AnimalRights.Net

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is complaining about animal research involving cats that is being conducted at Palmer Chiropractic University.

PCU is conducting spinal research on cats as part of a federally-funded study. In a prepared statement, Dr. William C. Meeker, vice president for research at PCU, said,

We are intensely focused on preventing suffering and distress in laboratory animals when animals are part of investigations. . . . The animals in both projects are thoroughly anesthetized using humane, standardized protocols. The mere fact of the federal government’s support, which involves a rigorous application process to attain, argues that the experiments are considered well worth doing.

PETA’s Peter Wood told The Daytona Beach News-Journal,

If it’s anything remotely related to what they do to the rats [in similar spinal research], we believe it’s cruel and inhumane. . . . I think there is going to be some protests in Palmer’s future. They are supposed to be about healing and doing no harm, and what they are about to do is harmful to animals.

Meeker described PETA’s claims as “typical of the emotional tactics they have used to attack scientific research in university settings for decades.”

Sources:

Animal rights group protests school’s plans to test on live cats. Cindi Brownfield and Andrew Lyons, The Daytona Beach News-Journal, January 9, 2003.