L26/P-428 Are ART laboratories ready for sustainability? Lessons from a French national survey

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a methodology for surveying sustainability in specialized medical labs; could be extended to other healthcare settings.

🏢実務担当者:ART lab managers can benchmark their eco-responsibility score (51.4 avg) and identify priority actions (training, carbon footprint).

🏛政策担当者:Shows need for standardized sustainability metrics and institutional support in healthcare; useful for national environmental health strategies.

What is the current state of eco-responsible initiatives in ART laboratories? Results from a national survey of French ART laboratories Our study shows that two-thirds of ART laboratories are engaged, or plan to engage, in sustainability initiatives within a year, reflecting uneven but increasing awareness. Climate change, largely driven by human activities such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is a major contemporary challenge, affecting the environment, public health, economy, and society. The healthcare sector contributes substantially, accounting for approximately 4.4% of global CO2 emissions and 8% of France’s national carbon footprint (» 49 million tCO2e annually). Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is not exempt: in 2022, French ART activities generated an estimated 55,691 tCO2e for 45,000 IVF/ICSI cycles (Saïs, ESHRE 2023). Emissions mainly arise from medications, staff commuting, patient transport, and electricity. Nevertheless, implementing sustainable practices in this high technology field remains challenging and insufficiently documented. An online questionnaire (Google Form) was distributed by the BLEFCO scientific society (National Federation of Biologists from Fertilization and Egg Preservation Laboratories) to reproductive biologists between 11 April and 4 June 2025. It targeted laboratory managers, with only one response per center. Multiple reminders were sent via the BLEFCO mailing list, followed by direct personalized contact in case of non-response. The questionnaire included 24 items covering four domains: energy consumption (8), waste management (6), GHG (3), and training/awareness (7), yielding a total score of 30 points. Scores were normalized to 100 and classified into three eco-responsible levels: beginner (<33), intermediate (33–66), and advanced (>66). Data on center type (private/public), activity scope (ART, fertility preservation, gamete donation), and activity volumes were collected. Laboratories were asked to report perceived barriers to engaging in eco-responsible practices. Among 104 French ART laboratories, 88 responded (84%): 45 (51%) private, 36 (41%) public, and 7 (8%) private not-for-profit. The mean eco-responsibility score was 51.4 ± 12.8%, with 69 laboratories (79%) classified as intermediate, 2 (2%) beginner, and 17 (19%) advanced. Mean thematic scores were highest for energy consumption (72.1 ± 13.9%), followed by waste management and recycling (46.8 ± 21.5%), GHG emissions (49.4 ± 26.5%), and training/awareness (29.4 ± 21.9%). Advanced laboratories scored significantly higher across all domains, whereas no differences were observed according to laboratory type or activity volume. Main reported initiatives included energy reduction during closures (84 laboratories, 96%), paper reduction (69, 78%), reusable equipment (71, 81%), order consolidation (59, 67%), waste sorting (68, 77%), and recycling (56, 63%). In contrast, only 31 laboratories (35%) received environmental training, 28 (31%) had a dedicated committee, 15 (17%) conducted a carbon footprint, and 8 (9%) communicated actions. Renewable energy use was rare (3, 3%). Overall, 27 (31%) laboratories were already engaged in eco-responsible initiatives, and 29 (33%) planned to engage within 12 months. Interest in institutional support was expressed by 66 (75%) laboratories. Reported barriers mainly included limited human resources, time constraints, lack of training, administrative complexity, and costs This study relied on self-reported information and is therefore vulnerable to response and social-desirability biases. Furthermore, data were gathered at the laboratory level rather than across entire IVF centres, excluding operating theatres and broader institutional programmes. Finally, reported initiatives were not coupled with objective measurements or quantified environmental outcomes overall. These findings support a shift from isolated, site-led actions to a coordinated sustainability strategy in ART. Priorities include governance, staff training, a standardized assessment to define baselines and enable benchmarking, and collaborative multicentre evaluations with quantified monitoring of environmental benefits and costs, while safeguarding laboratory performance and clinical outcomes. No

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deag083.762first seen 2026-07-13 06:33:31