INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (GENERAL) RULES THE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ACT 2019 - CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARISING FROM THE PASSAGE OF - Animal ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Submission to the Australian Government
Department of Health
CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (GENERAL) RULES
ARISING FROM THE PASSAGE OF
THE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ACT 2019We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.
INTRODUCTION: Animal Liberation welcomes the opportunity to provide the following commentary concerning proposed changes to the Industrial Chemicals Act (‘the IC Act’) General Rules. It is understood that the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (‘NICNAS’) is currently responsible for evaluating and appraising the risks associated with the use of industrial chemicals. Announced in May 2015, the new Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme (‘AICIS’) is to replace NICNAS from 1 July 2020 (a number of changes have, however, come into effect1). Major issues cited by the Government in proposing these changes include the framework of the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 insofar as “little detail” is included in the Bill. As such, the Bill is a skeleton that “provides an overarching framework” whilst “the detail” (i.e., policy and procedure) is to be operated by delegated legislation. As an organisation, Animal Liberation considers any and all exploitative use of animals to be unnecessary, and thereby unacceptable. We are a non-violent, abolitionist organisation that has fought for the rights of all species for over four decades. As such, the following submission draws upon an abolitionist stance insofar as Animal Liberation believes that political stasis or reluctance regarding core social concerns causes and reproduces unnecessary suffering, whilst obstructing and limiting social and cultural development. 1 The following changes are in early effect: “[abolished] annual reporting for permit holders and self-assessed assessment certificate holders; shorter timeframes for Approved Foreign Scheme assessments; polymers of low concerns (PLCs) exempt from notification; expansion of the PLC criteria; changes to the definition of a new synthetic polymer; [abolished] Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and labels required for cosmetics introduced at low volumes”.
1.1 ENDING ANIMAL TESTING:
The new regime2 provides that data gleaned from animal testing “cannot be relied on to
support the introduction of chemicals that will be solely used in cosmetics”. For the
purposes of this submission, a key social and political concern will be outlined and
discussed with a view to capitalising on a rare opportunity to abolish animal testing
outright. That an estimated 85% of Australians “oppose the testing of cosmetics on
animals” ought to provide momentum based as the publics understanding of animal
sentience and suffering (RSPCA 2019). The rationales for this, and how it applies to the
present Consultation paper, are outlined below.
1.2 AUSTRALIA - CATCHING UP
WITH THE WORLD:
That there currently exists no national scheme prohibiting animal testing for cosmetic
purposes is concerning. Given the time that has lapsed since first introduction, we
welcome this Consultation with high expectations.
In 2015, various news sources reported that “Australia will finally ban cosmetic testing on
animals” (Phillips 2017). Insofar as AICIS is tasked with continuing to “protect the
Australian people and the environment” from threats associated with industrial
chemicals, Animal Liberation holds that this narrow scope either unnecessarily omits
animals or erroneously includes animals in “the environment”. The latter implies that
other animals are auxiliary to the ecosystems in which they inhabit. As biotic
components, each is definitionally dependent upon the other. Any substance that may
harm animals must be banned on that basis.
The European Union, in various stages, has effectively banned the practice of animal
testing by prohibiting the testing of finished cosmetic products and ingredients on
animals and banning the sale of such articles in the EU (‘Council Directive 76/765/EEC’).
Elsewhere, Norway, Israel and India have banned animal testing. As the first South Asian
country to do so, Indian law made non-animal alternatives mandatory and thereby
avoided possible loopholes in the law. A little closer to home, New Zealand voted
unanimously to ban the practice in 2015. At the same time, NZ law passed the Animal
Welfare Amendment Act in order to “specifically recognise animals as sentient
(Buchanan 2015).
2 Industrial chemicals are catalogued as agricultural (or veterinary), therapeutic, “food” and “feed” (for humans and animals, respectively). Of these
chemicals, AICIS will be responsible for categorising and grouping according to levels of risk to human health and the environment.The Indian example, containing forethought and consideration of any available loopholes, is valuable insofar as the Australian ban contains “certain exemptions”. Though there currently exists no mandatory code, document, or law unilaterally prohibiting animal testing in Australia, there exists a Code under which all institutions and individuals are obliged to practice. This Code, the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (‘NHMRC’) Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes is embedded in state and territory law to assorted and varying degrees. The overarching objective of the Code is “to promote the ethical, humane and responsible care and use of animals used for scientific purposes” (NHMRC 2013: 1). It is difficult to reconcile this purpose (to “promote”) whilst simultaneously acting as a source of governance or policy. That is, the promotion of a worldview wherein animals are effective models is assumed. If this were not the case, the Code would not need to exist. That is, there would be no applications to use animals if they were considered valuable in and of themselves. Indeed, the very notion would be alien. No amount of “respect” or “care” for an animal within a project can outweigh their right to life. As a result, certain statements made in the Bills Digest require reconsideration. For instance, the claim that the low level of cosmetic testing in Australia is “made largely impractical by legal barriers”. An example of such a barrier cited is the Code. However, the Code is not infallible. The following section, primarily the section on Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), provides the need for robust and immovable law and policy as it applies to a ban on animal testing. 1.3 ENDING ANIMAL ABUSE: It is difficult to locate or ascertain at which point in the process the “ethical, humane and responsible care and use of animals” prohibits the utilisation of animals as instruments (see Box 1 for further a brief explanation on utilitarianism and animal rights). Even a utilitarian argument would falter here. For all of its provisions and clauses which maintain that “an obligation to respect animals underpins the Code,” the use and abuse of their bodies is administrative. That is, approvals which do not use animals are not practically preferred over those who do not. In NSW, for instance, the investigator applying to “use” animals in scientific projects must meet the Code’s clauses. They must also adhere to “the Three R’s” (reduction, replacement, and refinement). These requirements are cited as “governing principles” in the Code (s1.1). Applications for using animals in research must also receive approval by
an AEC under the NSW Animal Research Act. These AECs may be institutional. For
example, there exist four operational AEC’s operated by the NSW Department of
Primary Industries (NSW DPI) under the same Act. The AEC’s are tasked with “ensuring
that all activities relating to the care and use of animals are conducted in compliance
with the Act and the NHMRC’s Code (DPI 2015). Given that the present Consultation
cites this document as a further impediment to animal testing, the loopholes that India
managed to quell begin to emerge.
If the purpose and scope of the Code is essentially to ensure ethical use and respect,
the Department is asked to provide commentary on how this can be so when the
assumptions of ”ethical use” remain. That is, will admissions of the sentience of other
animals necessitate change in the way animals are considered and are thereby treated?
Currently, investigators are simply tasked with administrative justifications prior to being
permitted to use animals. These justifications provided by AEC’s are not always
acceptable. Consider the Pelorus Project, for example (Schwartz 2016).
Why AECs are inappropriate in the
judgement of “ethical use” of animals
On or around the 22nd of July 2016, two wild dogs/dingoes
(the terms were used interchangeably in the AEC files)
were trapped in the wild and released onto a remote far
north Queensland island, approximately 100km north of BOX 1: UTILITARIANISM
Townsville. The purpose of this was to “cull” a small AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
community of goats on the island. Soon thereafter,
Australian and international media began publishing According to utilitarianism, every individual
accounts detailing the release of two wild dogs or dingoes matters. We all “count”. Unconcerned with any
(again, species specification differed depending on the conception of deontological duty or virtue,
outlet). Initial reports were positive (see Schwartz 2016a). utilitarianism seems objective. That is, it depends
Two months later, the tone had shifted dramatically (see upon objective criteria, or data, to inform choices
Schwartz 2016b; Schwartz 2016c). and decisions. Yet, as a doctrine, it can be used to
justify or condemn animal rights. This has to do
Classified from the outset by the ABC as “unusual” though with increasing pleasure and decreasing
“ground-breaking,” the project attracted significant public suffering.
indignation. Eventually, the Project was disbanded after
the Queensland environment minister Steven Miles issued For example, consider a dinner party at which
an Interim Conservation Order (‘ICO’). This ICO some are vegans and others are not. You wonder
maintained that the presence of the beach stone curlew, a whether to serve meat. As a strict utilitarian, your
threatened species of ground-dwelling birds, necessitated friends vote beforehand. If only 5 say no to meat,
the cancellation of the project. and 25 say yes, the flesh is served to a) increase
pleasure (25 against 5)
However, the project had been in development for several
years prior to AEC approval on June 2, 2016. For example,
a symposium held in Hobart in 2014 held that “since
Pelorus Island is not National Park, the use of dogs is also
being considered” (Nash, 2014).Evidently, the project involved competing claims that ultimately centred on the value or utility of certain lives over others.“Feral” and/or “pest” species, such as the wild dog, have categorically lost their utility. This renders them valueless and thereby “killable” (. Indeed, this extends to the innate value of a “pristine environment” over other nuisance communities. As a result of this near- perfect storm, implants containing sodium fluoroacetate (commonly referred to as ’Compound 1080’ or ‘ten-eighty’) were inserted into the dogs. Although efficacy tests by a private company were conducted with results up until approximately 160 days, the investigators claimed that the “little time-bombs” of 1080 poison would “go off” two years later. That such a cruel project could be considered and approved by an AEC shocked many. Let this example act as evidence of the inherent fallibility of groups such as these. The new regime is expected to consider public opinion. As society begins to demand changes in various forms, the law is expected to legislate against historical wrongs. All successful social movements have profoundly changed the culture in which they act. Although the Government claims that the assorted instruments (i.e., the Code and sequential State and Territory legislation) “make it difficult [to test on animals for cosmetic testing]”, a biased belief in the strength and appropriateness of our policies threatens to impair our judgement.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Birnbacher, D 1999, ‘Quality of life - evaluation or description?’ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2: 25-36 Buchanan, K 2015, ‘New Zealand: animal welfare legislation recognises animals as sentient, bans cosmetic testing,’ the Law Library of Congress. Available via: https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/ article/new-zealand-animal-welfare-legislation-recognizes-animals-as-sentient-bans-cosmetic- testing/ Greek, C R and Greek, J S 2002, Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans, Continuum, London. NSW Government Department of Primary Industries 2015, ‘NSW DPI Animal Ethics Committees (AECS): Terms of Reference, October. Available via: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ __data/assets/pdf_file/0010/577423/aecs-terms-of-reference.pdf Phillips, C 2017, ‘Australia will finally ban cosmetic testing on animals,’ The Conversation, 6 June. Available via: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-australia-cosmetic-animals.html RSPCA Australia 2019, ‘Makeover the world’. Available via: https://www.rspca.org.au/campaigns/ animal-testing-cosmetics Schwartz, D 2016, ‘Death tow dingoes set to be the environmental saviour of Great Barrier Reef ’s Pelorus Island,’ the ABC, 23 July. Available via: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-23/dingoes- set-to-become-pelorus-island-environmental-saviour/7652424 Schwartz, D 2016, ‘RSPCA wants to stop ‘cruel’ dingo cull of feral goats on Great Barrier Reef island,’ the ABC, 28 July. Available via: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-28/rspca-seeks-to- stop-dingo-cull-of-feral-goats-on-barrier-reef/7668268 Schwartz, D 2016, ‘Deadline passes for removal of ‘death-row dingoes’ from North Queensland island.’ the ABC, 1 September. Available via: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/deadline- passes-for-removal-of-death-row-dingoes-pelorus-island/7806906 Scott, E, Roy, T and Burnside, N 2019, ‘Canberra set to recognise animals as ‘sentient beings’ that are able to feel and perceive in Australian first,’ the ABC, 13 May. Available via: https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-13/canberra-animal-laws-fine-owners-who-dont-exercise-dogs/ 11106158
You can also read
