Online Issues

<< All Back-issues

<< This Issue's Table of Contents

ILAR Journal V37(2) 1995
Laboratory Animal Care Policies and Regulations

New Zealand
C.S.W. Reid

C.S.W. Reid, Ph.D., D.Sc., is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Physiology and Anatomy, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION

All use of live animals in New Zealand for the purposes of research, testing, production of biological agents, or teaching must comply with a code of ethical conduct. The basic contents of the code, which is specific to an institute (such as a university, polytechnic, research organization, or industrial company) are prescribed by the Animals Protection Amendment Act 1983 and its Regulations. Codes must be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, who is advised by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. The code is administered by an Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) of 6-8 people including three members who are not affiliated with the institute. The IAEC is appointed by the chief executive of the institute, who is responsible to the Minister. Proposals for research are examined in detail by the IAEC, which has the authority mandated by the chief executive to decide whether to accept the project, request modification, or reject it. The system demands that the researcher give careful consideration to the ethical justification for the work proposed, and ensures that both the researcher and the institute are clearly accountable for the work undertaken. The law does not prescribe how the code will be put into practice, nor does it call for licensing of premises, researchers, or projects. A cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy is thus avoided.

OVERSIGHT

Animals play an important part in the economy and culture of New Zealand. Animal industries (meat, dairy, wool, and fish) employ large numbers of the population and earn approximately half of New Zealand's export income. The people of New Zealand use animals in a variety of ways, including as companion animals (particularly dogs, cats, and cage birds) and as working animals (dogs and horses). They also hunt; fish for trout and salmon; race horses; and participate in show jumping and eventing, agricultural and pastoral shows, aquaria, zoos, and rodeos. A number of introduced vertebrates have become pests; the Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the rabbit are among the most damaging.

The principal areas of research in New Zealand that involve live animals include animal production, biomedical and veterinary research, basic biology, conservation (especially of native birds), pest control, and testing for natural toxins in food for human consumption.

In all these interactions between humans and animals, the animals are protected by an umbrella law, the Animals Protection Act 1960 and its amendments.

The main purpose of the 1960 Act is to prevent cruelty to animals. However, in the case of laboratory animals, the original Act was seriously deficient: it exempted "Any research or experimental work carried out on an animal by any bona fide research worker," and it did not bind the Crown, the largest employer of scientists. A watershed amendment--the Animals Protection Amendment Act 1983-closed those gaps and laid down the principle that all manipulations of live animals for the purposes of research; experimental, diagnostic, toxicity, and potency testing; the production of antisera or other biological agents; or teaching, must be carried out in accordance with a code of ethical conduct relating to the welfare and humane treatment of the live animal involved. The definition of "manipulation" and the details of the legal requirements are set out in the Animals Protection (Codes of Ethical Conduct) Regulations 1987 (Table 1). A matter currently under review is the definition of animal. The original Act covered the common land mammals of the day, marine mammals, and birds. The present Act now covers all vertebrates kept in a state of captivity or dependent on humans for their care and sustenance (Animals Protection Amendment Act 1987). Invertebrates are not protected.

The change in 1983 was brought about largely by the advocacy of the animal and medical scientists, who recognized the need for revised legislation. An important coordinating role was played by The Royal Society of New Zealand, which facilitated the development of proposals and communicated these to the Minister of Science (Reid, 1990).

A seminal outcome of the 1983 amendment to the Act was the establishment of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC), which has the task of advising the Minister of Agriculture (who has administrative responsibility for the Act) on the acceptability of proposed codes, as well as other matters relating to codes and ethics of animal use. The present composition of NAEAC is given in Table 2.

The 1983 Amendment and the 1987 Regulations legislate only for the use of codes of ethical conduct and their content. They do not prescribe how the codes are to be implemented. Some institutes in 1983 already had codes of ethical conduct administered by an Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC). NAEAC adopted that model and developed a set of guidelines based on the IAEC, including recommendations as to the composition of the committee, the details of the institutional code, and how the committee should operate (NAEAC, 1988). The members of the IAEC, usually 6-8 in number, are appointed by the chief executive of the institute and include three people not affiliated with the institute (the external members): a lay person, currently nominated by the New Zealand Local Government Association; a veterinarian nominated by the New Zealand Veterinary Association; and a nominee of a nationally recognized animal welfare group, usually the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Initially, NAEAC made no attempt to develop a national code. Rather, institutes were--and still are--encouraged to write their own code, incorporating the items required by law, some features imposed by NAEAC (such as the establishment of an IAEC and the inclusion of the external members), and matters specific to the individual institute. The intention is to reinforce the IEAC's mandate to operate the institute's code and, particularly, its responsibility to make its own decisions. All proposed codes are inspected by NAEAC, which may make suggestions for their improvement. NAEAC may discuss with IAECs particular difficulties they encounter in their decisions, but it is not NAEAC's function to be a "higher court." There is now a move towards establishing a New Zealand Code and the possibility of a joint New Zealand-Australian code is being explored (Bayvel, 1993). At present there are 35 IAECs in New Zealand and 63 Codes of Ethical Conduct (some IAECs supervise more than one code), dealing with an annual average of approximately 280,000 live animals (Table 3).

The 1987 Regulations also require a variety of statistics (species of animals, number used, their sources, and how they were disposed of), which are to be supplied to the Director General of the Ministry of Agriculture on request. Statistics are now collected annually and NAEAC interprets them and provides comment. This has led NAEAC to rationalize the set of statistics being requested and to develop a standard return form. A new statistic sought is data relevant to the degree of impact that manipulations or procedures have had on the welfare of animals subjected to them. NAEAC has therefore been evolving a scale of impact (Reid and Mellor, 1993; Mellor and Reid, 1994), which is expected to be in place in 1995. The scale will also help in predicting the impact of a project, which is required when seeking approval for the work.

Unlike the systems used in many other countries, the Act does not call for licensing of institutes, premises, locations, researchers, or their projects. The linchpin of the New Zealand system is the code; the IAEC makes it effectual. While the main task of the IAEC is to deliberate on proposals, it also serves an important educational function. It promotes consideration for the welfare of animals, disseminates information about the regulations, encourages respect for their spirit, and it advises animal users as to how they may pursue their activities both humanely and effectively. The Act, the letter of the law, is the backstop protecting the animals from ill-treatment or cruelty.

In 1988 a second ministerial advisory committee was established, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC). Its overall task is "to advise the Minister of Agriculture on all matters relating to animal welfare other than those which fall within the jurisdiction of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee" (AWAC, 1994). Specific tasks include review of the Animals Protection Act, drawing up or revising codes of recommendations and minimum standards for the welfare of particular classes of animals, and recommending specific areas where research into animal welfare matters is required. A code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes has now been published (AWAC, 1995); it does not deal with ethical aspects of their use, which is the concern of NAEAC. Codes published by AWAC so far are listed in Table 4. The present composition of the committee is given in Table 2.

FUNDING

The costs associated with NAEAC--fees, travel, publications--are borne by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF), which also subsidizes national meetings concerning animal welfare matters. The costs associated with the functioning of IAECs are borne by the institute as overheads.

ENFORCEMENT

Compliance with an institute's gazetted code of ethical conduct is required by law. If a researcher does not comply with the code he or she is committing an offense and is liable to prosecution under the Animals Protection Act. Penalties may be fines or, in cases of flagrant cruelty, imprisonment and possibly denial of the right to own animals. The levels of fines have been reviewed recently and increased 5-fold. The researcher may, of course, suffer penalties imposed by the institute.

Although the burden of penalty is borne in the first place by the individual researcher, the institute could be called to task by the Minister who could consider revoking the institute's code, effectively baiting it from further work with live animals. This has not happened in the 8 years the Regulations have been in operation. It seems unlikely that the transgression of a single individual would result in curtailing of an institute's activities.

APPLICABILITY

Overall responsibility to administer the Animals Protection Act and its Regulations lies with the Minister of Agriculture. The minister inspects each proposed code of conduct that NAEAC presents on behalf of institutes. If it is accepted, the minister's approval is noted in the government Gazette, from which time the code has standing in law. The minister appoints the members of NAEAC, may declare a particular animal species to be protected under the Act, may call for investigation of any problem related to animal use, and may revoke a code.

Responsibility for the welfare of live animals used for the purposes listed in the Regulations is shared by the researcher and the institute with which the researcher is associated. The system is based on the principle of self-regulation at both levels.

ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS AND THEIR COST

Each institute is responsible to the minister through its chief executive. In the case of universities the Vice-Chancellor is the responsible party. The chief executive appoints the members of the IAEC and normally delegates the authority to administer the institute's code to the chairperson. The ultimate responsibility for the performance of the IAEC and for the activities of the institute that involve live animals, however, remains with the chief executive.

The IAEC has supervisory responsibilities during the execution of a project. It may stipulate progress reports, including a final report on the actual as compared with the predicted welfare of the animals during the project. All codes of ethical conduct empower the IAEC to inspect the animals at any time and to order a project to be stopped if the welfare of the animals is considered to be compromised beyond what was expected at the time the project was approved. The IAEC has the power to order distressed animals to be euthanized.

The researcher is ethically responsible as an individual for any experiment he or she conducts on a live animal. Discharging that responsibility involves making a careful estimate of the impact the experiment is likely to have on the animal, minimizing the severity of the experiment, and maintaining a continuing concern for all aspects of the welfare of the animal throughout the period it is in the researcher's care. As well, the researcher is responsible for ensuring that others involved in the experiment have the appropriate skills, which may involve training of inexperienced staff.

While supervision is primarily the responsibility of the IAEC, others have the legal power to inspect premises when there is good reason to believe animal suffering may be occurring. These include veterinarians and livestock officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, police officers, and warranted inspectors of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Submission to IAEC

The proposer of a project involving live animals (which could involve carrying out specified research or teaching, or pursuing a specified commercial purpose) must submit the proposal in writing to the IAEC. It is important that the submission be written in terms understandable to lay people. For a research project, the proposer has to provide the following information:

• the title of the project and a clear statement of its objective;
• the value of the proposed work, that is, the expected benefits;
• explanation of why there is no practical alternative to using live animals;
• details of the proposal--experimental design, dates, methods, species and number of animals to be used and, where appropriate, statistical evidence indicating that there will be enough animals to provide analyzable results;
• the likely impact on the welfare of the animals and a cost-benefit analysis;
• a statement that the protocol is consistent with the 3 Rs (replacement, refinement, reduction) (Russell and Burch, 1959), including the methods chosen to minimize any pain or distress (Marbrook et al., 1994);
• the source of the animals and their history;
• details of the husbandry of the animals--accommodation, diet, and non-experimental treatments such as routine weighing and dosing with anthelminthics;
• how the animals will be disposed of at the conclusion of the protocol; and
• personnel involved, their qualifications, and who has overall responsibility for the project.
  

The IAEC must satisfy itself that the information given is adequate and correct. It may ask for more information, seek expert help, and inspect facilities as it sees fit. The IAEC must then decide whether to accept the proposal in full, request that it be modified (possibly recommending that a pilot experiment be carried out), or refuse it. That decision will be based primarily on the balance between the ethical cost to the animal and the benefit expected to be obtained from the research. No distinction is drawn between biomedical research and veterinary research or any other usage that meets the cost-benefit test.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The New Zealand system is established and now accepted by all animal users. Improvements continue to be made, which is a process that involves both NAEAC and the IAECs. The main strengths of the New Zealand system are:

• It is based on trust in the integrity of both the IAEC and the researcher.
• Institutional ownership of its own code reinforces the institute's commitment to the spirit and intent of the legislation.
• The presence on the IAEC of the three non-institutional members allows a range of perspectives to contribute to the committee's decisions and reduces the possibility of the committee becoming a rubber stamp for the institute.
• The researcher is personally responsible for the welfare of the animals used in the project, starting from when they are acquired and continuing until the researcher disposes of them. Including the cost-benefit analysis in the proposal effectively commits the researcher to this responsibility.
• Decision and control are close to the researcher, not in some distant central bureaucracy. New Zealand has avoided the creation of a cumbersome and expensive inspectorial apparatus.
• The code is concerned with performance standards, not engineering standards.
• The IAECs are given support by NAEAC in the form of national guidelines, dissemination of information and ideas, and meetings to discuss problems and solutions.
• NAEAC has direct access to the minister responsible for administering the Animals Protection Act.

As a self-regulating system, it is vulnerable to changes in public opinion based on real or imaginary failure to perform. Vigilance on the part of the IAEC and the experimenter, honest reporting to the public, and willingness to enter into dialogue with critics are all ways that help garner the public trust. The three external members of the IAEC play an important part in judging public reaction to a proposal.

Influence of the System on Animal Research

The total number of animals used annually for research, teaching, and the other purposes listed in the regulations has increased by 12 percent over the past 4 years (Table 3). There are also changes in the numbers of individual species and the relative proportions of different species used in that period. Too little information is available, however, to analyze the causes. There is no national record yet of how the animals were used, nor of the impact the procedures or manipulations had on the animals. It is to rectify these deficiencies that NAEAC seeks to rationalize and improve the collection of statistics.

The system devised over the past 10 years has had some very positive effects. Awareness of ethical and welfare considerations has been heightened. This has increased interest in finding ways to reduce the impact of procedures and manipulations on animals, particularly those that are potentially more severe. Animal housing and animal care have improved. Finally, greater effort is being put into the planning of projects, to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of animal use.

It is known that the number of live animals used in teaching at all levels has fallen. There is no objective evidence that the system is obstructing worthwhile biomedical, veterinary, or production animal research. Insufficient funding is a much greater constraint to animal research in New Zealand than is the animal welfare legislation.

FUTURE

New developments in animal welfare in New Zealand include:

• The association with Australia through partnership in the Australian and New Zealand Committee for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART). ANZCCART promotes sharing of animal welfare information between the two countries, identification of common goals, and cooperation to achieve them. It further promotes informed discussion and debate on both ethical and practical aspects of animal welfare among animal scientists, other scientists, the public, and politicians, and it organizes meetings for that purpose. A substantial newsletter, ANZCCART News, is published as well as proceedings of meetings and specific information, such as sources of particular strains of experimental animals.
  
• The appointment of the first Professor of Animal Welfare Science in New Zealand to the Massey University Faculty of Veterinary Science. This both consolidates and expands teaching of animal welfare science in the University, and provides a focus for research on the improvement of the welfare of animals. The professor's tasks include educating the public and countering the growing gap between city dwellers and livestock farmers.
  
• The formation of the New Zealand Foundation for the Study of the Welfare of Whales. The aim of the Foundation is to prevent or reduce suffering of whales and dolphins in natural disasters such as mass strandings, or through human activities, such as whaling. No whaling is carried out in New Zealand waters, but as many as 400 animals have been stranded on New Zealand beaches in a single year.

Developments in the near future are expected to include:

• A new Animal Welfare Act based on a duty of care towards animals as well as prevention of cruelty (Bayvel, 1992);
• Better reporting of animal usage;
• Further improvement in the assessment of the impact that projects have on live animals;
• Establishment of a system of reviewing the performance of IAECs; and
• Better linking with international animal welfare information databases.
  

In the longer term, extending animal welfare science courses to non-veterinarians--companion animal groups, farmers, breeders, stockhandlers, inspectors, and others--will foster an understanding of animal welfare and an increased sensitivity to animals' needs and how they can be met.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Critical discussions with David Bayvel, Desmond Fielden, John Marbrook, David Mellor, and John Schofield are acknowledged with pleasure.

REFERENCES

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC). 1995. Report for 1994. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Bayvel, A. C. D. 1992. Implications of new animal welfare legislation. Pp. 69-84 in Animal Welfare in New Zealand. Veterinary Continuing Education Publication 144. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

Bayvel, A. C. D. 1993. A New Zealand code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes? Pp. 128-138 in Proceedings of National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee Workshop, held at Flock House, Bulls, New Zealand.

Marbrook, J., D. J. Melior, N. E. Wells, A. C. D. Bayvel, and C. S. W. Reid. 1994. Challenges posed by the three Rs. Pp. 79-88 in Animal Welfare in the Twenty-first Century: Ethical, Educational and Scientific Challenges, R. M. Baker, D. J. Melior, and A. M. Nicol, eds. Proceedings of ANZCCART conference held at the School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Mellor, D. J., and C. S. W. Reid. 1994. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. Pp. 3-18 in Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment, R. M. Baker, G. Jenkin, and D. J. Melior, eds. Proceedings of ANZCCART conference held at the Marriott Hotel, Sydney, Australia, October 1993.

National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). 1988. Guidelines for Institutional Animal Ethics Committees. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). 1994. Report for the Period 1 January 1992-31 December 1993. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Reid, C.S.W. 1990. Ethics, animals, science and the Royal Society. Pp 79-82 in The Use and Welfare of Experimental Animals, D.C. Thurley, C.S.W. Reid, and A.C.D. Bayvel, eds. Wellington, New Zealand: The Royal Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series 22.

Reid, C. S. W., and D. J. Mellor. 1993. Animal use statistics: Counting heads versus value judgements. Pp. 81-91 in Proceedings of National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee Workshop held at Flock House, Bulls, New Zealand.

Russell, W. M. S., and R. L. Butch. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Special Edition). Hefts, England: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.

TABLE 1 Extracts from the Animals Protection (Codes of Ethical Conduct) Regulations 1987

Manipulation
"'Manipulation' in relation to any live animal, means interfering with the normal physiological, behavioural, or anatomical integrity of the animal by deliberately

(a) Exposing it to any parasite, micro-organism, drug, chemical, biological product, radiation, electrical stimulation, or environmental condition;
(b) Subjecting it to enforced activity, unusual restraint, or surgical intervention;
(c) Depriving it of usual care;
but does not include any therapy or prophylaxis necessary or desirable for the welfare of the animal"
(Section 2)

Matters to be included in codes of ethical conduct
"Every code of ethical conduct which relates to the welfare and humane treatment of any live animals that are manipulated in any research, experimental, diagnosis, toxicity, or potency testing work, or are used in teaching involving the manipulation of live animals shall ..... make specific reference to the following matters:

(a) The measures to be taken to ensure that alternatives to the manipulation of animals are used whenever possible;
(b) The factors to be considered when determining whether (i) the work is likely to result in the extension of the body of knowledge relevant to the health and welfare of humans or animals or the productivity of animals, or (ii) the teaching is a required part of an educational institution's curriculum;
(c) The factors to be considered in choosing an appropriate animal species;
(d) The procedures to be adopted in formulating, approving, and implementing manipulation projects so as to minimise the numbers of animals manipulated in order that no rnore animals are used than are necessary to ensure unequivocal interpretation of the findings;
(e) The measures to be taken to ensure that the procedures for the obtaining of animals for manipulation are such that they ensure the welfare and humane treatment of the animals;
(f) The responsibilities of the persons undertaking, supervising, and responsible for manipulation and selection of animals, and their care and disposal;
(g) The measures to be taken to ensure the general health and welfare of the animals before, during and after manipulation;
(h) The measures to be taken to minimise any pain or distress caused to live animals manipulated, including the abandonment of manipulation at any stage and the immediate humane destruction of animals where pain and distress cannot be held within reasonable levels;
(i) A requirement that all Acts of Parliament, regulations, and bylaws relating to the obtaining, holding, possession, care, and treatment of animals are complied with;
(j) The measures to be taken within the organisation or body by which the work or teaching is carried out to ensure compliance with the code of ethical conduct."(Section 4)

TABLE 2 Composition of NAEAC and AWAC, 1994

National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee	Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
Independent chairperson1	Independent chairperson2
Nominees of: NZ Local Government Association (1 *) (Lay person) Chief Veterinary Officer, MAF (1) Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2) New Zealand Veterinary Association (2) The Royal Society of New Zealand (2) Health Research Council (1) School Trustees' Association (1) (Source: NAEAC, 1994)	Nominees (I each) of: Chief Veterinary Officer, MAF Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies Federated Farmers of New Zealand New Zealand Veterinary Association The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Animal behaviorist NAEAC Chairperson (ex officio) (Source: AWAC, 1995)

^*Number of nominees
¹ Currently a senior Wellington barrister retired from the Crown Law Office. Previous chairpersons were a former Commissioner for the Environment, and a former Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, Massey University.
² Currently a former Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, Massey University. Previously, a former Professor of Veterinary and Public Health, Massey University.

TABLE 3 "Experimental" Animal usage 1990-1994 ^{1, 2, 3}

Species	1990	1991	1992	1993
Amphibians	2,937	2,531	484	2,606
Birds	9,488	6,874	9,331	12,721
Cats	408	411	274	579
Cattle	51,637	66,821	60,888	66,055
Deer	3,244	2,265	2,782	1,723
Dogs	1,369	772	612	514
Fish, fish eggs	6,229	5,312	5,485	16,252
Goats	4,662	3,606	2,330	2,598
Guinea pigs	5,215	3,577	2,506	2,824
Hamsters	1,924	1,237	1,391	824
Horses/donkeys	4,41 7	6,276	973	612
Marine mammals	41 7	1,483	2,031	1,698
Mice	78,380	41,294	62,535	110,445
Mustelids	57	309	213	734
Pigs	260	241	454	445
Possum	1,114	2,524	2,869	2,660
Primates	0	0	12	0
Rabbits	3,479	2,050	2,168	2,576
Rats	20,040	22,763	9,638	18,660
Reptiles	1,748	3,052	3,420	1,980
Sheep	63,378	103,289	109,467	44,954
Miscellaneous species	375	763	240	331
TOTALS	260,778	277,450	280,103	291,801

¹ Sources: 1990-92, NAEAC (1994); 1993, MAF (Bayvel, pers.com.).
² Animals used in research, experiment, diagnosis, toxicity testing, potency testing work, the production of antisera or other biological agents, or teaching.
³ No distinction made in terms of degree of impact of procedures or manipulations on the animals, or purpose of use.

TABLE 4 Codes of Recommendation and Minimum Standards Published by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee¹

For the Welfare of	Code Number
Circus Animals	01
Sea Transport of Sheep from New Zealand	02
Sheep	03
Dairy Cattle	04
Deer during Removal of Antlers	05
Animals used in Rodeo Events	06
Horses	07
Bobby Calves2	08
Animals in Boarding Establishments	09
Slaughter	10
Sale of Companion Animals	11
Farm Animals3	12
Pigs	13
Exhibit Animals	14
Animals Transported within New Zealand	15
Welfare of Animals in Saleyards	16
Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes	17

¹ As of August 1993. Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington, NZ from which copies may be obtained.
² A "bobby calf" is a calf that is at least 4 days old and is destined for slaughter for human consumption.
³ Not a code: a general account of the implications of the Animals Protection act for those responsible for farm animals.

Copyright © 2008. National Academy of Sciences.
All rights reserved.
500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement