Yes, absolutely.
Some of my proposed amendments are in the brief that I provided.
This is where we need to be very concrete with our language. Even in proposed subparagraph 68.1(2)( a), it says “is not reasonably possible”. Things like that are too vague.
The language that I am proposing comes from the United States. The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act was amended back in 2016. They went through this process and came up with language that seems to be working very well in the United States with practical and scientifically justified methods to talk about a replacement and reduction and not leaving space to misinterpret refinement.
The way it is written right now, we have “reduce or refine the use of” animals, but refinement could really be just making the cage bigger, one square foot more for dogs, or putting in toys or bedding for mice, but refinement should really be refining procedures to minimize pain and distress. These things need to be written in; otherwise, we will not be making full use of these amendments that we are bringing forward.