Author: Kristin Stone

Tests that use animals to assess the safety of chemicals and products such as cosmetics, pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs are still quite common. Although testing requirements differ from country to country and sector to sector, new ingredients that require safety assessment will very likely be run through some or all of the tests listed below, and possibly others. Pain relief is not provided to animals on the basis that it could interfere with test results, and the animals used are almost always killed at the end of an experiment.

TYPE OF TEST	ANIMALS USED	WHAT THE ANIMALS ENDURE	PURPOSE OF TEST
Skin sensitization	32 guinea pigs or 16 mice	The test substance is applied to the surface of the skin or injected under the skin of a guinea pig, or applied to the ear of a mouse. Animals’ skin may show signs of redness, ulcers, scaling, inflammation, and itchiness.	Tests for allergic reaction on skin.
Skin irritation/ corrosion	1-3 rabbits	The test substance is applied to the shaved skin of rabbits. Their skin may show signs of redness, rash, lesions, scaling, inflammation, and/or other signs of damage.	Tests for skin irritation (reversible skin damage) and skin corrosion (severe and irreversible skin damage).
Eye irritation/ corrosion	1-3 rabbits	The test substance is applied to a rabbits’ eyes. Their eyes may show signs of redness, bleeding, ulcers, blindness, and/or other signs of damage.	Tests for eye irritation (reversible eye damage) and eye corrosion (severe and irreversible eye damage).
Acute oral toxicity	7 rats	The test substance is forced down a rat’s throat using a syringe. Animals may experience diarrhea, convulsions, bleeding from the mouth, seizures, paralysis, and ultimately, death.	Determines the amount of a substance that causes half of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is swallowed.
Acute dermal toxicity	30 rats, rabbits or guinea pigs	The test substance is applied to the shaved skin of the rat, guinea pig, or rabbit and covered with a patch to keep her from licking or otherwise removing the substance.	Determines the amount of a substance that causes half of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is applied to the skin for 24 hours.
Acute inhalation toxicity	20-40 rats	Rats are locked in full-body restraint tubes and forced to inhale the test substance. Animals may experience bleeding of the nose, convulsions, paralysis, seizures, and ultimately, death.	Determines the amount of a substance that causes half of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is inhaled.
Subacute and subchronic toxicity	40 rats (14-28 day) or 80 rats	Rats are force-fed a substance, forced to inhale a substance, and/or a substance applied to their skin daily for 14, 21, 28, 90 and/or 180 days. At the end of the exposure period the animals are killed and their organs are examined.	Tests for changes in the cells or organs caused by repeat exposure.
Chronic toxicity	120 rats	Rats are force-fed a substance, forced to inhale a substance, and/or a substance applied to their skin daily for one year or longer. At the end of the exposure period the animals are killed and their organs are examined.	Measures the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of a substance throughout the tissues and organs following exposure.
Carcinogenicity	400 mice + 400 rats	A mouse is exposed to a substance either by being fed the substance through their food or water, being force-fed the substance, having it rubbed on their skin, or being forced to inhale the substance. After two years of daily exposure, she is killed so her tissues can be examined for signs of cancer (or other signs of toxicity).	Tests for cancer and other long-term effects of exposure.
Toxicokinetics	4-12 rats	A rat is exposed to a substance either by being fed the substance through their food or water, being force-fed the substance, having it rubbed on their skin, or being forced to inhale the substance. He may be exposed once or multiple times depending on the substance. Blood is drawn at daily intervals to determine the peak concentration of substance in the blood. He is then killed at a specific time-point; different animals are killed at different times to obtain a record of how the substance moves through their body over time.	Measures the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of a substance throughout the tissues and organs following exposure.
Reproductive toxicity	1,400-2,600 rats	Male and female adult rats are exposed, usually by force-feeding, for at least two weeks and then mated. The pregnant mothers are then exposed daily throughout pregnancy and breast-feeding and are then killed. After weaning, the pups are force-fed throughout their lifetimes, sometimes experiencing symptoms of chronic poisoning such as weight loss or convulsions. Pups that survive until puberty are then mated, and force-feeding continues through the second generation’s pregnancy and breast feeding. At the time of weaning of the second generation, mothers and pups are all killed and their tissues examined.	Tests for effects on fertility, ability to reproduce, and birth defects.
Developmental toxicity (birth defects)	660 rabbits (100 adult females and 560 pups) or 1,300 rats (100 adult females and 1,200 pups)	A pregnant female is exposed, usually by force-feeding, starting at the initiation of pregnancy and contiuing throughout the pregnancy. She is then killed on the day before she is expected to give birth (on average, 22 days for rats or 31 days for rabbits). Her pups are extracted and evaluated for signs of developmental abnormalities.	Tests for birth defects.
Genetic toxicity/ mutagenicity*	80-500 mice or rats	There are several different tests for genetic alterations that use mice or rats. In a common test, a mouse or rat is force-fed the substance on a daily basis for at least 14 days. Samples of his bone marrow and/or blood are taken to look for genetic changes.	Tests for the beginning stages of cancer.

* Depending on level of concern and tests performed, mutagenicity testing is usually a battery of in vitro (non-animal) and animal tests.

---

For more information about animals used in testing, visit
hsi.org/endanimaltesting

Q: What led you to advocating against animal testing?

A:I’ve always been an animal person, but the experience of being a conscientious objector to high school dissection really opened my eyes—both to the plight of animals used in research, testing and education, as well as the need for every person who sees something they think is wrong to stand up and be counted.

The ridicule I encountered was remarkable (classmates actually improvised a “fetal pig song,” which they’d sing each day as I’d leave the room to work on my essay in the school library), but this experience only reinforced my feeling that I was doing the right thing.

By the end of my grade 11 year, two more classmates had joined me in objecting to dissection, my essay dealing with the inadequacies of regulations for the protection of animals in labs got me an A+ grade in that class, and the experience of being a conscientious objector had created a budding animal advocate and vegetarian.

Q: Can you briefly summarize the work HSI does on the animal testing issue and how they are set apart from other organizations?

A: A lot of organizations talk about ending animal testing, but HSI gets results. Our professional team of scientists, political specialists and country offices are active on nearly every continent, working with governments and companies to advance humane science and end animal testing.

HSI’s work with the pesticide industry and government authorities in Europe has led to the largest-ever reduction in animal testing requirements in a product sector (a 40 percent cut compared to other country requirements), and we’re now working to extend this precedent to other parts of the world. Earlier this year, HSI launched the multi-national Be Cruelty-Free campaign to bring a long-overdue end to animal testing for cosmetics.

Today we’re working hand-in-hand with an ever-expanding network of partners in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, the United States—and also still in Europe, where we’re campaigning to preserve the promised ban on selling cosmetics that have been newly animal-tested anywhere in the world, which is due to come into force in March 2013.

Ultimately, though, I think it’s HSI’s professional approach of building partnerships for progress that most distinguishes us from other animal groups. We don’t engage in “naming and shaming,” but instead work to bring companies and other interested parties to the table so that we can identify common ground and work collaboratively for change—which happens a lot faster when we can all speak with one voice!

Q: What do you think has been the greatest milestone achieve to date in the fight to end animal testing?

A: The real game-changer in my opinion was the 2007 U.S. National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,” because it was first and foremost a scientific document which laid out the scientific case against the current animal-based approach to safety testing and the need for a totally new paradigm.

By envisioning “… a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines,” the report has triggered unprecedented debate within the scientific community, and has led to an unprecedented investment by governments and companies worldwide in a range of new non-animal tools and technologies.

In the words of the former director of the US National Institutes of Health: “Animal testing won’t disappear overnight, but the agencies’ work signals the beginning of the end.”

Q: Where do you see animal testing headed over the next 10 years?

A: Towards extinction! The move to embrace “21st century” non-animal safety testing continues to gain momentum and has officially gone global. It’s already possible, for one-fifth the cost of a single animal cancer test, to screen up to 1,000 chemicals in 200 different robot-automated cell or gene tests in as little as 2 weeks.

In the face of these incredible gains in terms of cost, efficiency, and more human-relevant test results, coupled with the law-changing clout of organizations like HSI, I have every confidence in our ability to replace most, if not all, animal testing by 2025.

Q: Who are your heroes/heroines and why?

A: Many of the people I most respect and admire won’t be anyone you’ve heard of. They’re not high-profile politicians, celebrities or campaign figureheads, but the many hard-working political assistants, civil servants, company scientists, and others who work tirelessly behind-the-scenes to advance more humane and relevant approaches to testing and research for the betterment of both animal and human welfare.

Q: Do you share your home with any pets?

A: My work requires me to travel too much to be a good human companion to an animal (but that doesn’t keep me from glomming on to friends’ pets at every opportunity!)

Q: What are your hobbies?

A: Travel, ethnic cooking, fitness, mixology, movies and theatre, history and art.

Q: Do you have any tattoos? If so, of what?

A: I’ve got a “leaping bunny” tattoo on my right upper arm.

The Westminster government claims its badger culling policy is ‘science-led policy’ but scientists and experts closely involved in the issue strongly disagree.

Randomised Badger Culling Trial

Most of the science surrounding the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB in cattle comes from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial commissioned by the then government in 1997, which took 10 years and £50 million of taxpayers’ money to complete. The trial involved killing around 11,000 badgers in designated areas, and the impacts on TB in cattle were compared between these and similar areas in which culling did not take place.

The trial was overseen by a group of independent scientists chaired by Professor John Bourne CBE MRCVS, who drew the following conclusions: [1]

“…badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better”

“weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection… Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.”

“It is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control. It is our hope that Defra will embrace new scientific findings, and communicate these to stakeholders in ways that encourage acceptance and participation.”

Subsequent scientific evidence

Following the ten-year trial, scientists continued to monitor the impact on bovine TB in cattle in the areas in which badgers had been culled. The conclusions drawn included the following:

“Our findings confirm that badger culling can prompt the spatial spread of M.Bovis infection, a phenomenon likely to undermine the utility of this approach as a disease control measure.” [2]

“…reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling.” [3]

Professor John (now Lord) Krebs, currently Principal of Jesus College, Oxford and Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, chaired the Independent Scientific Review Group whose 1997 report ‘Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers’ [4] led to the establishment of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Professor Krebs has recently been outspoken in his opposition to the government’s policy:

“I would go down the vaccination and biosecurity route rather than this crazy scheme [the government’s plan to allow the culling of badgers] that may deliver very small advantage, may deliver none. And it’s very hard to see how Defra are going to collect the crucial data to assess whether it’s worth going ahead with free shooting at all” (BBC interview September 2012).

“You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers… It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.” (The Guardian Newspaper, July 2011).

Dr Chris Cheeseman, a former Head of Wildlife Diseases at the Central Science Laboratory who spent most of his working life studying the role of badgers in the spread of tuberculosis in cattle, stated:

“This government claims that their policy is science-led but I’m afraid it’s not … [it] could lead to the deaths of — using their figures – up to 130,000 badgers over a few years to achieve an overall, at best, 16 percent reduction in cattle TB. Now there are those of us in the scientific community who actually think it [the cull] will make it worse, and I suggest that’s an unacceptable policy.” (Transcript of an interview in August 2012).

Dr Rosie Woodroffe from the Institute of Zoology, London, a former member of the Independent Scientific Group charged with overseeing and assessing the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, said of the government’s policy:

“I think it is scientifically among the worst options they could have chosen.” (Interview with the Guardian newspaper, September 2010).

Advice to government from its own agencies and scientists

During the government’s consultations on its plans to introduce badger culling, a number of government scientists and agencies have provided comments and advice.

Professor Sir Bob Watson, former science adviser to DEFRA:

“Culling won’t solve the problem nationally [across England]. But farmers in Devon, Cornwall and Gloucestershire are arguing that it can get between a 16% and 20% reduction which they think is significant and that they are willing to pay for… I would say the economics is very close as to whether it is worth it. But the government has made a decision that [it should be tried if farmers are willing to fund it]. The question [then] is: ‘Is it a significant effect? Is it cost effective? Is it socially and ethically appropriate?” (extract from BBC interview September 2012).

Natural England, the designated licensing authority for the proposed badger culling operations:

“While it is reasonable to assume that replicating the RBCT approach would deliver similar benefits in a future cull, it is far from certain that these benefits could be delivered via the farmer and landowner led approach that has been proposed” [5]

Impacts on badger populations

The government has said its plans will ensure that badger populations will be protected in cull areas. Indeed it is obliged under its commitments to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) [6] to prevent ‘serious disturbance’ to badger populations, and keep them ‘out of danger’. However, scientists and government agencies have expressed concerns about the impact the government’s policy could have on badger populations.

These include former Independent Scientific Group members Prof. Crystl Donnelly and Dr Rosie Woodroffe:

“…culling too many badgers risks local extinction, contravening the Bern Convention… culling [by the government’s proposed methods]… could eradicate anywhere between 51% of the resident badger population [risking an increase in cattle TB] and 100 per cent [risking a breach of the Bern Convention].” [7]

And Natural England, the designated licensing authority for the proposed badger culling operations:

“Reducing the badger population to the extent and on the scale permitted under this policy has not previously been sanctioned for any protected native mammal species in modern times… the estimated national [badger] population could be reduced by up to 30% and the population in the west and south-west regions by up to 50%… there is no simple and cost effective method of accurately measuring badger population numbers at the spatial scale proposed under this policy, nor will it be possible to accurately measure changes in abundance following culling… because the evidence-base is imprecise, neither upper limits on badgers licensed to be culled nor adjustments based on monitoring during control operations can guarantee badger survival locally… it is our view that the local disappearance of the badger in some areas cannot be ruled out” [8]

Non-government agency comment

Many highly respected non-government agencies have also expressed concerns, including:

The Wildlife Trusts:

“The Wildlife Trusts are very conscious of the hardship that bovine TB (bTB) causes in the farming community and the need to find the right mechanisms to control the disease. However, we believe that a badger cull is not the answer. Biosecurity and vaccination should be at the centre of efforts to tackle this disease rather than a badger cull.” [9]

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust:

“WWT ensures that it takes a science-based approach in all its work… WWT is opposed to the proposed culling of badgers as this does not represent a sustainable approach to disease control. More worrying still is the likely futility of this as an effective disease control measure. Based on many years of high quality scientific research, the Independent Scientific Group on Bovine TB concluded to Government in 2007 that ‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’ and that ‘the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread constrained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.’

“The science indicates that culling of badgers is not an effective means of reducing disease due to the complexities of social structures of badgers and how severe disturbances to these structures caused by culling activities exacerbates the disease problem at the periphery of the cull area. Research indicates that over a long period of time a modest reduction (16%) in bovine TB outbreaks might be expected yet this slight ‘benefit’ is outweighed by the economic cost of this long term expensive process.” [10]

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB):

“…we have never been convinced that the best way to help farmers is to force them to foot the bill for a contentious cull that is only expected to reduce outbreaks by about 16 per cent. This is a lot of effort for a small gain. Bovine Tb needs tackling properly and we believe vaccination offers the best hope for cattle, badgers and the industry.” [11]

Prominent public figures

Prominent conservationists and scientists have also expressed serious concerns about the government’s policy in the media including:

Sir David Attenborough, Naturalist and Broadcaster:

“You may think culling [badgers] is the answer and it sounds easy to start with but it can very well make things much worse… At the moment TB is localised. If you kill all those badgers what happens then? Firstly those survivors will go out and carry the disease to areas that were hitherto unaffected. Other badges slowly colonise and are infected themselves. There is good scientific research available to show culling badgers can make things worse not better.”

Bill Oddie OBE, Naturalist and Broadcaster:

“There is an appalling bloody-minded arrogance about the government’s decision. Opposition to the cull is not based on sentimentality, but on the fact that a great deal of thorough research suggests that it won’t work.”

Mark Carwardine, Zoologist and Broadcaster:

“We’ve had over 40 years of rigorous scientific studies. It’s all been commissioned by the government, it’s paid for by the government. I say ‘paid for by the government’, of course it’s all been paid for by the taxpayer to the tune of at least £49 million and that’s resulted in about 150 scientific papers. And the result of all that study is that we know for sure that killing badgers, culling badgers is not only not going to work it will actively increase the spread of bovine tuberculosis.”

Simon King, Naturalist and Broadcaster:

“… far more likely if a cull were to go ahead is a disturbance of badger populations and as a consequence … the perturbation effect. What does that mean? It means badgers – terrified naturally – running out of their normal homelands, out of their territory and into adjacent territories. Now should one of those badgers, and let’s face it not many of are likely to carry the disease, but should one of those badgers be carrying bTB its going to infect the neighbouring population which might be perfectly healthy. And this has been shown again and again through scientific process.”

Humane Society International/UK concurs with the overwhelming scientific consensus that killing badgers will not solve the problem of cattle TB and could in fact make the situation considerably worse.

---

1. Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB Presented to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Rt Hon David Miliband MP, June 2007

2. Jenkins, H.E. and Woodroffe, R. and Donnelly, C.A. and Cox, D.R. and Johnston, W.T. and Bourne, F.J. and Cheeseman, C.L. and Clifton-Hadley, R. and Gettinby, G. (2007) Effects of culling on spatial associations of mycobacterium bovis infections in badgers and cattle. Journal of applied ecology, 44 (5). pp. 897-908. ISSN 0021-8901

3. Jenkins HE, Woodroffe R, Donnelly CA (2010) The Duration of the Effects of Repeated Widespread Badger Culling on Cattle Tuberculosis Following the Cessation of Culling. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9090. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009090

4. Krebs J R. Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers. London, United Kingdom: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Publications; 1997

5. Licensing the control of badgers (Meles meles) to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle: Advice provided under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Natural England, December 2010

6. Bern Convention.

7. Donnelly, C.A. and Woodroffe, R. Reduce uncertainty in UK badger culling. Letters to Nature, published May 30th 2012.

8. The impact of culling on badger (Meles meles) populations in England and measures to prevent their ‘local disappearance’ from culled areas – Supplementary advice provided under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Natural England, July 2011

9. The Wildlife Trusts.

10. The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

11. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

The International Councils on Animal Protection in OECD and Pharmaceutical Programmes (ICAPO and ICAPPP) are umbrella associations through which animal protection organisations, including HSI, interact with global chemical and pharmaceutical regulators who meet under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH), and the Veterinary International Co-operation on Harmonosation (VICH).

The OECD is an economic alliance of 36 countries that works to promote international consistency in many areas, including the testing, labelling, and regulation of chemicals. The ICH and VICH are trilateral dialogue groups that bring together government regulators and national industry associations from the three main international pharmaceutical markets—Europe, Japan and the United States—to work towards international harmonisation of requirements and approaches to testing human and veterinary medicines to ensure their safety, effectiveness and quality.

All three entities publish influential test guidelines, which continue to rely predominantly on inhumane and outdated animal-based methods. Through ICAPO and ICAPPP, HSI works to promote more humane and sophisticated testing tools and strategies that to better assess human and environmental hazards of chemicals and products while replacing, reducing or refining animal use.

Learn more at icapo.org.

The Meatless Monday campaign asks consumers to go meat-free one day per week—and it’s a great way to help reduce the environmental, animal welfare, and other social impacts of raising 77 billion land animals each year for food worldwide. Here are some simple ways your organization can help this growing movement:

Facebook it! Use social media to encourage support for Meatless Monday, for example:

• Send out weekly tweets on Mondays (for six months or more), calling on people to leave meat off their plates;
• Post recipes once a week (for six months or more) on Facebook, or place the link on Twitter;
• Post HSUS’s award-winning Meatless Monday video on your organization’s YouTube channel and share via Facebook and Twitter.
• Include a Meatless Monday story in your newsletter;

Send out a press release or post a web story or blog calling on your supporters to adopt Meatless Monday, explaining the alignment of Meatless Mondays with your organization’s work and/or mission, and including links to relevant guides, recipes, videos, or other content (such as the social media content listed above).

Create an action alert where your members can pledge to go meat-free on Mondays and to sign up to receive Meatless Monday-related emails.

Encourage local schools, restaurants, and governments to join the meat-free trend. Schools, for example, can adopt policies to offer meat-free meals once a week, while restaurants can offer special (or discounted) meat-free options on Mondays. Governments can use a variety of means to encourage individuals to make more meat-free choices.

Hang up banners with the Meatless Monday logo at events held by your organization. Please take photographs of this so we can help you promote it! You can also hold events to promote the campaign, including in conjunction with other global environmental action.

Promote our Meat-Free Guide, or make your own. You can also add simple meat-free meal tips and suggestions within other flyers or guides.  We have tons of easy tips here.

Encourage influential supporters of your organization—like celebrities, public figures, or celebrated restaurateurs—to participate in Meatless Monday and talk about why they’re involved on Twitter or to the media.

HSI is here to here to help. Please contact MeatlessMondays@hsi.org with any questions and to discuss campaign strategy. 

Check out HSI’s “Guide to Meat-Free Meals.”

It’s not only badgers that are at risk from the UK government’s policy of killing the animals across large areas of countryside, in its misguided attempt to control TB in cattle.

Badgers are key members of the ecosystems they inhabit. Indeed they are among the top predators in those systems, and science tells us that when you intervene with such animals, the consequences for other species are hard to predict but can be far-reaching and devastating.

When making plans to wipe out wild animals on such a large scale, the government is committed under UK and EU law and by international agreement to look into the potential effects on other animal and plant species, particularly those that are already rare or threatened, and to take measures to limit those effects.

Bern Convention

HSI believes the UK government hasn’t done nearly enough in this regard, and as such is in breach of it’s commitments under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (better known as the Bern Convention). The UK has been a signatory to the Convention, which recognises badgers as a species worthy of protection among many others, since the early 1980s.

2014

So in June 2014 HSI/UK, together with the Badger Trust and Care for the Wild International, lodged a complaint with the Bern Secretariat on the grounds that the badger cull breaches the Bern Convention because:

• It could have a negative impact on a huge range of other protected species such as ground-nesting and song birds and small mammals, caused by the removal of badgers and the subsequent knock on effects within the ecosystem, and
• It is in any event unnecessary since bovine TB can be controlled in cattle without resorting to badger culls.

The cull zones and surrounding areas are home to many protected endangered species of birds and mammals, and habitats such as heathlands, grasslands, meadows and forests. Removing or displacing large numbers of badgers from nature’s delicate balance could be catastrophic for some of these species and habitats. We are therefore asking Bern to intervene and protect all of our wildlife from this disastrous cull.

2012

HSI/UK previously lodged a complaint to the Bern Convention in February 2012, on the following grounds:

• The government cannot demonstrate that its policy will not seriously disturb badger populations;
• The government has not given sufficient consideration to alternative methods of controlling TB in cattle, in particular the development and use of vaccines in both badgers and cattle, and the instigation and enforcement of policies to reduce disease transmission between cattle;
• The reduction in cattle TB cases that the government predicts might result from its policy is nowhere near enough to justify the killing of up to 130,000 badgers, and the impacts on badger populations and the suffering of individual badgers that will ensue.

Our complaint was first considered by the Convention at its Bureau meeting in April 2012. It was deferred to its September meeting for further discussion and the Bureau requested DEFRA to respond to the issues raised. It was rejected at that September meeting without the full Bern Standing Committee ever being given the opportunity to consider this important issue, although the Convention only ever explained its decision in respect of the first ground for complaint, and never addressed the other two.

Speak out against the badger cull

The annual culling of badgers began in areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset in 2013 with contractors shooting badgers under a four year licence issued by Natural England. An additional licence was issued for an area of Dorset in 2015.

In February 2016, the government announced it was considering 29 new applications for badger culling licences, covering nine counties of England: Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Somerset, Wiltshire and Worcestershire.

In August 2016, the government confirmed it had issued seven new licences for culling, in addition to the three existing licences, bringing the total number of cull zones to ten, in six counties of England. More than 10,000 badgers will be targetted this year. The shooting began in all ten zones in September 2016. 

Take action for badgers

Big Badger Mosaic
Be part of the public face of opposition to the cull – upload your selfie to the #BigBadgerMosaic today!

Sign the petition
Wildlife expert and tv presenter, Simon King, has launched a new government e-petition calling for an end to the badger cull and no expansion of the cull to new areas. Sign the petition today

Support Wounded Badger Patrols cull zones

These volunteer groups campaign against the cull and organise patrols day and night during the culls, walking footpaths and roads on the look out for injured badgers. Show your support and get involved!

Cornwall: Devon Badger Group: facebook
Devon: Devon Badger Group: facebook
Dorset: Dorset for Badger and Bovine Welfare (DBBW): website and facebook
Gloucestershire: Gloucestershire Against Badger Shooting (GABS): website and facebook
Herefordshire: Gloucestershire Against Badger Shooting (GABS): website and facebook
Somerset: Somerset Against the Cull: facebook

Watch & share our campaign videos

• Badger Cull—Kill the Cull, Not the Badgers
• The Badger Cull—A Welfare Disaster

Find out more

• Visit our campaign update page for the latest news
• Read more about our campaign work against the cull
• Badger Culling—Scientific Fact or Science Fiction? Read what scientists and other specialists have to say about the badger cull
• Visit the Team Badger website

View and share

• View and share our badger cull infographic
• Print our badger cull infographic
• View and share our badger animations: Help Us Stop the Badger Cull and Help Us Protect Badgers

Spread the word

• Join us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter