Choose not to have a choice

The Kansas Department of Agriculture, in US, is considering a new law that will forbid dairy producers to display in their labels that their cows are free from synthetic growth hormones.

Recombinant bovine somatotropin is an artificial growth hormone developed by Monsanto and sold under the brand name Posilac. It is injected in cows to increase milk production. In October this year, as consumers’ opposition to this product increased, Monsanto decided to sell the business unit to Elly Lilly for $ 300m.

If approved, the new Kansas law will be valid from January 2010, banning dairy product labels from stating "rBST free." Companies will also have to include in their labels disclaimers saying "the FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST-supplemented cows."

Backers of the proposal says that the distinction in labels “confuse consumers.” Kansas Agriculture Department spokeswoman Lisa Taylor said they “simply want labels to not be misleading," arguing that there is no proof that milk from BST cows cause health problems.

The question is: how can the statement “free from rBST” be misleading? It is a plain fact. It doesn’t say that the milk is healthier. It just gives information to the consumer to let them make their choice.

Maybe the FDA and Kansas Department of Agriculture believe consumers are not able to make a choice based in facts?

And they say the UK is a “nanny state…”

PS: the pdf version of the regulation and the hearing are not available on the Kansas Department of Agriculture website, but their html versions are, thanks to Google cache:

Notice of Hearing on Proposed Administrative Regulations

Fact Sheet - Dairy Labelling Regulation

Sharing - it's a good thing

“If you sequence a virus and you leave it in the drawers for three years, you might as well not sequence it,” says Ilaria Capua, the Italian virologist and director of the OIE/FAO Reference Laboratory for Avian Influenza at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie in Italy.

Seed Magazine, that very stylish ‘Science is Culture’ publication, recently named Capua as of one of its Revolutionary Minds for 2008.

Capua is the first veterinarian to be included in this list of opinion leaders in the scientific world.

"Revolutionary Minds: Ilaria Capua" View the video (4:39 mins) Visit the website Capua's small act of rebellion was just the spark for a much larger challenge to the system

She is outstanding because of her efforts in sharing avian influenza data within the scientific community through GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data).

This is remarkable because some sectors of the scientific community, especially the private ones, are not known for wanting to move beyond patents, copyrights and subscriptions.

Capua tells Seed: “I think if you have a big impending threat of concern to human and animal health, then there is no time to keep the information to yourself.

“The system that was up and running at the time wasn’t suitable for the health threat. Hundreds of sequences were generated and were not made available to a larger community of scientists. So I just said: ‘My virus is going into Genbank. Full stop.’

“I actually sent an email to quite a lot of my colleagues saying: ‘I invite you to think about this because there isn’t any space, at least in my opinion, for keeping information in drawers.’”

Patenting the genetic sequence of living organisms has always been tricky. On one hand, the private outfits that spend so much money on such projects want to see some return on investment for all their hard work. Well, you’ve got to pay your bills somehow.

Capua admitted: “The problem with Genbank is that it doesn’t give the depositor any sort of ownership in the protection of intellectual property.”

But on the other hand, some argue that this act is no more different to the way the imperial naval ships behaved during the era of gunboat diplomacy barely three centuries ago.

It’s like Captain James Cook, who, upon discovering New Zealand (after the Maoris, of course), saying to the Spaniards, the Dutch, the French et al: “Alright, guys. My route to New Zealand from Europe is my copyright. If you want to come here, you’ll have to find your own route.”

When I put forward this analogy to a few scientists, one said it doesn’t matter – eventually you’ll find the report or paper on the DNA sequence on some free data-sharing online portal anyway. Another scientist said that some of these efforts have been upheld by the EU law.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million. So in response to the comments made by the two scientists, I only have this animation below to illustrate my point:

"Share by Habib Yazdi" View the video (0:53 mins) This Flash animation by Habib Yazdi, a senior communication studies major at University of Carolina, was named the winner of the SPARKY Awards in January 2008

Vet Medz

Last night on my way home from work I picked up a copy of one of the free papers used by commuters all over London to quicken their journey and distract themselves from the 20-60 minutes that they spend each day squashed insanely close to strangers’ armpits.

Somewhere between the latest on the economic down turn and an interesting piece on Lindsay Lohan’s mismatching tanned legs and pale feet was a curious little article that got me thinking about my latest conference – Companion Animal Products.

The ‘phenomenon’ on the web of icanhascheezburger.com is a site less than two years' old that was sold for an estimated $2m nine months ago. It gets more than two million hits a day and has been named the 8th most powerful blog by The Observer. The website contains pictures of people’s cats and funny captions, 10,000 people submit their efforts daily with only nine or ten making the cut.



These jokes have developed their very own subculture, constantly referring back to earlier musings. It has its own language - a cross between baby language and text speak known as “lolspeak” - with very strict rules and its own wiki conversion site, reoccurring characters and even its own mythology.

Believe it or not, visitors to the site recently attended a huge convention at the O2 arena. Many admitted to stalking their cat with a camera and not being able to look at their pet without thinking of captions in the now cult language of lolspeak.

Icanhascheezburger.com is just one example of the increasing devotion of people to their pets but it reflects the growing opportunities for product development in this area and is the main reason for the growth that we have seen in the companion animal products industry.

This years’ Companion Animal Products conference, Prague, 26-27 November 2009, has been designed show you how to spot the best opportunities for your product portfolio and predict your competitor’s pipeline. Attendees will benefit from leading market analysis, recent product launch industry feedback and the latest developments to address the unmet needs in the companion animal product market. www.animalpharmevents.com/summit



Obviously you need to come to the conference to get this expert market intelligence and industry researched information from our experienced speaker panel but for the time being I hope that you enjoy this insight into a large section of your target market’s psyche....

http://www.icanhascheezburger.com/

Don't eat meat and save the world?

The beef burger epitomises all the ingredients the modern consumer is hooked on

I am quite intrigued by a reader’s response to Mojtaba Tegani’s weblog on the World Poultry News.

Tegani’s reaction to the United Nation (UN)’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s prescription on our diet in the face of climate change (`give up meat for one day a week, and you’ll do the environment a lot of good’) was:

“Is it realistic to expect that a reduction in meat consumption influence factors associated with climate change? Additionally, will a vegetarian dietary style solve these problems?”

The said reader’s response to Tegani’s blog: “I think it is all about appropriate scale and management.”

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization told us in 2006 that animal manure and some agricultural practices contributed to some 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

We all have a hand in it. I contribute as well, just by breathing alone.

I agree that issues like antibiotics seepage in soil and water should be looked at closely. But before we allow the consumers to lay the blame solely on the industry practices, let’s remind them of our (yes, our – because we’re all in it) eating habits and our lifestyle.

A rich nation like the United States acquired the taste for meat, poultry and dairy products only as early as the 1920s.

Before that, they ate mainly bread. Before the Industrial Age in the 1800s – and the introduction of the milling plants where wheat could be processed efficiently – bread was not the staple food in Europe or in the US.

People survived on crops other than wheat. They ate things like gruel, porridge and soup. Meat was a delicacy. Bread was the food of the aristocrats.

The Western media reports on the Chinese as if they’ll eat through the entire world’s food supply

But meat, like bread, is the kind of luxury that cannot be let go easily once you acquire a taste for it. Even the introduction of sliced wheat bread in the 1930s could not water down the Americans’ love for meat. The consumers were hooked on it.

So when you have a capitalist system in place, driven by bottomline, and shaped by the demands of the consumers, how do you think the supply is going to look like? What kind of technology is created and employed to support this cause?

Of course, we can argue that some huge corporations manipulate the markets, and our diets, so we have very little choice but to consume what is on offer.

But we do have a choice. We want meat.

The New York Times reported that the upwardly mobile Chinese have acquired a taste for pork – they, too, are eating more meat.

This is another interesting thing I find about the way the West reports on the good fortunes of the Chinese. It’s as if they’ll eat through the entire world’s food supply, and leave us with nothing at all if they become rich. It’s a very Malthusian, dog-eat-dog, point of view that should be left in the Industrial Age, when it first came about.

Had we consume our foods – and our fuel and so on – in moderation, we would not have been in this predicament.

I believe that’s what the web reader meant when he mentioned “appropriate scale and management”. Do things in moderation.

My way, or the highway

The EU consumers want to know what goes into that milk, where it comes from and how the cow is treated Photo: Greshoj

Monsanto’s decision to drop the bovine growth hormone Posilac (Monsanto to divest BST, 12th August 2008) from its portfolio of products speaks volumes of the power the European Union (EU) is wielding over its trade partners, in particular the US.

The message from the EU is clear: If you want to do business with us, you have to live up to our safety standards. If not, you can take your business elsewhere.

This applies not only to food exports, which affects the farming and crop protection industries, but also to other types of goods as well, such as cosmetics, drugs and electronics.

Such is the power of the EU safety legislations that the US has now been turned into a “dumping ground” for EU rejects. Other trading partners such as China – a serial offender when it comes to exporting dodgy food and non-food items to the EU – have no choice but to adhere to the EU standards.

While it’s easy to dismiss the EU as the big bully from Brussels, the animal health and agrochemical companies have little choice but to pay attention to the people they do business with: the EU citizens.

Traditionally, when an EU bill that’s not in favour of the industries is passed, the industry people will claim that it’s politically motivated, and not based on scientific rationale.

Animal health has to pay attention to the people it does business with: the EU citizens Photo: Anne Koth

Because it’s the EU and not quite the Third World, they can’t play the small violin solo of “you need this technology to combat food shortage caused by overpopulation”.

Greenwashing must be tempting to some of these people, who’d go to great lengths hiring expensive PR agencies to manage the message, and commissioning top universities to come up with studies to back their products.

But you can’t win the public that way. If ‘green’ is not what your brand is known for, don’t greenwash.

Getting Cornell University to say that using a particular genetically modified (GM) cow growth hormone could help a farmer reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Hormone treatment cuts dairy gas emissions, 15 July 2008) because it can increase the milk productivity in cows – and therefore reduce the number of animals needed for dairy production – just won’t cut it.

It’s better to admit that this is not the product the public wants. The public is a bit nervous about it and of what it could possibly do to the human immune system.

It’s also time openly acknowledge that the animal welfare lobby is gaining strength. While the EU consumers enjoy their dairy products, they’re not happy to know that the cows put on the hormone are at risk of getting mastitis.

We live in an age where consumers want to know where their food comes from, and how the food-producing animals are treated.

Nike bounced back from the bad press in the 1990s by improving its business ethics and trying to understand its suppliers' manufacturing constraints. "One of the reasons for the disconnect between a company’s code of ethics and what happens among its suppliers is that suppliers and even boards of directors often are seen as external to the company," says Mark Vickers, vice president of research for i4CP Photo: Nike

Now, since when is the welfare of the livestock the companies’ responsibility, when their first duty is to make profits? Since it starts hurting the profits, of course. Supermarkets go the extra mile rebranding and relabelling food packages to placate their customers. That must count for something.

What I find interesting about Posilac is that both the European Commission (EC) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) found that milk produced using the supplement is “no different to that from untreated cows”. But the product is still banned in the EU.

It is generally understood that the EU cannot ban, say, a T-shirt, because it is made using child labour outside the economic zone. But what the EU can do is ban a T-shirt that is found to contain some hazardous chemicals.

However, we all remember what happened to Nike’s sales in the 1990s amid the sweatshop allegations. No nasty chemicals found and no Brussels prodding was needed to get the sales to nosedive.

Of course, that’s just clothes. The public is less forgiving when it comes to food. The EU regulators’ attitude towards the supplement is indicative of the influence the public perception has over a brand, and how particular the EU citizens are when it comes to food.

Keeping track of problems

A research flock at the US Sheep Experiment Station near Dubois, Idaho, USA. Unlike their USA counterparts, the EU member states still disagree over the implementation of sheep and goat tags Photo: USDA

Nobody asked for electricity when it was invented. Thanks to marketing and powerful lobbying, electricity is now something both businesses and consumers can’t do without.

Not all technological innovations have been that lucky, though.

Radio-frequency identification, or RFID, has been trying to make an inroad into animal health for quite some time.

While it has succeeded in penetrating the retail sector, via supermarkets and to a certain extent, pharmaceuticals, it still has to justify its existence to agricultural groups and packaging sectors that are still comfortable with low-tech identification (ID) techniques, such as barcode labelling.

Digital Angel’s announcement to restructure its Destron Fearing animal ID business shortly after receiving approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its swine livestock identification tag system does not come as a shock, given the current financial climate in the US and the various issues plaguing animal ID and RFID in general.

As you would know, the European Union (EU) requires all sheep and goats across the European Union to be electronically tagged by the end of 2010 (Regulation 21/2004). Tagging the animals will not stop the disease. What it can do is to help the relevant authorities to monitor the movement of livestock through the supply chain, and hopefully identifies the source of an outbreak when the proverbial hits the fan.

The sheep industry leads the resistance to "double-tagging" in the UK, it is alleged Photo: DirectGovKids

The proverbial finally hit the fan this month. A small bluetongue outbreak occured in the southeast of Germany. A few days after this incident, which took place in the Ortenaukreis district, near the French border, the disease was identified in Portugal. Spain is monitoring the situation closely.

In January this year, Spain and Italy made their unhappiness clear when the mandatory tagging of livestock was postponed from the end of 2009 to the end of 2010 (EU extends electronic ID deadline for sheep and goats to January 2010, 8th January 2008). Despite the technical and financial obstacles, Spain and Italy committed a significant amount of resources at national level to prepare for the 2009 deadline.

They found the excuses put forward by other member states who ‘failed’ to meet the deadline simply “unacceptable”.

The UK, egged on by the sheep industry, welcomed the postponement.

I suppose the Southern Europeans have a valid reason in supporting an automated animal monitoring process. The geography makes the spread of the unwanted – and I am not just talking about animal diseases – a tad easier in the region than in an isolated island like the British Isle. Meat products are a major revenue earner for Spain and Italy, so they can’t afford to mess up.

The story, however, is slightly different in the UK, where living and operating costs are ridiculously high. An animal tagging system integrator told me that the resistance against the 21/2004 regulation “is being led by the sheep industry in its fight against double-tagging”.

Bluetongue up close: Hyperaenia of the oral cavity and oedema of the mucous membranes Photo: Crown Copyright/DEFRA

“Double-tagging” is a peculiar issue, and it doesn’t help the RFID cause one bit. The 21/2004 directive requires all sheep to be double-tagged in any event when leaving holding of birth. From January 2008, one of the tags must be an electronic device. Individual recording of livestock will also be compulsory.

Again, if you have hundreds of sheep, you have little choice but to do this electronically. Setting up a new electronic record-keeping system costs money. To muddle matters further, the 21/2004 directive gives a further derogation that “lambs” (yes, baby sheep) leaving their holding of birth do not require an electronic device.

Before you come to the conclusion that lamb-tagging is daft, I'll have you know that the UK's Institute of Animal Health (IAH) thinks bluetongue virus can be passed by pregnant ruminants to the foetuses they carry. IAH reckons that's how it survives the winter (Bluetongue virus might survive the winter within foetuses, 5th March 2008).

The same chap told me that the beef industry, very much spooked by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), supports electronic tagging. It’s the sheep farmers that are throwing the spanners in the works.

So how much does an average tagging system cost then, I asked.

“A handheld reader starts from £60. A slaughter line is from about £2500, and a livestock market system with multireaders, £10,000. Tags are priced from £0.16 to £0.85 per piece.”

(No) thanks to global warming, midges can survive the Northern European winter and spread the disease all year round. Isn't it time the animal health industry stops compensating for other industries' greenhouse activities, and do something to reduce carbon emission in agriculture? Photo: Institute of Animal Health

If it’s true that the basic cost of the EU scheme to the UK farmer would be between £13,000 and £16,000 – according to DEFRA – and if it’s true that the average UK farmer is earning below £15,000 a year, then both the sheep industry and the animal tagging industry can kiss each other goodbye. With about 67 million sheep movements a year, how could the sheep farmers cope with the costs? And let’s not forget the rising feed costs.

Animal tagging is a novel idea, one that I support wholeheartedly. But like many types of technology, it needs to be supported by a justifiable business strategy. The much-touted Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) has been around for more than 10 years, but hey, if you can organise a knees-up with good old text messaging, why need WAP? Similarly, if you can get by with good old head-counting and low-tech ID methods, why bother upgrading?

But if we have a reliable tracking and tracing system in place, it will be a lot easier to know where to look first when the diseases strike again.

Pilled up pets

All of the behavioural issues that we have created in ourselves, we are now creating in our pets Photo: Litter Kwitter, Cleverlad Pet Products

Several months ago, James Vlahos asked us if he could use our report, Companion Animal Behavioural Products, to get some ideas for his feature on the same subject for The New York Times.

We said yes.

“Pill Popping Pets” was published last week, and it makes a very intriguing read.

There were many funny bits in the feature (at last, a life science feature that is actually funny), but the one that I love the best is about Booboo the crazy cat who attacks her owner randomly. Growing up, I had one or two crazy cats like that. Drugging your pets is not necessarily the answer for behaviour modification, but I wish we had Prozac to pill them up. We would have had them longer.

Echoing the opinions of our report author, Dr Uwe Gerecke, some of the people interviewed by Vlahos said that what owners perceive as inappropriate behaviour for their pets could very well be their normal behaviour as a dog or a cat, but one that is undesirable in a human set-up.

Vlahos wrote: "Although most animal-behaviour problems are believed to have genetic roots, their expressions are typically triggered by the unnatural lives that people force their pets to lead.'A dog that lived on a farm and ran around chasing rabbits all day would be more prone to being stable than a dog living in an apartment in Manhattan,' [Dr Nicholas] Dodman says.

Vlahos: "Although most animal-behaviour problems are believed to have genetic roots, their expressions are typically triggered by the unnatural lives that people force their pets to lead." Photo: Janet Goulden

"Undomesticated canids, neither confined nor excessively attached to people, don’t suffer from separation anxiety. Some captive horses endlessly circle their stalls or corrals — a compulsive behaviour similar to Max’s tail chasing — but such purposeless repetitions have never been observed in the wild."

If your lock your pet up in a city flat for eight hours a day, or let it loose in an area full of other pets - all competing for space - while you’re away at work, of course it’s going to turn loopy and develop some habits. Some humans go nuts doing things that are not naturally human. Like spending eight to 12 hours behind the desk, and another two hours commuting back and forth on public transport every day.

What I find interesting is the length pet owners go to make their animals fit into their lifestyle. Vlahos observed that "people’s willingness to employ behaviour-modifying medications stems in part from a growing desire for more convenient, obedient household animals".

"The studies of Reconcile (the fluoxetine hydrochloride product by Eli Lilly used to treat dog's separation anxiety) show why behavioural pharmacologists prefer not to rely on the medicine bottle — or for that matter, retraining — alone. Dr Steve Connell, a veterinarian at Eli Lilly, told me that 'behaviour modification by itself works. There’s not any question about that. But if you use behaviour modification in conjunction with Reconcile, it works quicker and it works better.'"

No pooping allowed. But is the dog in the wrong? Photo: Edwin PP

A pharmaceutical company executive told Vlahos that “all of the behavioural issues that we have created in ourselves, we are now creating in our pets because they live in the same unhealthy environments that we do.”

I asked Dominic, our web programmer who recently acquired two kittens, if he uses ‘aids’ to modify his kittens’ toilet behaviour. He is currently training them to do the business in the designated area, i.e. the bathroom.

“No,” he said. “I just moved the litter tray to the bathroom. As long as they know where it is, and they don’t get yelled at, there is no problem”.

Vlahos's feature got me thinking about the real motivation behind pet ownership. No doubt some people love animals. But for some, it isn’t really about the pets. Making the pets fit into their lives like some toys or on-demand entertainment devices speak volumes of their need for love and reassurance.

You can read the full article by James Vlahos on http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/magazine/13pets-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.

You can get the full copy of Companion Animal Behavioural Products for free if you subscribe to Animal Pharm.

Not a matter of taste

Organic or battery? Photo: Yoichiro Nishimura

What I admire about the tabloids is their reporters’ ability to sniff out sensational news, even in the most mundane piece of literature. Like a science journal.

I am not a Daily Mail reader, but sometimes I wish my favourite leftwing broadsheet has the same tenacity and imagination to bring R&D materials to life.

On Sunday, the Daily Mail reported on a Bristol University study which concludes that ‘organic chickens have less flavour’. The research, originally published in the British Poultry Science journal, “involved a panel of ten tasters blind tasting samples from 120 chickens which had been reared in various ways”.

Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at the university’s school of veterinary science, told the Mail that “in general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system.”

Although it sounds like a press release from the pro-antibacterial camps, this is an interesting piece of news.

Actually, you can find a lot of extremely interesting stuff if you have the time to browse through PubMed, that very useful online service ran by the US National Library of Medicine. Never mind the Daily Mail. If you want to be entertained/horrified/incensed/intrigued, go to PubMed.

I did a story on the possibility of tumour caused by RFID chips in dogs and cats based on the leads found on PubMed. Typically, it’s the kind of news that won’t be taken up by the mainstream papers (because it’s about dead pets, not dead humans), and the type that veterinary associations and their sponsors would keep at an arm’s length.

One thing you have to remember about R&D news is that just because it’s based on some fancy studies, has plenty of numbers, Latin words and incredible job titles (Prof, Dr and so on), it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the news with a pinch of salt.

They're not free-range, so they're not fashionable Photo: Stephen Ausmus/USDA

When I can afford it, I buy organic. Editing a website on animal health, which talks about maximum residue limits (MRLs), pharmacokinetics of drugs and so on, makes me very weary of what goes into the animal. I don’t care how bland the chicken tastes. I don't want to get cancer. I want to live long.

But I won’t knock battery chickens as well. I grew up on them; I still buy what Tesco calls “Caged Eggs” (does that mean the eggs are caged?) and I understand it is impossible for chicken producers to generate a large amount of supply in a short time and make profits without relying on antibacterials (Feeding the 300 million, April 2008).

What I am curious to know, as a consumer, is what organic means under the current EU regulations. Different countries have different definitions. The EU and the US have comprehensive organic legislation. In Australia, there are no organic standards for produce at domestic level. Australia only bothers when it comes to food export.

In my previous life as a technology reporter, when I was researching a piece about International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for wireless devices, a PR person told me: “You know that some ISOs are not given out by government bodies, but by private companies sub-contracted by the government?” Similarly, in some countries, the organic certification is given out by private companies sub-contracted by the governments.

I am not saying that government agencies are not immune to corruption. I am just saying that private agencies are driven by bottomline.

Labelling is also another issue. According to the Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007: “The aim (of the proposed regulation) is to have the lowest possible presence of GMOs in organic products. The existing labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are exclusively linked to the adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs.”

So do I care if organic chickens have less flavour or not? Maybe you do. I don’t. What goes into my curry will always taste like curry. What I want to know is: how truly organic is our organic chicken?

A pig of an issue

The piggy bank is actually a concept derived from the old tradition of pig husbandry. Once, the pig was a valuable asset to the family Photo: Christopher Bruno

My favourite author, Anthony Burgess, once told a newspaper that as he grew older, he found himself yearning for the food he used to grow up on, no matter how much he loved curry.

Not long ago, I wrote a blog about the relationship between livestock and different societies and cultures around the world. For example, chickens and ducks. Far Easterners and Southeast Asians really like their chickens and ducks.

Jo Power, one of our writers, who is also a former agriculture correspondence, once explained to me the significance of the pig in the British society. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution, it was normal for families to rear pigs in the backyard.

In the days when garbage collection was a novelty, probably not even heard of, and pretty much most types of waste were biodegradable, if not recyclable, having a pig was really useful. If you’re left with leftover scraps, you know who to feed them to. And pigs eat anything. Jo told me that pigs are not necessarily dirty – if you keep their habitat in an acceptable condition, they don’t have to be dirty or smelly.

In those days, the cured meat of the pig could sustain a family for months.

Now, you might think that the relationship between pig and man in this context is rather utilitarian. In a way, it is. But like the relationship between our Oriental friends and poultry (or to be exact, my mom and her ducks), it can be emotional as well.

How can you be emotional about something you keep in captivity? And eat?

Being an immigrant who is nosy by nature, I feel obliged to know a bit more about my adopted country and its gastronomic history. I am still not a fan of pork scratchings (although haggis I can tolerate), but I am intrigued to discover that the piggy bank is actually a concept derived from this old tradition of pig husbandry. The pig was a valuable asset to the family.

I was recommended to read Lark Rise To Candleford by Flora Thompson to learn more about the history of the British rural life.

So next time you see pig farmers protesting about the threats to their livelihood, you should know that they are also giving a voice to their concerns about the future of their customs, their cultural identity and their ways of life.

Oh, and why the mention of Anthony Burgess? Why not. His books (not The Clockwork Orange, obviously) got me into writing.

Optimism is quite an effort

The Genomia Fund aims to use R&D to come up with solutions for biomedical applications, livestock for food and sustainable agriculture Photo: SCapture

You can change the world. But to do that, you have to change your world first.

I am not quoting Eric Clapton. I am rephrasing the words of René Dubos, the microbiologist and humanist who once said that you can help solve global environmental problems by considering the ecological, economic, and cultural aspects of your own surroundings.

For those of you who have not heard of René Dubos, he was the guy whose famous maxim is used in so many charity and NGO marketing pitches: “Think Globally, Act Locally”.

Even Royal Shell, not a known friend of the pro-environment movement, (mis)appropriated it for their advertising campaign. At least we know their marketing people are well-read.

It’s quite rare to encounter Dubos-type of optimism in R&D and veterinary medicine, unless it is to do with philanthropic initiatives. So imagine my surprise when I read the online overview of the Genomia Fund’s objectives (Moredun in the money”, 30th June 2008).

The Genomia Fund, a consortium led by Moredun with the involvement from institutions such as the Institute of Animal Health, the Roslin Institute and the Rowett Research Institute, receive £3m to help the transfer of technologies from consortium members to the market.

The aim of the fund is to use R&D to come up with solutions for biomedical applications, livestock for food and sustainable agriculture, and also to attract more money to the sector.

The Genomia Fund says that livestock plays a significant role at domestic level in tackling the global changes brought about by the explosion of the world’s population, the economic growth and the rapid urbanisation of developing countries.

It is key “in sustainable agriculture and rural development in the UK”.

“Products of livestock agriculture are worth about £25 billion a year at retail in the UK alone, and are responsible for the employment of about 0.5m UK residents,” it says.

“Over 60% of the land in the UK is only suitable for forestry or livestock agriculture. Grazing livestock is critical to the maintenance of our landscapes so attractive to tourists.”

Despite some setbacks in animal biotechnological developments, the Genomia Fund says there are plenty of commercial opportunities available – provided that the sector puts itself forward as an attractive investment proposition.

Glad to see some optimism at last. I can’t say much about the animal R&D industry, but from my experience in journalism, the one thing that is hard to change is attitude, and the one thing that is hard to be is optimistic. It takes open-mindedness to accept that the non-sale or the non-marketing work you do can generate revenues.

I once wrote a blog (not for Down on the Pharm, and not using this pseudonym) lamenting the journalist’s lack of commercial sense, and the death of traditional journalism as a result of that.

But you know what Dubos said? “"History teaches that man without effort is sure to deteriorate, man cannot progress without effort, and man cannot be happy without effort."

And that was a scientist, not the Dalai Lama, talking. Optimism is quite an effort. But it’s an effort worth doing.

No chicken feed

This could save lives

Who would have thought this day would come? Online health news website HealthNewsDigest reported that scientists at Ohio State University's Comprehensive Cancer Center are now working on turning chickens into a cancer-fighting food.

It works like this: you feed the chickens with a type of feed that contains gossypol, a natural substance found in cotton, and then you feed the chickens or their eggs to humans.

We find that hugely interesting because gossypol was used to keep the population under control in China. It was discovered that cottonseed oil used for cooking actually make a reasonable, if not 100% reliable, male contraception. A website dedicated to male contraceptives claimed that "researchers found that men taking a daily gossypol pill had reliable contraception and no complaints about change in libido".

Will gossypol-fed chickens also be a food for male contraception one day? Who knows, but this latest news certainly proves that chicken is no longer to the boring and ordinary meat we took it to be. This should expand the portfolio of cancer-fighting foods to include not just greens, fruits and teas – the usual vegetarian fare – but also white meat as well.

Save the date! 26-27 November 2008, Prague

Vaccines: They get the animal health people talking

If the topics I’ve been discussing this week with the Animal Health industry are anything to go by, AnimalPharm’s Veterinary Vaccines conference this year promises to be an exciting event.

The main topics which have emerged as being particularly important this year are many and varied but have centred around emerging diseases and especially Blue Tongue.

People are interested to hear about the public perceptions surrounding vaccination:

How governments are planning policy to respond to the threat of emerging diseases; how regulators have responded to the rapid requirement for the blue tongue vaccine; the final draft of annex I and what it means for industry; compare and contrast between the two vaccines which have been developed for blue tongue; lessons which can be learnt from the Pirbright foot and mouth outbreak; how the new variations legislation will affect veterinary vaccines; how the DCP is being harmonised across the Member States; the development of the blue tongue vaccine; overcoming problems in the manufacture process of a vaccine; industry and national planning for emerging diseases; technology updates for novel vaccine vectors; recombinant vaccines; adjuvant technology; vector vaccines...

The media circus outside the Institute of Animal Health, Pirbright, Surrey. The incident is another talking point Photo: Salina Christmas

...DNA vaccines; prime boost vaccines; plant vaccines; delayed release systems; alternative administration techniques; views of different countries on rolling out vaccination programmes for avian influenza (AI); selecting for animals which respond well to vaccination; vector borne diseases; fish vaccines; pox viruses; viral particle vaccines; development of activated pan-reactive vaccines; the melanoma vaccine for canines; parasitic vaccines, and advice for registering products in Europe and the US.

So… as you can see, I’ve got my work cut out trying to fit all of these topics into a mere two-day agenda (!) but with the level of innovative work going on in the veterinary vaccines arena at the moment and the excellent guidance I have received from people working in this area, I am sure that the result will be a highly topical and interesting meeting.

If there are any topics or specific speakers that you would like to see at the veterinary vaccines conference, or if you yourself are interested in speaking this November please leave a comment!

Labour of love

Because he's worth it: Wiggles the wombat receives treatment at the Queensland's Wombat Research Centre. The project is supported by Bioniche Animal Health A/Asia Photo: Wombat Research Centre

Veterinarians deserve more recognition for their pro bono works, says Dr Mark Lawrie, President-elect of the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA).

The AVA marked World Veterinary Day, which fell on 26th April 2008, by recognising the contribution of veterinarians to society. According to Dr Lawrie, whilst other professions such as the law industry are recognised for their pro bono work and contribution to society, the contribution by veterinarians is not often acknowledged.

According to the AVA, Australian vets do almost AUD$30 million (£14.2 million) of pro bono work each year. “The average veterinary practice performs approximately $16,565 worth of pro bono work each year. The cost of treating an animal may include the cost of consultation, hospitalisation, treatment, euthanasia and disposal of the animal,” Dr Lawrie said.

"Veterinarians are deeply committed to the care and welfare of animals and each year, the profession donates millions of dollars of unpaid veterinary services treating sick or injured stray pets, wildlife or livestock. This is in addition to the work done by volunteer veterinarians on charity projects throughout the developing world and remote communities in Australia."

At the time of writing, I am in the middle of interviewing Warren Waybright, one of the winners of the Vet Penn Student Inspiration Award. Waybright, a third year student at Vet Penn - and a Gettysburg native - plans to use the US$100,000 (in unrestricted funding) won to develop a veterinary outreach program to Bolivia and other South American countries.

He doesn't have to do it, but this is the thing I admire about people of philanthropic nature: they don't have to do the good works. Maybe some do it out of a sense of duty, but most do it because they want to. Sir Peter Hall, not quite a veterinarian but equally inspiring nonetheless, hit the nail on the head when he said: "No one has a duty to do anything. Never make that mistake. Do what you're passionate about."

PetScreen founders' Graeme Radcliffe (pictured, right) with his dogs Libby, Hugo and Saskia, and Dr Kevin Slater (pictured, left). The company provides MAF with financial help for two canine research studies Photo: PetScreen

I do wonder if the media, especially the trade press, could have helped more in highlighting the veterinarians' pro bono works. Editors in general, because of the news slant or the commercial pressures put on them, often put the philanthropic or corporate social responsibility (CSR) news aside to give priority to 'hard' news - the facts and the numbers that are needed by the readers to make informed decisions.

If the news selection is motivated by commerce, then perhaps it's good for the vets, in particular the UK ones, to let the press know that every company in the UK that is worth more than £5 million must have a CSR programme. So you can assume that a major corporation (the media's potential advertiser) has a budget for CSR. Nowadays, we see a lot of ads by major corporations highlighting their green projects or community works, an indication that their Marketing departments are very aware of the opportunities these initiatives offer, at least in terms of publicity.

We try to highlight the good works done by veterinarians and also animal health companies, especially on our website, where we have the least space and time constraint. Some animal health companies seem to be doing a lot of CSR works through partnerships with various associations for projects such as the Morris Animal Foundation, Barbaro Memorial Fund and The European Advisory Board on Cat Diseases (ABCD).

If there are any veterinary associations out there that want to have their pro bono works highlighted, do tell us. We can't promise they will be featured in all of our products, but they'd probably get a mention on this blog.

My goodness, my Guinness

Networking (and drinking) in action: Alex Tait, VMD (second left), Noel Joseph, VMD (third left), Olivier Roy, Cebiphar (second right)

The Animal Pharm Events team enjoy a welcome drink. From left: Caroline Capon, Gemma Cook and Emma Williams

Drinks in the bar for all!

Bottled! Display at the Guinness Storehouse

We just received these lovely photos by Olivier Roy of Cebiphar from Naomi Gill, our Divisional Marketing Manager of Life Sciences Conferences.

You can't do Dublin without a trip to the Guinness factory. Well, I missed out on that one during my first visit in 1999. Being a rugby and a rowing fan, I was more obsessed with the old Landsdowne Road Stadium and the river.

As one of the highlights of the Informa Life Sciences' 4th Annual Regulation of Veterinary Medicines in Europe conference, which took place in Dublin from 4th to 5th of March, our Life Sciences crew took the delegates to the factory for some networking and for some Guinness sampling.

If you are in the photos, let us know! And if you've got any photos of the Informa Life Sciences events you've been to, do send them to us. Who knows, we might even open a dedicated online photo gallery just for the event attendees and Animal Pharm readers.

Our reporter and online sub-editor, Jo Power, was there to cover the event. You can read more about it on our website.

Feeding the 300 million

It must be tough for food producers having to choose between profit margins and political correctness. Don’t use antibiotics and your productivity suffers. Use the drugs and you could be inviting a PR disaster Photo: Jonathan Ng

You can make your brand look good in two ways: by accentuating the positive and playing down the negative, or by making others look bad so you look good.

Although it might involve some omission of truth, the former is highly recommended. The latter invites bad blood and bad karma, and should only be left to political campaigns.

Recently, US chicken companies Purdue Farms and Sanderson Farms claimed that their rival, Tyson Foods, did the latter by running an advertisement campaign championing its “raised without antibiotics” chickens. Purdue and Sanderson claimed that in doing so, Tyson insinuated to the consumers that its competitions are using the drugs.

The outcome of the court case will not be known for some time, and we are not in the business to judge who is wrong or who is right. However, it is interesting to note how careful food marketers are when dealing with the word “antibiotics”.

In life science reporting, we don't normally discuss semantics or any obscure branch of sociolinguistics that dwells on the emotional association of a word, but even our own report author couldn't help but comment on the definitions of "antibiotics".

“The term ‘antibiotic’ has become somewhat debased in recent years, at least in the eyes of the animal health industry, as it has been used by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media in a general in a pejorative sense,” says the Animal Pharm report on Antibacterials in the Animal Health Industry. “It has become associated with scare stories about super-bugs and over-intensive livestock farming.”

The report goes on explain the difference between ‘antibiotics’, ‘antibacterials’, ‘antimicrobials’ and ‘anti-infective’, and what the antibacterials are actually used for.

Antibacterials, it elaborates, do not have any direct effect on viral pathogens. Their use in outbreaks of clinical disease involving viruses is aimed at “combating any secondary infections by opportunistic bacteria which may be present either in the environment or as part of the normal commensal flora of a healthy animal”.

To change the consumers' perception of antibiotics, the public needs to be educated, and more research should be done into new ways of slowing down the much-feared antibiotic resistance, says the Ain Shams Scientific Pharmaceutical Students’ Association (ASSPSA) of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, Egypt.

Not long ago, the association published a paper on the importance of antibiotics. Entitled Antibiotics Abuse, the paper maintains that “the discovery of antibiotics was a leap in modern medicine. Antibiotics are the cornerstone for the prevention and treatment of numerous respiratory infections”.

It explains the reason behind the abuse of antibiotics in farming. “Cleverly, the antibiotics are called ‘antimicrobial growth promoters’, or AGPs. The reason why they are so desirable is that they increase growth and feed efficiency in animals by 2% to 4%,” the paper says.

“If you are a livestock farmer, 2% to 4% may be more than even your profit margin. To the farmers, there could be perceived negative ramifications to not using antimicrobial growth promoters”.

A diner (pictured, left) enjoying his all-you-can-eat breakfast in New Orleans, Louisiana, US. Mass food consumption means mass food production Photo: Kess Bohan/Sojournposse

Apparently, the US livestock farming cannot do without growth-promoting antibiotics, according to Peter Hughes and John Heritage of the Division of Microbiology, School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Leeds.

In their paper, Antibiotic Growth-Promoters in Food Animals, published on the FAO website, the authors state: “The Animal Health Institute of America (AHI, 199) has estimated that, without the use of growth promoting antibiotics, the USA would require an additional 452 million chickens, 23 million more cattle and 12 million more pigs to reach the levels of production attained by the current practices.”

It must be tough for food producers having to choose between profit margins and political correctness. Don’t use antibiotics and your productivity suffers. Use the drugs and you could be inviting a PR disaster.

Like many rich nations, the US diet consists of a high proportion of meat. Ironically, not every American is rich enough to afford alternative diets inspired by ethics or healthy lifestyles. Without the use of growth promoting antibiotics in livestock farming, how is it possible for the US to feed her 300 million?

Fame from the ocean floor

The Pompeii worm, found only at hydrothermal vents in the Pacific Ocean. For $50,000, you can name a rare hydrothermal vent worm Photo: DRI

If you have ever wanted a strange shaped creature from deep in the ocean to carry your name or the name of someone you love, now is your chance. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of Southern California is attempting to fix a hole in its budget by selling the opportunity to name new species of marine life that it discovers every year. The Institition holds several of the most important libraries of ocean specimens, and is referenced by scientists from all over the world.

Traditionally, the person who first describes a new plant or animal gets to name it. However, Scripps feels that the opportunity to name a deep sea worm or nudibranch after oneself or a respected friend or relation could be something of a moneyspinner. Although some new species have already been named, like the stout infantfish now called Schindleria brevipinguis, there are still nameless creatures waiting to be labelled.

Potential buyers can name a rare hydrothermal vent worm for $50,000, two types of worms that live on deep-sea whale bones for $25,000 each or a spiny worm that lives in the kelp fields of La Jolla cove at a mere $10,000. In addition, Scripps has several more species just waiting to be named. Buyers will receive a framed print of their organism and a copy of the scientific publication in which it is first described.

Greg Rouse, curator of an invertebrate collection at Scripps, says: "By supporting the collections through species naming, donors have an opportunity for their name, or the name of a person they love or respect, to be immortalised forever." Mr Rouse should know – a feather-duster worm from Australia, Pseudofabriciola rousei, has been named after him. He goes on: "This type of unique gift highlights the vast unknown diversity in the sea that Scripps scientists are working to document and describe."
For more details, contact the Scripps Development Office at supportscripps@ucsd.edu.

Bird flu: It's not just about the bottomline

I expected the Malaysian government's emphasis on commerce and manufacturing to gradually push the locals away from their agricultural roots, but I didn't expect the avian flu pandemic to be killing the people's lifestyle like this.

Three weeks ago, I brought my other half, of British and Australian descent, to the regions of northern Malaysia and Thailand for the first time. We drove down from Penang to a maritime disctrict called Lumut, home to the country's biggest naval base and to a huge shipping industry.

He was impressed by the quaint Malaysian villages, but wondered where on earth the chickens were. Except for one or two cows, there were no other animals to be seen alongside the village roads.

Well, the bird flu pandemic happened.

Up until four years ago, it was common for the locals, even those with office jobs, to keep poultry at home. Poultry was kept not only for consumption. My mother kept hers as pets. You might find it strange to have chickens as pets, but these birds - although not clever enough to perform various tricks like dogs - are very good at recognising their owners (they don't like to be fed by strangers), and that they are actually homing birds, like pigeons. You can let them out during the day, but they always come back to you in the evening. Even better, they lay you eggs. Dogs and cats can't do that.

Of course, the pandemic meant that many had to be culled. I never was keen on poultry - I used to be quite embarrassed by my mother's hobby - but I did feel sorry for her when she had to give away her geese. She didn't have the heart to kill them.

She will, however, be very glad to know that water fowls could be the culprits behind the spread of avian flu in Southeast Asia. It is just not wise to have them around the house.

Recently, we reported on an FAO research which finds that ducks in rice cultivation areas could be behind the spread of avian influenza in Southeast Asia (Animal Pharm, 7 April 2008).

"The researchers modeled how different factors contributed to the spread of the highly pathogenic virus in Thailand and Viet Nam. The numbers of ducks and people, along with the extent of rice cultivation, were the most significant factors, even though each country had pursued its own disease control strategy," according to our news report.

"Ducks graze on leftover rice grains in harvested paddy fields. In Thailand, the number of young ducks in flocks peaks in September to October, when rice paddies become a haven for wild birds. Ducks are slaughtered in late winter at the time of Chinese New Year, when sales-related duck movement is at its highest. The peaks in duck congregation increase the likelihood of virus transmission."

Imagine no ducks on Chinese New Year. Could you imagine Christmas without turkeys at all?

The veterinary industry's role is so much more than preventing diseases and curing sick animals. It's not simply about improving the agricultural bottomline by limiting the damages done to the economy.

In this part of the world, poultry and humans have lived side by side for centuries. It is a relationship that has defined their diet, and their ways of living. Some people keep horses or dogs; this lot prefers poultry. Advances in avian influenza research will save not just human lives, but also a people's culture.

Talk is cheap, and effective

"Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market."

Those are stern words from The Cluetrain Manifesto, the digital marketing bible, but judging from the latest survey released by Fleischman-Hillard, there is a whole lot of truth in them.

The survey, conducted in association with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), basically says three things:

1. Word of mouth is the new advertising.
2. The corporate marketing practice of accentuating the positive and burying the negative is confusing and boring the consumers.
3. The market is cleverer than you think.

Out of 2000 veterinary professionals surveyed last December, only 10% relied on information from consumer-oriented websites about pet care. A whopping 65% didn't buy web-based information from veterinary supply and equipment manufacturers.

Instead, they'd rather go to the websites of veterinary associations, veterinary school or research organizations, and veterinary clinic or animal hospital. About 78% expressed confidence in information gained from veterinary schools and research institutions.

What it means is that the veterinary community is a highly networked community. They trust peer recommendations, but they are highly sceptical of companies.

The survey also claims that 'most veterinarians said that online information confused their clients'.

It doesn't take a clever person to figure out that a brochure website littered with lengthy corporate goobledygook and boring jargons is not doing the business any favour. Consumers don't get them, vets don't like them.

In October last year, we covered the Veterinary Marketing Association (VMA)’s seminar on e-communication. One of the speakers, Mr Felix Velarde of Underwired (pictured), told the audience: "If you can prove your point in a few web pages, why do you need pages and pages of text to promote your products?”

During a coffee break, I asked him what he thought of animal health websites in general. His answer wasn't flattering, but it could be interpreted as 'could do better'.

In an effort to control the message to consumers, some companies sacrifice clarity and creativity. Bad briefs breed boring results. And the results - corporate speak and dull design - are off-putting. Sure, companies spend lots of money trying to get the right message across about their products to the right people, but they can't control how they are perceived anymore in the new media landscape.

So what to do? According to the Cluetrain, companies should start talking to their market. "The community of discourse is the market," it says. "Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die." Don’t just look over the trees to find an equally big competition, it says. The internet revolution is “bottom-up”. Look down to your feet. That is where the community is.

You can read the full story by subscribing to Animal Pharm.

Punitive measures should be the last resort

Recently, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), issued a position statement and guidelines on the use of punishment for disciplining animals, in response to reality TV shows like "The Dog Whisperer".

Currently airing on the National Geographic Channel in the US, the dog whisperer, Cesar Millan - touted as the "Dr Phil for dogs" - goes around rehabilitating problematic dogs with his unique disciplinary techniques.

The AVSAB acknowledges that "punishment can be effective in specific cases, but it must be used carefully due to the difficulties of performing it properly compared to positive reinforcement and due to its potential adverse effects".

Punishment, it cautions, "should not be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. This is due to the potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals".

At the moment, we are editing a podcast by Dr Uwe Gerecke about behavioral products for companion animals.

He says that behavioral problems in companion animals are acquired disorders, which occur as a reaction to inappropriate husbandry conditions, isolation or deprivation of social interaction.

But he also points out that what the owners perceive as behavioral problems are probably not problems at all, but simply a normal behavior for the species. Cats like to mark their territories and dogs like to chew on things.

"Owners's expectations have changed over the last 30 years, and consequently changing the lifestyles of especially pet dogs and cats," he explains. "Many companion animals today have little opportunity to express their normal repertoire of social reproductive and hunting behavior. As a result of this, many owners have no idea what the normal repertoire of the respective species really is."

Dr Gerecke's take on the use of drugs is pretty similar to that of the AVSAB's.

Only resort to these measures after an accurate diagnosis on the underlying behavioural problem, and if the owners, with the help of the vets, have a good idea about the safety of drugs chosen.

Note: Dr Uwe Gerecke also did a podcast on Nutraceuticals in the Animal Health Industry for Animal Pharm.

Animal emotions run high

I have a good relationship with my neighbour, we take in one another's parcels and exchange Christmas cards. So I was surprised to detect a coolness setting in, especially as we had discussed our jobs and work routines recently.

Finally, fearing for my parcels and Christmas list, I asked her what was wrong. "I don't agree with vivisection," came the answer. "I think it's wrong but you're biased towards it." I was taken aback. I didn't think we had discussed my attitudes to animal experimentation, I don't think I've ever discussed them, so how did this suddenly happen?

I probed a little further. It emerged my neighbour had thought that a publication called Animal Pharm must write about and support animal experimentation. I explained that Animal Pharm covers progress in animal health, how to make sick animals better, not how to use them to make humans better. My neighbour seemed mollified, and when I mentioned Animal Pharm's coverage of the 3Rs, reducing, refining and replacing animals in research, she was happier with me, although still opposed to using animals for medical research.

So how does the scientific community present current thinking on the use of animals in medical research? Extreme measures by animal rights activists have lost the support of many members of the public, so is now the time for human and veterinary medical scientists to show their side of the argument?

Geneticist Steve Jones, in his book Double Helix, suggests that opponents of the use of animals in medical research use "an essentially stupid argument: that if you disapprove of something, it cannot be true" (Double Helix, p89). He compares messages that suggest that animal experimentation is useless with the pronouncements of creationists, and, depressingly, says that "rubbish endlessly repeated can convert itself in the public mind into uncertainty, and then to truth." (Double Helix, p89).

After speaking to my neighbour, a sensible, well-educated woman, I felt that scientists had a long way to go before their arguments, based on facts not emotions, were listened to.

But one question remained with me: how do animal lovers feel about using animals in studies to find new veterinary drugs? Diabetes and cancer are just two diseases pets can suffer, and today, they can be treated successfully. This success is the result of careful study, research and experimentation using animals. You may not want animals to suffer to help cure your fellow human beings, but you might just have a different attitude when animal experimentation cures your beloved dog or cat.

Everyone likes a dark horse

Today we published a story on our website about Pfizer Animal Health's plan to fund research into new treatments for laminitis in horses in partnership with the Barbaro Memorial Fund.

The fund was set up by The National Thoroughbred Racing Association after the death of Barbaro, the winner of the Kentucky Derby 2006. Two weeks after winning the derby, he shattered his leg during a race at the 2006 Preakness Stakes. Barbaro developed laminitis in his left rear leg, and later in both front legs. He was put down in January 2007.

If you get to see the Barbaro Memorial Fund video on YouTube, you'll read all these gushing tributes from fans who were so touched by his death.

What endeared Barbaro to the US public was the fact that during the 2006 Derby, nobody expected him to beat 20 other horses in the race. His odds of winning were 6:1. But he charged ahead during the last turn and won by six and a half lengths. It was the largest margin of victory at the Derby since 1946. It was said that the jockey didn't even whip him as he finished his final furlong.

Everyone likes a dark horse. We all like the underdogs (pardon the metaphor) that, against all expectations, defy the odds and triumph. In Barbaro, we see ourselves and what we know we could be. No wonder his death broke so many hearts.

Hypoallergenic pets?

In a BIO video that we featured recently on http://www.animalpharmnews.com/, Dr Barbara Glenn, the Director of BIO's Animal Biotechnology Department, talks about the possibility of one day creating "hypoallergenic animals" for pet.

Before we say "Frankenstein", let's think about it. Before the advent of GM technology, we bred companion animals and food-producing animals to get pedigree stocks. OK, the techniques weren't GM, but my point is we tried to control the way these animals turn out so they suit our needs and lifestyle. We wanted thoroughbred horses, cats, dogs - we didn't want mongrels. We wanted the best meat, the best dairy produce, the best eggs, the best leather. We still want the same things, but in a bigger quantity because there are more of us today, and if we can get away with it, "bespoke", so they fit into our lives. Tall order.

If they can come up with cats that don't shed hair or smell as much, I might consider having one again in the flat. Bizarre? Try having a cat in Central London.

By the way, check out this website. Pet to order, only $7,900 a pop.