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?

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!

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?

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.

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.