More Press Releases

Is REACH a pointless animal massacre?

The EU chemicals testing program REACH is a well-intentioned but scientifically flawed attempt to protect human health and the environment, both of which continue to be at risk from the effects of toxic chemicals.

New study reveals adverse effects when common pesticides mixed

An Antidote Europe-funded study demonstrates the harmful effects of mixtures of the pesticides pyrimethanil, cyprodinil and fludioxonil.

Why the Nuremberg Code may harm your health

Science has moved forward 65 years since the end of World War II but the laws have not yet caught up with the science.

Claude Reiss on Radio France Inter

Claude Reiss, Antidote Europe’s president, will be interviewed tomorrow, July 10th, at 14:00 on Radio France Inter about chemicals in our environment. The interview will be held in French.

Scientists question value of monkey experiments

An article published in the peer-reviewed Medicolegal and Bioethics presents a rare challenge not just on the ethics but also on the science of using non-human primates in research.

Adverse drug reactions kill 197,000 Europeans annually

In a letter addressed to EU Commissioner John Dalli, Antidote Europe points to the growing number of scientists who consider animal tests to be about as predictive as, or less than, tossing a coin.

Patients are now the real guinea pigs

Antidote Europe welcomes recent French media reports warning the public about dangerous medicines.

BBC presenter Uhlenbroek joins scientists on campaign

The campaign’s report presents an immediate science strategy to end poisoning tests on non-human primates.


Press Releases

Patients are now the real guinea pigs



Thu 6 Jan 2011



Antidote Europe welcomes recent French media reports warning the public about dangerous medicines.



Antidote Europe welcomes recent media reports warning the public about dangerous medicines (the latest are the drugs mediator and buflomedil). The French-based NGO fully endorses this latest expose that reveals the enormous gulf between reliable scientific methods and some of the currently used tests, which are hopelessly out of date.

All medical drugs are required to undergo extensive animal testing, even though animals cannot reliably predict what will happen in a human. This message was clearly brought home by the near fatal Northwick Park clinical trial involving six young men who received an experimental drug at one five-hundredth the dose found safe in monkeys. While cases like this are relatively rare, the rate of adverse drug reactions in the general population is far greater. In fact, nine out of ten drugs that pass animal tests fail to make it through clinical trials involving people (1). This begs the question of why our regulatory authorities still require animal tests. Rather than protecting the public it seems that animal tests actually allow many toxic products to slip through the safety net and reach the market. As a result, about 20,000 people die of adverse drug reactions in France every year (2), making adverse drug reactions the fourth leading cause of death.

The regulatory authorities must bear the major responsibility for the current situation, at a time when modern scientific methods are available, including such techniques as toxicogenomics and human DNA studies — see The of such techniques could prevent further drug tragedies. The use of human DNA brings us ever closer to the application of “personalised medicine”, where drugs are tailor-made to suit the individual, thus reducing the risk of an adverse reaction. When it comes to the safety testing of drugs and other chemicals, people clearly are not 70kg rats.

(1) Lester Crawford deputy commissioner FDA, quoted in The Scientist (6.8.2004) “Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products”.
(2) Le Monde, 13 November 1997, quote by Bernard Kouchner, secretary of state for health.


Publication Date

Thu 6 Jan 2011



André Ménache
Mob: (0790) 644-6889

Claude Reiss
Tel: (0)4 76 36 35 87