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.

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.

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.

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?

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.