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.

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.

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.