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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.