NH bill would restrict using animals for testing. Medical researchers object.

CONCORD — In traditional animal tests, animals like dogs and rabbits can have substances forced down their throats or into their lungs, according to Kurt Ehrenberg, the New Hampshire state director of the Humane Society.

A bill in the New Hampshire Legislature aims to put an end to those practices. Senate Bill 97, sponsored by Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, would prohibit the use of animals in certain product testing when there is an alternative test method available. If there is no alternative method, it directs the tester to use the fewest animals possible and to reduce their level of suffering or stress as much as possible.

To keep track, the bill would require all manufacturers to post a yearly public electronic report detailing any animal testing they did. The bill does not specify a regulating agency. Watters said he envisions violators being brought to the state’s attention by the public or groups like the ASPCA.

A 'global trend' to reduce animal testing

There are now many methods available that can replace or reduce animal testing, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ehrenberg wrote in his testimony there’s a “global trend” toward prohibiting animal testing, noting four states (New York, California, New Jersey and Virginia) that have already passed similar laws to SB 97. Twelve states have passed laws banning the sale of cosmetics that were tested on animals. And in 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its plan to aggressively reduce animal testing and completely eliminate tests using mammals by 2035.

At the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs committee hearing on April 24, Watters said that while there are no companies or manufacturers who are currently testing on animals in New Hampshire, the bill is to prevent the state from becoming a target for companies that wish to do so.

More NH news: Bars likely to face tougher penalties for overserving

“We want to make sure it is not a problem,” said Ehrenberg. “We want to set an example for human beings around the world that they do not unnecessarily have to cause suffering in animals.”

Universities express concern

The bill would not apply to animal research “conducted for the purpose of biomedical research,” but Gina Powers, the president of Rath Young Pignatelli Granite Strategies, testified Dartmouth College believes the bill could have “unintended consequences” as it receives federal funds to do animal testing.

“Unless amended Dartmouth has concerns that the research that they're doing that's peer reviewed and federally funded, that's developing new cancer treatments, treatments for cystic fibrosis, and efforts to address traumatic brain injuries, PTSD and the like, could not move forward,” said Powers.

Powers said the University of New Hampshire has similar concerns, and both schools are willing to work with lawmakers to make changes.

Watters said while he thought he had made sure that university and college research was protected under the bill, the House should consider more amendments to allow for testing that “must be done for life-saving drugs and other reasons.”

SB 97 passed the Senate in February. On Wednesday, the House committee recommended it to interim study, 6-1, citing problems with enforcement and wanting to sort out the issues with the universities. Committee chair Rep. John Hunt, R-Rindge, said if the interim study motion goes through on the House floor, he won't take the bill back up until the fall.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: NH bill would restrict using animals for testing. Researchers object.