CombesR.D., DandreaJ. & BallsM. (2003). FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EC REACH system. ATLA31, 529–535.
4.
WalkerC.H. (2006). Ecotoxicity testing of chemicals with particular reference to pesticides. Pest Management Science62, 571–583.
5.
WalkerC.H., Greig-SmithP.W., CrosslandN.O. & BrownR. (1991). Ecotoxicology. In Animals and Alter natives in Toxicology: Present Status and Future Prospects (ed. BallsM., BridgesJ. & SoutheeJ.), pp. 223–252. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK:Macmillan.
6.
Anon. (1991). Council Directive 91/414/EEC of the European Communities of July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL 230, 1–29.
CalowP. (1994). Overview with observations on risk assessment and management. In Handbook of Ecotoxicology (ed. CalowP.), pp. 465–468. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
9.
MellanbyK. (1967). Pesticides and Pollution, 221pp. London, UK:Collins.
10.
PottsG.R. (1986). The Partridge, 274pp. London, UK:Collins.
11.
PottsG.R. (1997). Cereal farming, pesticides and grey partridges. In Farming and Birds in Europe (ed. PainD.J. & PenkowskiM.W.), pp. 150–177. London, UK:Academic Press.
12.
AveryM.I., EvansA.D. & CampbellL.H. (2004). Can pesticides cause reductions in bird populations? In Insect and Bird Interactions (ed. Van EmdenH.M. & RothschildM.), pp. 109–131. Andover, Hampshire, UK:Intercept Publishers.
BallsM., BridgesJ., & SoutheeJ. (eds) (1991). Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology: Present Status and Future Prospects, 390pp. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK:Macmillan.
16.
NewtonI. (1986). The Sparrowhawk, 396pp. Calton, Staffordshire, UK:Poyser.
MatthiessenP. & GibbsP.E. (1998). Critical appraisal of the evidence for TBT-mediated endocrine disruption in molluscs. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry17, 37–43.
19.
GilbertsonM., FoxG.A. & BowermanW.W. (eds) (1998). Trends in Levels and Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes, 258pp. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
GrueC.E., HartA.D.M. & MineauP. (1991). Biological consequences of depressed cholinesterase in wildlife. In Cholinesterase-inhibiting Insecticides —Their Impact on Wildlife and the Environment (ed. MineauP.), pp. 157–182. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier.
23.
BeauvaisS.L., JonesS.B., BrewerS.K. & LittleE. (2000). Physiological measures of neurotoxicity of diazinon and malathion, and their correlation with behavioural measures. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry19, 1875–1880.
24.
SandahlJ.F., BaldwinD.H. & JenkinsJ.J. (2005). Comparative thresholds for AChase: inhibition and behavioural impairment in Coho salmon exposed to chlorpyriphos. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry24, 136–145.
25.
MineauP. & PeakallD.B. (1987). An evaluation of avian impact assessment techniques following broad scale forest insecticide spraying. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry6, 781–789.
26.
BusbyD.G., WhiteL.M. & PearceP.A. (1990). Effects of aerial spraying of fenitrothion on breeding white-throated sparrows. Journal of Applied Ecology27, 743–755.
27.
LundholmC.E. (1997). DDE-induced eggshell thinning in birds; effects of DDE on the calcium and prostaglandin metabolism of the eggshell gland. Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology118C, 113–128.
28.
WalkerC.H. (2004). Organochlorine insecticides and raptors in Britain. In Insect and Bird Interactions (ed. Van EmdenH.F. & RothschildM.), pp. 133–148. Andover, Hampshire, UK:Intercept Publishers.
29.
NashJ.P., KimeD.E., Van der VenL.T.M., WesterP.W., BrionF., MaackG., Stahlschmidt-AllnerP. & TylerC.R. (2004). Long term exposure to environmental concentrations of the pharmaceutical ethynylestradiol causes reproductive failure in fish. Environmental Health Perspectives112, 1725–1733.
30.
PersooneG., JanssenC. & De CoenW. (2000). New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, 550pp. New York, NY, USA:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
31.
GrindonC., CombesR., CroninM.T.D., RobertsD.W. & GarrodJ. (2006). Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for environmental toxicity with respect to the requirements of EU REACH legislation. ATLA34, 651–664.
32.
BawdenD., TuteM.S. & DeardenJ.C. (1991). Computer modelling and information technology. In Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology: Present Status and Future Prospects (ed. BallsM., BridgesJ. & SoutheeJ.), pp. 253–290. London, UK:Macmillan.
33.
HermansJ., CantonH., JanssenP. & de JongR. (1984). Quantitative structure activity relationships and toxicity studies of mixtures of chemicals with anaesthetic potency: Acute lethal and sublethal toxicity toDaphnia magna. Aquatic Toxicology5, 143–154.
34.
KonemannH. (1981). Quantitative structure activity relationships in fish toxicity studies. 1: A relationship for 50 industrial pollutants. Toxicology19, 209–221.
35.
CrosslandN.O. (1994). Extrapolating from mesocosms to the real world. Toxicology & Ecotoxicology News1, 15–22.
36.
CaquetT., LagadicL. & SheffieldS.R. (2000). Mesocosms in ecotoxicology. 1: Outdoor aquatic systems. Reviews in Environmental Contamination & Toxicology165, 1–38.
37.
KedwardsT.J., MaundS.J. & ChapmanP.F. (1999). Community analysis of ecotoxicological field studies: replicated design studies. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry18, 158–166.
38.
ChaninP.R.F. & JefferiesD.J. (1978). The decline of the otter in Britain; an analysis of hunting records and a discussion of causes. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society10, 305–328.
39.
NewtonI., MeekE. & LittleB. (1978). Breeding ecology of the merlin in Northumberland. British Birds71, 376–398.
40.
WalkerC.H. (1998). Alternative approaches and tests in ecotoxicology: A review of the present position and the prospects for change taking into account ECVAM's duties, topic selection, and test criteria. ATLA26, 649–677.
41.
EisbergN. (2005). Amending the REACH legislation. Chemistry & Industry19, 4.
42.
ToddM. (2005). SME unease escalates over REACH. Chemistry & Industry21, 21.
43.
HardyA.R. (1990). Estimating exposure: the identification of species at risk and routes of exposure. In Pesticide Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife (ed. SomervilleL. & WalkerC.H.), pp. 81–98. London, UK:Taylor & Francis.
