Monthly Archives: January 2003

West Hollywood Considers Ban on Cat Declawing

Posted on by
Reply

A year after becoming one of the first cities to declare pet owners \”pet guardians,\” West Hollywood, California, will soon take up a proposed ban on cat declawing.

Although cat declawing is banned in 13 European nations, West Hollywood would become the first city in America to ban the practice in which part of the toes of cats are cut off to permanently remove the claws.

An Associated Press report on the proposal cited an unnamed People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals source as saying that it intended to lobby other cities for similar bans.

Source:

West Hollywood may adopt nation\’s first ban on cat declawing. Laura Wides, Associated Press, January 17, 2003.

Share

Europe Approves Eventual, Someday, Maybe \”Ban\” on Animal Testing

Posted on by
Reply

The European parliament this month approved its so-called ban on animal testing for cosmetics products. What the \”ban\” really means since the full force of its provisions won\’t go into effect for at least 10 years, remains to be seen.

Assuming the law is approved by individual states, by 2009 companies must convert 11 of 14 animal tests to animal alternatives (even though many of those alternatives are only non-animal in the sense that they don\’t use whole animals).

Companies are given until 2013 to move to animal alternatives for the remaining three tests.

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection\’s spokesperson Wendy Higgins said of the vote,

This is potentially a historic moment, since to eradicate cosmetic animal testing from the European Union is quite an achievement. However, it is shameful that it has taken so long to do this. We are also disappointed we have a staggered sales ban.

Color me skeptical.

First, plenty of cosmetics and other finished products tested on animals will continue to be sold in Europe indefinitely since all existing compounds — most, if not all, of which have been extensively tested on animals — are grandfathered in.

Second, the 6 and 10 year respective deadlines is like balanced budget legislation in the United States — it simply delays the actual decision making to a point where politicians currently in office will likely not have to deal with it. As those deadlines approach, watch for high powered lobbying to extend the deadlines (and the cosmetics industry is already laying the groundwork for that).

Third, the ban faces a likely strong objection in the World Trade Organization that it represents an unfair barrier to trade.

This \”ban\” seems more like a classic political maneuver common to democracies where legislation that appears to take a strong position but in actuality essentially commits a government to no immediate action is offered up to appease a perceived politically vocal group.

Tune in around 2008 or so to see if the Europeans stick to their guns on this total ban on animal testing for cosmetics.

Source:

Law makeover closes animal test loopholes. Alastair Dalton and Nicola Smith, The Scotsman, January 13, 2003.

Share

Huntingdon Life Sciences Loses Two Board Members

Posted on by
Reply

Huntingdon Life Sciences this week announced the resignations of board members John Caldwell and Kirby Cramer. Cramer had served as a non-executive director at HLS since 1996, and Cramer had been an executive director since 1998.

Both men were the targets of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty\’s ongoing intimidation campaign agains anyone remotely affiliated with HLS. When Caldwell was named as the dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Liverpool, he found his new department stormed by anti-HLS activists. Similarly, Cramer served on a number of boards of other companies, and SHAC and others targeted those other companies in an attempt to convince Cramer to resign from the HLS board.

To replace the board members, HLS named international businessman Y Sesay and Pakistani businessman Mohammed Faruque.

Presumably HLS chose both men, at least in part, because their geographical locations will make it more difficult for Western animal rights activists to apply the sort of intimidation tactics they have used against British and American individuals affiliated with the firm.

This didn\’t stop SHAC from issuing a press release listing phone numbers for Faruque along with a time zone chart giving the best times for activists to call Faruque. According to the SHAC press release,

It has also been reported that he [Faruque] has had a great deal of trepidation about joining the board concerning the animal rights threat he may face.

Sounds like he needs some convincing!

Sources:

Executives targeted by animal rights activists retire. Patrick Jenkins, Financial Times, January 15, 2003.

Two Huntingdon directors resign – new directors not secured!! Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Press Release, January 15, 2003.

Share

San Francisco Supervisors Vote for Pet \”Owner-Guardian\” Language

Posted on by
Reply

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted this week to replace the term \”owner\” with \”-owner-guardian\” in all instances where San Francisco\’s municipal code mentions pets.

Attorneys for San Francisco maintain the change will have no appreciable legal effect, while critics of the proposal claim that it could lessen individual liability for the actions of pets since \”guardian\” implies a less delineated relationship than \”owner\” does.

Elliott Katz of In Defense of Animals, which has been pushing for this sort of terminology change, told the San Francisco Chronicle, \”Being a guardian of an animal companion signifies a higher level of responsibility, respect and care to the animals we share our lives with.\”

In Defense of Animals, meanwhile, is featuring a Bird Guardian program on its web site this month, which urges the public to never \”buy\” birds, but rather to \”adopt\” them (presumably through any number of bird adoption agencies).

Sources:

Jockstrip: The world as we know it. Ellen Beck, United Press Intrenational, January 15, 2003.

Share

SCID Gene Cure May Have Leukemia Side Effect

Posted on by
Reply

The first disease ever cured by gene therapy was severe combined immune disorder (SCID) — the so-called \”bubble boy\” disease in which the immune system is so severely compromised that children have to live in near-sterile environments to avoid life threatening disease. But now, there is new evidence that the cure for SCID may increase the risk of leukemia among children receiving it.

In 2002, one of the toddlers who received SCID gene therapy as a baby came down with leukemia, and officials in France and the United States temporarily stopped the procedure. Now, a three year old who received the treatment as an infant has also come down with leukemia. As a result, the United States has suspended all 27 existing gene therapy studies have been suspended pending new risk assessments.

The potential for this sort of leukemia problem accompanies all gene therapies that use retroviruses, but this is the first time where this hypothetical risk has become actual. According to an NPR report, both of the children involved are responding well to treatment for their leukemia.

Source:

Gene therapy causes \”leukemia-like side effect\”. Nando Times.

Share

Jane Goodall\’s Convincing Argument Against Animal Research

Posted on by
Reply

Until now, the animal rights argument against animal testing had little sway over this writer, but primate expert Jane Goodall has such a convincing argument for replacing animal research, that I may have to change my mind.

Here\’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Goodall in the Indian Express,

[Indian Express]: What is the way out?

[Jane Goodall]: We are the dominant species. We have the brains to subdue elephants. If it\’s possible to reach the moon and find life-saving drugs with these brains, it\’s also possible to find ways of progress without hurting animals. Had we stretched our brains a bit, we would have been further ahead. For animals, it\’s torture. So let\’s get our brains working and get rid of these painful experiments.

Of course, why didn\’t anyone else think of this before? If it\’s possible to go the moon, it must also be possible to accomplish X (where X is any as-yet unaccomplished goal).

If it\’s possible to reach the moon, it\’s also possible to travel back in time and stop World War II. If it\’s possible to reach the moon, it\’s also possible to cure all disease by 2010.

I certainly hope that Goodall is considered for the Nobel Prize for such pithy insight.

Source:

Can\’t we research without hurting animals?. Indian Express, January 15, 2003.

Share

Ingrid Newkirk Knows Animal Hoaxes

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals\’ president Ingrid Newkirk was quoted in a Canadian newspaper about a topic which even this writer will stipulate that she is certainly an expert — hoaxes and disinformation about the treatment of animals.

The particular example at hand is an odd New Zealand book, Why Paint Cats: The ethics of feline aesthetics, which appears to be a more tasteful version of a Bonsai Kitten-style hoax. Rather than claiming to show people how to stuff kittens into bottles, Why Paint Cats claims to chronicle the art of painting picutres onto the rear ends of cats.

For example, the book claims that a New York stockbroker paid $16,000 to have an image of Charlie Chaplin painted onto his cat.

The author of the book insists that it is not a hoax, though the Ottawa Citizen noted that some of the groups and magazines cited in the book do not appear to exists.

Newkirk concurs, telling the Ottawa Citizen,

It\’s so intricate [the supposed cat paintings]. It\’s so detailed. I cannot imaigine that anyone could get even one cat, let alone all those cats who look quite happy and wonderful to stil still . . . it\’s just not so

And if anyone knows about using images of animals that aren\’t quite what they purport to be, certainly that person is Newkirk.

Source:

Flashy felines or a colourful hoax? Jennifer Morrison, The Ottawa Citizen, January 11, 2003.

Share

Market Research Poll on UK Vegetarian Consumers

Posted on by
Reply

Taylor Nelson Sofres Family Food Panel recently published the result of its market research poll of vegetarians which, like other polls of vegetarians, found that many of the people who call themselves vegetarians supplement their veggie diet with meat.

The TNS study found that half the people in their poll who called themselves vegetarian actually ate fish, one third ate chicken, and fully 25 percent ate read meat on occasion. The percentage of \”true vegetarians\” — those who did not eat meat — was three percent of the population surveyed.

This study was prepared to help companies better market food products to vegetarians and included a number of questions about what vegetarians eat. The study concluded that quorn-based products constituted 46 percent of \”total vegetarian foods\” (reading between the lines, I assume that means total vegetarian foods purchased as prepared foods at supermarkets). Quorn is a 93 million pound market in Great Britain, but the meat substitute remains banned in the United States thanks to onerous food regulations.

The survey also reported an increase in sales of textured vegetarian protein as a substitute for meat.

TNS\’ Sara Donnelly summarized the survey results saying,

The focus of vegetarian food marketing by manufacturers and retailers will need to change in order to appeal to a more diverse market place, including men and older women. Whilst, meals without meat, for example, meat-free pasta dishes, soups, salads, stir fries and sandwiches are becoming more popular, meat still features in a significant majority of people\’s diets. However, in a society that places huge demands on time, a growing numbeer of consumers are looking for meals that are convenient to prepare, and meat is often perceived as inconvenient. Because of this, there are now opportunities for food marketers to target consumers who want convenient, healthy, meat-free meals, rather than marketing products specifically as \’meals for vegetarians.\’

Source:

The true vegetarian nature.

Share

The American Prospect on John Zogby Animal Rights Poll

Posted on by
Reply

The left wing magazine The American Prospect published an interesting look at pollster John Zogby in its February 2003 issue, which uses as its centerpiece an animal rights poll taken by Zogby International.

The poll in question, which was cited in a New York Times Magazine cover story about animal rights, claims that 51 percent of Americans believe that \”primates are entitled to the same rights as children.\”

The main thrust of The American Prospect article is that although Zogby polls such as this are cited as objective, nonpartisan polls by the media, that instead Zogby International is essentially selling push polling to clients and creatively wording questions and interpreting results to produce poll results favorable to the groups it hires.

The poll cited by the New York Times Magazine story, for example, was paid for by the Doris Day Animal League (which the NYT did not bother to mention). That, in and of itself, doesn\’t make the poll invalid, but it should have garnered the poll more scrutiny. And when The American Prospect\’s Chris Mooney looked at the poll closely, it was little more than a push poll. Mooney writes,

Look more closely at the Doris Day Animal League survey. The New York Times Magazine report that 51 percent of Americans think \”primates are entitled to the same rights as human children\” goes far beyond anything in the actual poll. First, the poll didn\’t ask about primates — a category including anything from pygmy mouse lemurs to gorillas — but about chimpanzees. Second, the actual question gave respondents four options to choose from: In brief, they could say that chimps ought to be treated \”like property,\” \”similar to children,\” \”the same as adults\” or \”not sure.\” Given this particular set of choices, option two was the obvious pick — almost as if respondents were steered toward it. And after 51 percent had chosen \”similar to children,\” the Zogby survey inexplicably translated \”similar\” into \”the same\” in its conclusions — a very big difference. The Doris Day Animal League then reported this in its press materials.

Well, at least Zogby gave the Doris Day Animal League what they paid for! Mooney documents other examples of Zogby International releasing polls about policy-related topics that are little more than press release fluff predesigned to reach a conclusion favored by the client paying for the poll.

Source:

Jon Zogby\’s Creative Polls. Chris Mooney, The American Prospect, February 1, 2003.

Share

Dispute Over McDonald\’s Lawsuit Settlement Gains Momentum

Posted on by
Reply

The dispute over how to spend $6 million McDonald\’s agreed to pay to non-profit vegetarian organizations gained steam and national coverage with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals weighing in against a proposed award to a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill researcher.

Those opposed to the current settlement have petitioned the court to reject the current disbursement plans. For its part, McDonald\’s has filed briefs with the court overseeing the settlement that attacks the characterizes the animal rights groups leading the charge against the proposed settlement as \”zealous radicals.\”

Much of the national media coverage focused on opposition to UNC nutrition researcher Steve Zeisel. Here\’s how Jeff Nelson of VegSource.Com sums up the case against Zeisel,

VRG [Vegetarian Resource Group] submitted the only declaration in support of the proposal, even endorsing the money earmarked to go to the anti-vegetarian animal researcher at University of North Carolina — a researcher who seeks to prove his personal hypothesis that the vegan diet is very unsafe for pregnant women who need to eat eggs when pregnant in order to get sufficient choline.

PETA\’s Hannah Schein told the Associated Press that,

The money is supposed to be earmarked for vegetarian groups. He doesn\’t represent a vegetarian gruop. If anything, he recommends that pregnant women not be vegetarian.

What exactly are Nelson and PETA afraid that Zeisel might find?

Zeisel wants to use the money he would receive to study whether or not pregnant vegetarian women receive enough choline.

Choline is a vitamin-like substance that is crucial in the body\’s production of an important nerve messenger chemical. In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences? Institute of Medicine recommended choline be recognized as a crucial human nutrient.

Choline is found mainly in eggs, meat and milk, so it would hardly be surprising to find choline deficiency in pregnant vegetarian and vegan women. You\’d think that VegSource.Com and PETA would want such a study (especially since adequate choline can probably be obtained from vegan sources). As Zeisel told the Associated Press,

Pregnancy is a time that women have to be careful about their diet and be sure they are well-balanced. This is not a time to be a careless vegetarian. If we\’re going to learn something about the science of this, you need to go to the places that can do the science.

Of course neither PETA nor VegSource.Com have ever been particularly careful about vetting their statements to ensure scientific accuracy. Much better to simply push the ideology and hope nobody notices the man behind the curtain.

Sources:

McDonald\’s Attacks Vegetarian Leaders. Jeff Nelson, VegSource.Com, January 6, 2003.

Grant for UNC researcher riles animal activists. Associated Press, January 10, 2003.

Lawyer hits McD on suit settlement process. Sandra Guy, Chicago Sun-Times, January 10, 2003.

Share