The Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods (CCAAM) in Windsor quietly closed its doors in May and officially shuttered operations in October. Now Canada risks falling short on its ambitious goals.

More than 3.5 million animals were reportedly used in research, teaching and testing in Canada in 2022. And that number represents only federally funded facilities, since private laboratories are not required to report.  

By passing Bill S5, the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, albeit eight years after the United States passed similar legislation, Canada appeared to be working toward what are known as the three Rs: to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in toxicity testing.

In addition to phasing out chemical toxicity testing of substances such as, say, new flame retardants or pesticides, on animals, Canada would become the 44th country to pass laws to end cosmetic animal testing and sales of cosmetics tested on animals, joining several U.S. states and the entire European Union. And according to the federal budget released in April, the government was poised to allocate tens of millions in funding to “protect Canadians from being exposed to some 30,000 chemicals, including by advancing scientific research to phase out animal toxicity testing.”  

In addition to providing humane alternatives for animal toxicity testing, CCAAM’s work also has great potential to benefit the millions of other animals undergoing other types of agonizing experiments every year in Canadian labs.

– Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice

For Dr. Charu Chandrasekera, founder and executive director of CCAAM, this was the hope she needed to keep CCAAM’s underfunded work alive. Until she realized her centre was not included in the plan.  

CCAAM opened in 2019, at the University of Windsor. Chandrasekera, a former animal researcher, worked for years in biomedical research with mouse models of heart disease and diabetes. “It became very obvious that the work I was doing was not translatable [to humans],” she told Maclean’s magazine at the time. “Nothing was really reproducible; there were so many discrepancies and contradictions, even among the top-notch researchers.” 

The use of animal models has long been considered necessary in biomedical research and toxicity testing. Yet more than 90% of drugs deemed safe and effective in animal models go on to fail in human clinical trials. Similarly, relying on animal models in toxicity testing – to assess the potential risks of substances such as pesticides, cleaning agents, drugs, et cetera – has also proven to be problematic in terms of assessing real-world effects. These stark statistics highlight a fundamental flaw in traditional testing methods, where results in animals often do not translate to human outcomes.  

With this knowledge, Chandrasekera and her team went to work on developing and promoting cutting-edge, human-based methods that not only reduce animal suffering but promise precise, cost-effective and faster results.

“At CCAAM, we led pioneering interdisciplinary programs to transform the Canadian animal-testing landscape,” Chandrasekera tells Corporate Knights. “Through collaborations with academia, industry, government and NGOs, we advanced various technologies to emulate human biology in a petri dish, such as 3D-bioprinted human tissues.”  

Innovative alternative methods are being developed at centres around the world – in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Brazil and South Korea – to mimic human biology (rather than mouse biology), allowing researchers to replicate complex biological processes in a petri dish or virtual environment, without the need for animal testing. The only difference is that those centres receive millions in federal funds. CCAAM subsisted on private gifts and modest grants. Until it didn’t.  

Animal welfare advocates cry foul over lack of funding

Today, Chandrasekera’s equipment sits boxed up in a storage facility in Ottawa, the doors to her University of Windsor laboratory closed.  

​​And with the comment period on the draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act closing today, November 13, animal advocates are hoping the public and other stakeholders will speak up in defence of Chandrasekera’s work.​ 

Corporate Knights contacted Health Canada to find out why the government isn’t funding CCAAM. Although the department didn’t provide a direct answer, spokesperson Marie-Pier Burelle stated that it and Environment and Climate Change Canada “are leading and collaborating on a range of scientific and research activities related to animal testing alternatives.” This includes “various scientific and research activities led by Health Canada scientists to support key focus areas for ongoing and future research, as well as contributions to initiatives with intergovernmental and multistakeholder organizations.”  

Health Canada adds that efforts to reduce reliance on vertebrate animal testing extend beyond any single organization. Though it would appear it doesn’t include CCAAM at all. Burelle says that, despite the centre’s closure, the department’s “aim to reduce reliance on animal testing remains unchanged.” She also points to “several funding sources to support academic research,” including grants.  

Liberal Member of Parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith says that while the government has committed legislatively to phasing out toxicity testing on animals, “it’s completely failed to take commensurate action to fund these efforts, and it’s inexplicably stood on the sidelines while CCAAM closed its doors.” He says that a number of caucus members “have spent years trying to secure a funding commitment to match the government’s stated promises, and it’s frankly embarrassing that the government has been unable to deliver nominal funding to support.”  

Related

Of mice and men: Could COVID spell the end of animal testing?

Empty animal welfare promises a bad look for the food industry

Is your pension invested in animal cruelty?

He’s not the only one calling foul. Lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, says in a statement that the indefinite closure of CCAAM “would represent a major setback not only for animals but for Canadian science.” She says that “in addition to providing humane alternatives for animal toxicity testing, CCAAM’s work also has great potential to benefit the millions of other animals undergoing other types of agonizing experiments every year in Canadian labs.” Federal support is needed, she says, “to ensure Canada can stay on track with its goal to end animal toxicity testing and become a leader in cruelty-free research.” 

Health Canada says revisions to the government’s draft strategy will be made “based on input received from the public and stakeholders, with a final strategy expected to be published by June 2025.” That input can be relayed via the Government of Canada website through November 13.  

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated that university labs in Canada are not required to report their use of animals in research. They are accredited by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and their data is included in the report linked above. 

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also a co-host of the Canadian animal law podcast Paw & Order.

The post Canada’s plan to phase out animal testing suffers a setback appeared first on Corporate Knights.

For investors with public pension funds who are concerned about animal welfare, knowing a fund’s involvement in potential animal cruelty is crucial, though not always easy to discern.

According to recent research from animal welfare experts, at least six top global pension funds have holdings in potentially cruel companies that slaughter animals for meat, produce other animal products or fall behind in animal welfare standards.

Norway’s pension at back of pack

At the top of the list of funds with holdings in potentially cruel companies is Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), with four holdings of concern worth US$159.7 million. Of that, $61 million is invested in Sanderson Farms, a Fortune 1000 company that, according to its website, has the capacity to “process more than 13.65 million chickens per week.” While the company does have an animal welfare policy of sorts, it refers only to antibiotics and does not address stocking density, painful procedures, breeding or other important animal welfare issues pertaining to chickens.

A 2017 report by the Animal Welfare Institute found that one Sanderson farm had been cited 20 times in the two preceding years for not complying with humane handling standards. One USDA inspector determined that the plant’s slaughtering process was “out of control.”
The other contentious NBIM holdings are Japan’s NH Foods (US$64 million), Mexico’s Industrias Bachoco ($US34.3 million) and Dean Foods in the U.S. (US$0.1 million).

An NBIM spokesperson states the fund has no specific policy regarding animal welfare.

Canada and California pension plans also clued out on cruelty

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board holds a total of US$24 million in potentially cruel companies, including US$13.7 million in NH Foods, US$10.2 million in Sanderson Farms and US$0.1 million in Dean Foods. The fund takes no position on animal welfare and makes no mention of it in its 2017 or 2018 Sustainable Investing Reports.

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System and California Public Employees’ Retirement System both have holdings in Sanderson Farms, US$5.6 million and US$7.9 million respectively. Neither has a specific policy regarding animal welfare.

Some funds are starting to consider cruelty

A spokesperson for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) says that animal-welfare issues are studied as part of their fund’s pre-investment ESG analysis, and “if concerns arise, we proactively engage in dialogue with companies we’re invested in.”

However, CDPQ has three holdings in potentially cruel companies, including US$9.2 million in Industrias Bachoco, US$1.7 million in NH Foods and US$18.5 million in JBS S.A., the largest meat-processing company in the world, which slaughters 13 million animals every day.
JBS S.A. has also not signed on to the Better Chicken Commitment, an initiative supported by major animal protection groups around the world. And according to the 2018 Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, though the company appears to have an established approach to animal welfare, it “has more work to do to ensure it is effectively implemented.”

New York’s pension fund claims to use more of a shareholder engagement rather than divestment approach. The proxy voting guidelines of the New York State Common Retirement Fund state that “the Fund will support proposals asking a company to report on its animal welfare standards.” In 2018, fund managers wrote to McDonald’s, requesting information on what the company was doing to align its chicken welfare policy with widely accepted best practices like those of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Global Animal Partnership. However, it still holds US$3.6 million in Sanderson Farms.

Which financial institutions are taking the lead?

While pension funds may lag behind when it comes to animal welfare, other financial institutions are stepping up, providing examples of how to approach animal-friendly finances.

Bank Australia, for example, states on its website that it does not lend to “organizations that use intensive animal farming systems like battery caged hens and sow stalls, or organizations that export live animals.”

The Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO) has a three-page position statement regarding animal welfare that includes recognizing animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain. FMO considers unacceptable farming practices to include “non-enriched battery cages for chickens, the tethering of sows, individual sow stall housing throughout the entire pregnancy, individual pen housing for veal calves beyond the age of eight weeks, forced feeding of geese and ducks.” The agency will not make investments “that substantially involve any of these systems or practices.”

Other financial institutions notable for making animal welfare a priority include Allianz, CDC Group (the UK’s development finance institution), Rabobank, Standard Chartered and Triodos Bank.

Australian Ethical wealth management outright excludes any investment “in current systems of commercial animal agriculture including meat, dairy, eggs and seafood.”

Another option for investors concerned with the treatment of animals: the VEGN ETF, managed by Beyond Investing and listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The fund “excludes from consideration companies that harm animals, screening out companies that are involved in animal testing, animal-derived products, as well as animals in sports or entertainment.” Top holdings aren’t so much in, say, plant protein companies like Beyond Meat, but in corporations like Apple, Microsoft and Mastercard that don’t engage in screened practices.

Investor network pushing for change

One global network of investors with $20 trillion in assets under management has been encouraging investors to consider the financial and climate risks of investing in animal cruelty. Jeremy Coller, executive chair of London-based Coller Capital and a well-known name in private equity, developed the Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return (FAIRR) initiative five years ago “to put animal welfare on the ESG agenda.” The Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index assesses the 60 largest global meat producers for investors. FAIRR also pressures corporations like Kroger, Walmart and McDonald’s to consider the risks to investors of relying exclusively on animal proteins within their supply chains – and to consider alternatives.

With the widespread rise in interest in meatless products, veganism and animal welfare, the treatment of animals is quickly becoming an important issue in that realm of socially responsible investing. If large pension funds and financial institutions want to keep up with this trend, they will need to become more aware of their involvement in potentially cruel companies and take steps to keep cruelty out of their investments.

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer and animal advocate. She writes for major media across Canada and the U.S.

The post Is your pension invested in animal cruelty? appeared first on Corporate Knights.