Chemicals help us clean our homes, protect crops, develop medicines, and make everyday essential products. But how do we determine whether they could harm us or the ecosystems around us without testing on animals?
A 2023 study co-authored by the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) found that 4.2 million animals had been used to comply with REACH, the EU’s chemicals law, across just three test categories.
At the same time, many chemicals remain poorly understood. Properly protecting humans, animals, and ecosystems requires filling these knowledge gaps.
Scientists are developing alternatives to traditional animal testing, and regulators are beginning to accept them. Yet scientific progress does not advance in every country equally.
The World Federation for Animals (WFA) is bringing this issue to the first International Conference of the Global Framework on Chemicals.
Why the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) matters for animals
The Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) is a UN voluntary international agreement that brings governments, businesses, scientists and civil society together to keep chemicals safe for people and the planet.
The first International Conference of the GFC will take place in Geneva in November 2026. At the conference, governments will consider several “Issues of Concern” (IoC), which are chemical-related problems that are not yet adequately recognised or addressed, and that would benefit from countries working together.
WFA submitted an IoC on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), raising awareness of new testing methods that could help characterise chemicals more efficiently and accurately than traditional animal testing. The proposal aims to help more countries begin using testing methods that can reduce and replace animal testing while strengthening protection for people, animals, and the environment.
Learn more in this interview with one of the project leads, Karin Gabrielson Morton of the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), an affiliate of the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS). A WFA founding member, AAVS is coordinating this initiative together with Eurogroup for Animals, Cruelty Free International, Te Protejo, and Animals Australia, with support from several other WFA members.
1. What are New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), and why do they matter for animal protection?
NAMs refer broadly to advanced testing methods that can reduce or replace animal testing. They are tools that can help scientists understand how chemicals affect people and other animals. These methods use cells or tissues grown in a laboratory (in vitro models) and computer-based methods for hazard and risk assessments of chemicals and consumer products.
Instead of exposing an animal to a chemical, scientists can use these tools to investigate particular effects, for example, whether a substance damages human skin cells.
In the past few decades, scientists have made tremendous progress developing these alternative methods. However, policy has not always kept pace with the science.
There are also still areas where these testing methods have not been sufficiently developed. Supporting a transition to NAMs therefore means two things. It means promoting the methods that are already available. It also means continuing to develop new methods and proving that they work reliably.
2. How can transitioning to NAMs make chemicals safer for humans and the environment?
Traditional animal testing methods have several limitations. These include high costs, lengthy timelines, and limitations in predicting effects in humans.
NAMs can be species-specific. They can also predict risks that are difficult to assess using standard animal models. Examples include effects linked to different life stages, such as pregnancy and childhood.
They also include specific exposure scenarios, such as workers who handle chemicals every day or exposure to chemical mixtures.
NAMs testing strategies can also help predict risks to wildlife and ecosystems.
Many chemicals remain poorly understood. Obtaining a complete understanding of their effects is not practically feasible using traditional animal testing alone.
A robust implementation of NAMs will be essential to fill knowledge gaps. These gaps cover thousands of chemicals (and mixtures of chemicals) that people, animals, and ecosystems are exposed to every day.
3. How could NAMs help countries achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
Reliable, cost-efficient, and scalable NAMs would support several SDGs.
Improving safety assessments would help protect health (SDG 3) by reducing people’s exposure to harmful chemicals. It would also support industry and innovation (SDG 9), including green chemistry and sustainable-by-design approaches. These approaches help ensure responsible production and consumption (SDG 12).
Accelerating the development, acceptance, awareness, and implementation of NAMs could also support education (SDG 4) by training the next generation of scientists.
It can help achieve clean water (SDG 6), since safer chemicals mean fewer harmful substances in rivers and seas. It also supports life below water and life on land (SDGs 14 and 15) by protecting the ocean and land ecosystems where animals live.
4. Why is a global body like the GFC needed to solve this issue?
The GFC provides opportunities to raise international awareness about incorporating NAMs into chemical safety assessment and sustainable-by-design approaches. Some countries and regions are already integrating NAMs throughout their regulatory systems, and many companies use them to design and develop new products.
However, many emerging economies risk being left behind in this transition. Inconsistent use of testing methods can lead to duplicative and unnecessary testing. Companies may have to meet conflicting requirements, which can include unnecessary animal tests.
The GFC provides a crucial and inclusive platform. It can extend capacity-building and knowledge-sharing about NAMs to countries that are underrepresented in other international efforts. It is uniquely positioned to map existing efforts and identify capacity gaps. It can convene relevant actors and share internationally accepted guidance. It can also support training and institutional development, and mobilise resources for underrepresented countries.
What happens next
The transition to NAMs offers an important opportunity to reduce animal testing while improving chemical safety for people, animals, and the environment.
The first International Conference of the GFC could help build global awareness, cooperation, and capacity around NAMs. It could also help ensure that scientific advances lead to real progress in replacing animal testing worldwide.
Read the full Issue of Concern
The IoC proposal has attracted support across government agencies, science, industry and civil society, including Health Canada, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) in the United States, and the Swedish National Committee for the Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes. Other supporters include Unilever, AnimalhealthEurope, the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, and organisations from different regions.
YOUNGO, a globally influential youth network, is also bringing young people into this conversation that will shape the science and chemical safety systems of their future.
The IoC has also been endorsed by the Lush Prize, an international awards initiative by Lush Cosmetics in partnership with the Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) that recognises and funds work to replace animal testing.
Follow us on X, Facebook, Bluesky, or LinkedIn, and subscribe to our Weekly Digest to stay informed on news that matters for animals.
