AnimalRights.Net

British pig farmer Bobby Waugh was convicted this week on nine of 15 counts he had been charge with in relation to the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom. Waugh will face sentencing on June 28. Waugh could face up to 6 months in prison.

Waugh was convicted of five counts of failing to notify authorities of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, one count of feeding unprocessed waste to his pigs, one count of failing to properly dispose of animal waste, and two counts of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

Waugh’s farm appears to have been the initial source for the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Waugh’s pigs apparently contracted the disease after he gave them feed that had not been properly processed.

Waugh claimed he had no idea his pigs had contracted foot and mouth disease, but a video introduced during the trial shows his pigs suffering from what is clearly foot and mouth disease.

By failing to report the disease outbreak promptly, Waugh allowed what would have been an extremely localized event to expand into a large scale outbreak of foot and mouth disease that cost British farmers as much as $3 billion.

Source:

Farmer kept quit about disease. The BBC, May 30, 2002.

In a recent e-mail dispatch, Robert Cohen went on at length about the evils of Abbott Laboratories for Pediasure, a nutritional supplement marketed for children ages 1-10.

Cohen writes in his inimitably bizarre style,

Child abuse comes in many forms. Pediaphiles [sic] are child abusers. Pediatrics is the field of medicine dedicated to childhood diseases. The most respected pediatrician to have ever lived, Dr. Benjamin Spock, advised that no child should ever drink cow’s milk, Pediatricians who advise mothers to feed their children bovine secretions can be classified as ignorant child abusers.

. . .

A visit to Abbot Lab’s website reveals a company that is big on diabetes medicines. How ironic. One of the major components of Pediasure is whey protein. The most abundant protein in concentrated whey powder is bovine serum albumin.

On July 30, 1992, the New England Journal of Medicine reported:

“Studies have suggested that bovine serum albumin is the milk protein responsible for the onset of diabetes.”

The claim that bovine serum albumin is a major cause of Type 1 diabetes is one that is repeated incessantly on animal rights web sites, but the reality is a lot less dramatic.

The 1992 NEJM study that Cohen refers to involved Finnish and Canadian researchers who discovered that children with Type 1 diabetes that they examined turned out to have elevated levels of anti-BSA antibodies. In the Finnish case, 100 percent of the children with Type 1 diabetes had high levels of anti-BSA antibodies.

Most animal rights sites tend to cite only this study. They never cite Jill Norris’ 1996 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which, unlike the 1992 report, had a control group.

Norris and others examined 253 children from families that were genetically prone to Type 1 diabetes, and tested them for beta-cell autoimmunity, which is a common precursor to diabetes. Eighteen children had beta-cell autoimmunity. She then added a control group of 163 children who were BCA-negative as a control group. The results?

There were no differences in the proportion of cases and
controls who were exposed to cow’s milk or foods containing cow’s milk or to cereal, fruit and vegetable or meat protein by 3 months or by 6 months of age. These data suggest that early exposure to cow’s milk or other dietary protein is not associated with BCA. This calls into question the
importance of cow’s milk avoidance as a preventive measure for
IDDM.

Part of the problem with the few studies that have found a connection between early exposure to milk and diabetes is that they may not have included accurate information about when infants first consumed milk. Norris specifically constructed her study to minimize this problem,

Our study was designed to overcome what we perceived as limitations in the collection of infant diet information of the previous research. Specifically, we shortened the amount of time that parents had to remember their child’s infant diet, which would likely improve the accuracy of the information. Also, we collected the diet information from the parents before they knew whether their child had beta-cell autoimmunity. Previous studies had collected this from parents of children who already had diabetes, and it has been suggested that parents of sick children respond differently to questions such as these than parents of healthy children.

These improvements in the collection of the infant diet may explain, in part, why our findings are contrary to those of previous studies, which have suggested a 60% increased risk of diabetes if the child had been exposed to cow’s milk by 3 months of age.

In some of the studies that found a link between milk consumption and diabetes, for example, parent were asked to recall their children’s eating habits as infants more than 10 to 15 years after the fact.

Other studies that have looked at infants have come to largely the same conclusion as Norris. University of Florida researchers Mark Atkinson and Noel Maclaren, for example, found that only 10 percent of newly diagnosed diabetics had anti-BSA antibodies. Atkinson wrote a 1996 article for The Lancet outlining the methodological problems with studies that found a link between early milk consumption and diabetes.

Not surprisingly, Robert Cohen has on occasion cited articles by Atkinson suggesting that Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease, but Cohen conveniently leaves out any citations to Atkinson and Maclaren’s debunking of the milk hypothesis.

One of the major outcomes of research into whether milk or a virus or other environmental factors cause Type 1 diabetes has lead many researchers to the conclusion that the disease does not have a simple, one-factor cause. Instead, Type 1 diabetes is likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors of which milk may or may not play a part.

As Atkinson pointed out in his Lancet article, however, there is clear epidemiological evidence that milk does not play the sort of key role that animal rights activists like to pretend. Finland, Atkinson pointed out, consumes about twice as much milk as Sardinia does, and yet the two countries have similar rates of Type 1 diabetes.

Sources:

Not so sure about Pediasure. Robert Cohen, Notmilk Newsletter Digest, May 29, 2002.

Florida Researchers: Formula-Fed Babies Are Not At Greater Risk For Diabetes. Melanie Fridl Ross, University of Florida, May 29, 1996.

Cow’s Milk Not Linked to Type 1 Diabetes. ChildrenWithDiabetes.Com, August 28, 1996.

Follow-Up to Cow’s Milk Not Linked to Type 1 Diabetes Report. ChildrenWithDiabetes.Com, September 14, 1996.

Electronic Food Rap. Bill Evers, PhD, RD and April Mason, PhD, VOL. 6 NO. 43, 1996.

NOTMILK – - – SHARE THIS WITH A DIABETIC FRIEND. Robert Cohen, August 24, 2000.

The Diabetes Research Pipeline. Robert S. Dinsmoor, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Summer 2001.

Common Class of Viruses Implicated as Cause of Type 1 Diabetes. Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times, 1994.

Milk & diabetes. Judy Ismach, Physicians Weekly, Septebmer 15, 1997, Vol.XIV, No.35.

Andrew Blake, the founder of Seriously Ill for Medical Research and a tireless advocate for animal research, died this month at the age of 39.

As a teenager Blake was diagnosed with Friedrich’s ataxia — a genetic disease that affects about 1 out of every 50,000 Europeans and kills most of its sufferers in early adulthood. By the time he was 17, Blake was in a wheelchair.

In 1990, Blake was appalled after animal rights terrorists planted bombs in an attempt to kill medical researcher Max Headly and veterinarian Margaret Baskerville. After learning there was no organization dedicated to defending medical research with animals, Blake started Seriously Ill for Medical Research.

The Independent (London) newspaper talked about the nasty hate mail Blake received from compassionate animal rights activists,

He would shock journalists by showing them the hate mail he received. “I hope you die in agony, you cripple” was a typical message. He was unfazed by it. Activists also pasted libelous posters about Blake in the village where he lived.

Seriously Ill for Medical Research will continue on. As Vicky Cowell, chair of SIMR, wrote last week,

The greatest tribute SIMR, and its vast array of Members and Friends, can pay Andrew is to continue his legacy. You can be assured that everyone involved in the day-to-day running of the organization will be doing their utmost to ensure this happens. Over the years the organization, that was once Andrew’s dream, has gone from strength to strength. Eleven years on, SIMR is a force to be reckoned with. It will continue to grow and to gain momentum. Some dreams do come true!

Sources:

Obituary: Andrew Blake; Tireless Campaigner for Medical Research. Caroline Richmond, The Independent (London), May 29, 2002.

ANDREW BLAKE – 22.3.63 – 24.5.02. Vicky Cowell, Seriously Ill for Medical Research, May 25, 2002.

Lately there have been a string of stories about how People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has tried to tone down its image since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but in fact PETA has hardly missed a beat. For example, it has been trying to run a violent anti-fur ad in Great Britain.

The ad features a woman wearing a fur coat being clubbed to death at a shopping center. This week Great Britain’s Cinema Advertising Association ruled that the advertisement could not be shown in British movie theaters. No ad can run in a movie theater without first obtaining CAA approval.

Ananova quoted a CAA spokeswoman as saying the ad broke CAA guidelines through its use of violence and for being too sensationalistic.

Source:

Shock animal rights advert banned from cinemas. Ananova, May 29, 2002.

In early May somebody tried to set off a series of explosions at a small poultry plant but managed to only destroy a single truck (see Indiana Poultry Plant Targeted by Arson). On May 15, 2002, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for that arson in a press release that claimed,

The culprits for the Sims Poultry fire were not crazed arsonists bent on killing and maiming. They are serious political activists employing a strategy of economic sabotage against an industry which tortures and kills animals for profit.

Translation — crazed animal rights arsonists were responsible. The owner of Sims Poultry suggested to the Associated Press that the group might be trying to take credit for an action it did not carry out (which would not be unheard of for these folks).

Source:

Animal-rights group claims it torched, destroyed truck at poultry plant. Associated Press, May 16, 2002.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggested that enriched egg yolks could improve the level of essential nutrients in weaning infants.

The study involved 137 infants about 6 months of age. The infants were randomly sorted into three groups that received either normal egg yolks, egg yolks from chickens that were fed a diet rich in n-3 fatty acids, or no egg yolk at all.

Researchers then measured levels of both iron and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Breast milk tends to have a low iron content, while children formula fed children tend to have lower levels of DHA (which is important for brain development — many formula makers now fortify their formula with DHA).

Both breast and formula-fed infants who were given the DHA-enriched egg yolks experienced 30 to 40 percent higher DHA levels than those fed the normal egg yolks. Both groups increased their iron levels.

As a BBC report on the study noted, egg yolks have the advantage of containing heme iron, which is more easily absorbed than iron from vegetables, as well as being soft enough for babies to eat.

Source:

Egg boost for babies. The BBC, May 23, 2002.

A common refrain from animal rights activists is that there are fundamental differences between humans and non-human animals that makes cross-species comparisons for medical research purposes pointless. It turns out, for example, that many mice models of cancer may have a fundamental flaw that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to compare them to human cancers.

But contrary to what animal rights activists seem to believe, such discoveries also help advance human understanding of disease and, ironically, do not mean that mouse models of cancer need to be abandoned.

In this case the debate is over telomeres. When human cells are placed in a culture in a laboratory, they will not divide indefinitely. Instead, after about 50 or so cell divisions, the cells will no stop dividing. This point at which cells stop dividing is called the Hayflick Limit.

It turns out that the Hayflick limit is determined by telomeres — these are long stretches of noncoded sequences at the end of DNA. In most cells, every time the cell divides, the length of the telomere sequences declines and the cell will stop dividing once the telomeres are exhausted. Only cells that divide a lot such as skin cells, germ cells and others maintain their telomere lengths intact.

What does this have to do with cancer? In some cases it is believed that mutations in a cell can cause it to keep dividing past the Hayflick Limit which eventually an become malignant growths. Researchers suspect that some cancers associated with aging are caused by this process.

But this is a major problem for mouse models, because mice have telomeres that are about twice as long as human beings. This means that, unlike human beings, mice cells keep dividing throughout the life of the mouse and they do not tend to experience the gradual fraying of the ends of the DNA strand that aged human cells do.

If this is true it means that existing mouse models of cancer are probably not appropriate for studying such cancers. In fact, mice do not tend to suffer from cancers which are associated with aging in humans, such as breast and colon cancer.

This is the point where animal rights activists would say, “aha, told you — there is no point in conducting cancer research in mice.”

But a much better response is to simply not study those particular forms of cancer in mice, or created genetically modified mice or use existing strains of mice that are more like human beings in this respect.

Both solutions are currently being investigated. Carol Greider, professor of molecular biology and genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, collaborated with another researcher to create a mouse that has telomeres that are similar in length to those in human beings. And wouldn’t you know it, such mice contract a range of cancers that is far closer to the human distribution of cancers than the traditional mice used in laboratories. That discovery in and of itself provided nice confirmation that telomeres indeed do play a role in cancers.

As an article in The Scientist summed it up,

DePhino and Greider’s diligence notwithstanding, Harrison says that, in general, researchers need to be more careful with their models. “We’re not looking at the whole mouse genome here; we tend to look at a very limited number of mouse strains, and that’s probably a mistake,” he says. Researchers must instead ask themselves, which kinds of mice are appropriate models for a given type of cancer? It may even be necessary to determine which mice make the best models for given groups of people, he adds.

Mucch genetic diversity has been captured by producing inbred mouse strains from previously unsampled, wild populations. These strains offer the genetic reproducibility that is so valuable in lab mice, but with a wider variety of genotypes and phenotypes. But Harrison stresses that using mice as models for cancer development has already been quite successful. For instance, every chemical that induces cancer in humans does so in mice as well, proving that the use of mice is an effective and powerful research tool. “If you lose the mouse as a tool, just because of some prejudice about telomeres,” he concludes, “you take away a lot of the opportunity for advancement.”

Source:

Telomeres as the key to cancer: could hundreds of mouse models be wrong? Jeffrey M. Perkel, The Scientist 16[11]:38, May 27, 2002.

As we all know by now from reading animal rights literature, famine in the developing world occurs because people in the developed world (i.e. you and I) insist on eating meat which deprives those poor people in foreign lands of enough food to eat. In fact, something like that is going on in the African nation of Malawi as we speak.

Back in July and August 2001, Malawi experienced a a number of problems which led to a shortfall in its staple crop, maize. Agricultural experts and others predicted that Malawi would be about 400,000 tons short of the amount of maize it would need to feed its people.

The government of Malawi said that such claims were nonsense. There was more than enough food to go around and the country could not possibly be anywhere near starvation. In fact there was so much food in Malawi, that last fall the government sold much of its maize reserves to Kenya.

Of course countries that are openly selling grain to other countries don’t attract a lot of attention from aid organizations and donors. Malawi blithely went on its way pretending that it had more than enough food — in fact, some of its leading politicians apparently horded food on the mistaken belief that there would soon be shortages and the price of food would go through the roof.

By January 2002, the effects of the food shortage were beginning to be felt and people in Malawi started dying from hunger-related conditions. In February 2002, despite the fact that it had no shortage of grain whatsoever, Malawi President Bakili Muluzi was forced to finally declare that his country was experiencing a humanitarian disaster and go begging for money and food from the developed world.

Now, Malawi needs about $22 million in aid to avoid widespread starvation, but since it waited so long to do anything about its hunger situation, it has only been able to raise $5 million. Malawi was counting on $47 million from the IMF, but that organization concluded that the government of Malawi was so corrupt that the aid would largely be wasted and denied the African nation’s request for assistance.

Okay, I know what you are thinking. So far this disaster was caused partly by a drought which was exacerbated by wholesale government mismanagement, corruption and delay. But what about the meat eaters? What role did they play?

That I am not sure, but they had to be behind it all. Those animal rights activists wouldn’t lie to us, now would they?

Sources:

Malawi declares famine emergency. Raphael Tenthani, The BBC, February 27, 2002.

Hope fades for Malawi aid. The BBC, May 16, 2002.

Malawi bishops deplore famine chaos. Raphael Tenthani, The BBC, March 31, 2002.

Malawi famine set to continue. Raphael Tenthani, The BBC, May 14, 2002.

Gary Yourofsky’s absence from the animal rights movement was short lived as the advocate of violence distributed a letter this week indicating that he is now on the payroll of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Yourofsky writes in his letter,

The day after my resignation letter was sent out a couple of months ago, I received a phone call from Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder and president. Ingrid called after Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s Director of Vegan Outreach, informed her of my situation. As most of you recall, after six years of volunteering for ADAPTT, I resigned as ADAPTT’s president due to financial ruin.

Ingrid’s message was touching and emotional, to say the least. Frankly, I was blown away that Ingrid would call me with concern because I could no longer continue my activism. Getting a call and/or a request from Ingrid is like getting a call from the Godfather’s Don Corleone. It’s an offer one can’t refuse.

In a nutshell, Ingrid and PETA wanted to know what they could do to keep me involved. We’ve been in negotiations ever since. Then, on Monday, May 20, PETA made me its official, national lecturer. This union will benefit the animals immensely. Words cannot describe the joy that I am experiencing over this alliance.

Yourofsky’s comparison of Newkirk to the fictional Don Corleone is quite apt. Newkirk says she wishes she could torch labs, hires people who admire serial killers and advocate violence, contributes to legal funds for accused animal rights terrorists, and now has hired on Yourofsky who once said that, “I would unequivocally support” murder in order to further animal rights aims. Oh yeah, that’s a real peace loving, nonviolent bunch of folks right there.

Yourofksy is planning to hit the lecture tour and PETA apparently plans to sell recorded copies of his rantings. Yourofksy writes,

After watching my 68-minute presentation, PETA, like many others in this movement, believed that my vegan/animal liberation lecture was damn persuasive! So, our goal now is to have DAILY lectures set up in schools across the U.S. when the fall semester begins next September. Several people will be helping me achieve this goal. Plus, at the end of June, an oration will be recorded at a Michigan college and placed on VHS, DVD, and CD (audio). These items will be featured in PETA’s next issue of Animal Times which will be available in the PETA catalogue. This will help us reach many educators across the country.

The rest of Yourofsky’s letter is given to defending himself against charges that he’s “sold out,” since he used to blast PETA every chance he got. Yourofksy writes,

By the way, those closest to me know that I have been growing wiser as each year of activism passes. I used to be flat-out vituperative when it came to PETA and other groups who didn’t do things my way. But last year I started to realize that my acrimony was wrong and wasteful. . . .

Moreover, after spending a week here at PETA’s HQ in Norfolk, Virginia, I now see that PETA people work damn hard for the animals. There are 100 Yourofskys working in this building, each activist doing what they do best. Every activist should be required to meet our PETA brethren face-to-face and attend a monthly staff meeting to see all the hard work and achievements. While I may have had tactical differences with PETA, I have had tactical differences with EVERY group and EVERY activist involved in animal liberation, even the ALF!!!! Heck, I don’t even agree with myself sometimes!

For any of you out there who feel that I’ve sold out or something like that — let me paraphrase Paul Watson by saying what makes you think I care what you have to say? Creating an image for one’s self is NOT more important than fighting for animal freedom. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “I work for the animals and the animals alone.” And, thanks to largest animal rights organization in the world and its founder Ingrid Newkirk, I can now continue my work!

Of course. The $10,000 that PETA gave Yourofsky to run anti-fur advertisements in the Detroit-area played no role whatsoever in his sudden change of heart.

Source:

Open Letter. Gary Yourofsky, May 28, 2002.

When an Ontario judge sentenced Jesse Champlain Power, 22, to just 90 days in jail to be served on weekends for torturing and killing a cat, animal activists were outraged. So was the prosecutor’s office which announced earlier this month that it would appeal the judge’s sentence.

The prosecutor decided not to appeal the sentence of Anthony Wennekers, 25, who was sentenced to 10 1/2 months in jail, and was released immediately based on time served.

Source:

Ontario: Crown to challenge cat-skinner’s sentence. The Ottawa Citizen, May 17, 2002.

Crown appealing cat killer sentence. Gretchen Drummie, The Toronto Sun, May 17, 2002.