Blame it on the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, or ICCVAM, which reps 15 federal agencies that comprise the committee. A decade after Congress created the panel to spur the development of non-animal tests, only four such tests have been approved out of 185 reviews, according to records cited by The Washington Post.

Critics say the slow pace of government efforts to replace or reduce the large numbers of animals used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers and consumer firms has caused hundreds of thousands of mice, rabbits, hamsters and dogs continue to suffer and die unnecessarily in tests for pesticides, household cleaners, sunscreens and other products, the Post writes.

Several of the panel’s original backers now consider the system broken. “We were thrilled when the legislation was passed,” Sara Amundson, a former official with the Doris Day Animal League who was involved in creating the panel, tells the paper. “It’s shocking to look back and see how little we have accomplished.”

Instead of acting as an advocate for companies and nonprofits proposing non-animal tests, the panel has become an obstacle, animal welfare groups say. They point to Europe, where a similar panel has approved 34 alternatives to animal tests and has another 170 in its pipeline, the paper explains, adding that critics say the US panel is slow and favors older animal tests that have never gone through the same rigorous scientific review.

An e-mail exchange last summer between the panel’s chair and other government scientists reinforced the suspicions of animal advocates that panel members are resistant to newer tests. In the exchange, copies of which were obtained by the Post, the scientists discussed two recent papers by a prominent European researcher favoring an alternative approach known as evidence-based toxicology. One scientist asked what they could do “to combat these papers.” The chair, Marilyn L. Wind, responded: “What I see is them trying to build a case to not use animals for testing.”

The panel’s executive director, William Stokes, issued a statement to the paper saying that his group “has successfully reviewed over 185 test methods” and that the four alternatives it has endorsed “have significantly reduced the number of animals required for safety assessments, and provided for improved welfare of animals used in safety evaluations.” One alternative has saved “at least 36,000 animals annually.”

Members of the panel also contend that it is unfair to compare Europe and the US because the laws, rules and expectations are different. Europe has legislation mandating the use of non-animal tests. The US only recommends their use. Still, some US company officials and scientists say they delayed or abandoned their proposals for non-animal tests because panel reviews are protracted and expensive. Others consider panel members biased in favor of animal tests that in some cases date back to the 1920s.

Interesting story. Here’s the rest….