top of page


Join us and help us campaign to get Sequani to move to NAMs. with animal testing failing over 90% its clear that Sequani have to move to a more human based approach. Sequani often use animals for crop protection testing, this has proven that it isn't safe for humans with farmers at the most risk of getting parkinsons disease due to spreading unsafe pesticides and herbecides all over their crops. Sequani will force feed a high dose of pesticides and chemicals to animals, inject them and even make them inhale the products.


See below downloadable PDF's of Sequanis power point presentations.

As Sequani already admit mouse models are not reliable along with pigs dogs and other animals and even highlight there is a ethical reason.

So why use them at all Sequani, move to NAMs.


Sequani’s longivity is more than 40 years when a company called Toxicol Laboratories opened for business in London before moving to the company’s current site in Bromyard Road, Ledbury. DRUG DEVELOPMENT Getting a drug to market is an expensive and lengthy process. (NOT IF THEY USED NAMs) Our renowned flexibility, depth of experience and creative approach to non clinical strategy is the crucial support you need. Lets be clear on what NON CLINICAL actually means... (Non-clinical testing is conducted at a stage of medicines development that uses animals and/or cells or tissues. It does not involve testing in humans. The main goal of non-clinical tests is to determine the safety of a medicine) So they added in a fancy medical word to hide the fact they use animals. CROP PROTECTION We deliver outstanding scientific and technical expertise to support you through the safety evaluation phases of registration and re-registration projects for agricultural chemicals and other crop protection technologies. Here are just some examples of acute health effects using chemical pesticides, these include stinging eyes, rashes, blisters, blindness, nausea, dizziness, diarrhea and death. Examples of known chronic effects are cancers, birth defects, reproductive harm, immunotoxicity, neurological and developmental toxicity, and disruption of the endocrine system... Now imagine these animals in Sequani are given HIGH doses of these toxic chemicals amounts humans would never go near, they are oral gavaged, injected and even inhale it. Animals are extremely sick and suffer, yet alone the results are not the same for humans, we would have more SAFE products on the market if we used human based research and testing.


Here are a list of emails to send heads of departments of Sequani. Some of them even have ties with Envigo UK. Copy and paste below our email and fill in your details to urge Sequani to debate using NAMs with us. HEREFORDSHIRE MP - LEDBURY MAYOR - LIST OF LEDBURY TOWN COUNCIL -



Sequani has long over used the use of animals for outdated testing, most using animals for regulatory toxicology testing, which is now known to be unethical and fraudulent.


there are many alternatives to using animals (see links below) so why are these NAMs being used?

The animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 - (ASPA)

2(a) the principle of replacement that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy not entailing the use of protected animals must be used instead of a regulated procedure. NAMS (replacements) 1656 (81 new entries Dec 2022).

Immediately cease the ‘six pack’ toxicity tests on all animals. There is a commercially available alternative:

In Vitro 6-Pack Toxicity Testing. The purpose of the “6-Pack” toxicity panel is to evaluate acute systemic toxicity by all three major routes of exposure providing information on potential health hazards associated with chemicals. Until now, these tests could only be done by exposing animals.

By failing to apply the law in its entirety and in particular with the lack of implementation of provision 2a there are 36 years non-compliance in this particular provision that have already accrued.

Whilst the FDA bill doesn’t completely ban testing on animals but enables drug developers to use alternatives when feasible, ASPA 1986 act states quite clearly that we must use alternatives.

There are two massive alternative databases for toxicology testing of chemicals and chemical compounds. One is in the USA funded by the federal government.


Tox 21;

The other is the OECD QSAR toolbox: produced in collaboration with the European Chemicals Agency. Both are accessible by the UK Government.

We have no compulsory use of these tools by the UK government, on any level of research, experimentation and testing even though by law they are supposed to enforce the ASPA. The public is paying for needless repetitive tests endlessly. This cannot continue. There is a lack of expertise and accountability that is independent.

The regulatory standards applied to non-animal methods of testing are equivalent or higher and are produced in ways that counter match of the current slow science. The range of methods and devices are increasing significantly every week. Here is a database in English provided by the Norwegian Government listing 1656 (81 new entries Dec 2022) entries of alternatives for students and researchers. We do not have a database like this in the U.K. for our students and researchers and no expectation that they will check before applying for licences.

The U.K. universities are behind the curve in replacing the use of animals in medical training. The U.S.A. France and Canada have ceased this practice years ago. The use of simulators has changed in the last few years. We now have virtual dissection tables of the quality unheard of before e.g. Anatomage. Syndaver.

Bearing in mind, the ASPA 1986 act and the 3 databases that have been mentioned, which does raise serious issues, changes really do need to be made to comply with the law and not make others inadvertently complicit in breaking it. Also, this does change the course of direction of how students are being taught and what guidance they are given? Also funding and investments would be needed for this to happen.

We would like to invite Sequani to join us in a debate regarding the use of animals, and to come to some sort or reasoning moving forward, the EC team is looking forward to being invited to Sequani to discuss these issues politely, Sequani can reach out to any of us by email via or and arrange a date to talk, we will be looking forward to this.

These are just some of the very serious issues raised, which I hope can be discussed during the parliament debate on the 16th January.

Kind regards


bottom of page