Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Dr Broom of Cambridge University Veterinary School on Cognitive Ability of Pigs: Also, Summary of Recent Laws Affecting Pigs in Factory Farms

Great article. Here are just a couple of quotes from below that provide a great summary of this issue:

“They have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs – and certainly three-year-olds.”

“I wonder if any of these people would dare keep their beloved companion Fido in the same conditions they deem perfectly acceptable for pigs?

Article:

Getting pig cruelty into the closet

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/opinion/2481992/Getting-pig-cruelty-into-the-closet

About pigs, Dr Donald Broom of the Cambridge University Veterinary School says: “They have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs – and certainly three-year-olds.”

So, what would you think of a neighbour who kept their three-year-old in a steel crate just a few centimetres bigger than the child was?

From the Stuff website: “I wonder if any of these people would dare keep their beloved companion Fido in the same conditions they deem perfectly acceptable for pigs?

“How do these people look at themselves in the mirror knowing they are deceiving the public and forcing such intelligent and social animals into a life so miserable I can hardly begin to imagine?

“They should try it out – go lock themselves in a closet. It might just make this world a better place.”

Some other facts that may help you if you fear that the bacon and egg argument about cruel confinement of pigs and poultry is simply an issue driven by wild-eyed, unworldly eccentrics in darned woolly jumpers and sandals. Plus someone you may rate as an odd columnist.

On May 12, the state of Maine passed a law banning gestation stalls and veal crates. Animals there will have to have enough room to stand up, extend their limbs and turn around freely, for the majority of the day. The law takes effect on January 1, 2011. A happier new year, indeed.

Colorado recently passed a law to phase out veal crates and pig gestation cages on the recommendation of what was described as an unlikely coalition of Colorado-based animal agriculture organisations and the Humane Society of the United States.

As long ago as 2002, Florida banned intensive caging of pigs in gestation crates – the first such measure in the US.

In 2006 Arizona overwhelmingly outlawed cruel confinement of breeding pigs as well as veal calves.
In June 2007, Oregon banned pigs in gestation crates.

Its act says: “A person shall not tether or confine any pig on a farm for all or the majority of the day in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely.”

At that time, the US Humane Society, the largest animal protection organisation in the US – with more than 10 million supporters – said: “Even animals raised for food deserve humane treatment. Gestation crates are notoriously abusive.”

Tethering is banned entirely in the European Union and at least three countries, Sweden among them, have already stopped the use of gestation crates altogether.

That ban will effectively reach the rest of the EU by 2013 when all member countries will have phased out gestation crates entirely.

The United States’ largest pork producer, Smithfield Foods, and Canada’s largest pork producer, Maple Leaf Foods, have both announced they will begin phasing out gestation crates in their pork production.

Burger King and restaurant chain Wolfgang Puck have also said they are moving away from pork producers who use them.

Group Asks for Truth in Advertising in Relation to “Naturally Raised” Meat

I received this via email. A great move. Just as with anything, it's only fair to have truth in advertising. Read below and follow the link to find out more and act.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently allowed companies to slap a “naturally raised” label on meat and meat products that come from animals whose upbringing was far from natural. Raising animals in intensive confinement on factory farms, with no access to sunshine or fresh air - is that natural? We say no! Furthermore, such a label misleads the public and exploits consumer trust in advertising and packaging claims and in government regulation of agriculture.

Let the USDA know you won’t stand for such deceptive claims. Sign the petition to tell the agency its “naturally raised” label is not natural!

Thank you for your compassion,

Gene Baur, President and Co-founder
Farm Sanctuary


Friday, May 15, 2009

Wolfs Lose Federal Protection Under The Endangered Species Act: Obama Makes Bush-Like Move and Opens Gate for Wolf Hunting / Killing / Slaughter

I really don’t have to say much, and just let this quote speak for the reality of this situation and Obama’s ridiculous Bush-like decision (sadly many more to come): “The Obama administration, in one of its least popular moves with environmentalists, upheld a Bush era decision that gray wolves have returned from the brink of extinction and no longer require federal protection. That decision took effect today, opening the gate for hunting in Idaho and Montana, which share a population of some 1,300 wolves.”

Seems like Obama is not only like Bush in other areas, he’s also showing more and more that he’s no friend of animal rights either.

Article:

Wolf delisting takes effect today

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-04-gray-wolf-delisting-obama/

Wolf-people, give a howl for your lupine brethren, who lose federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in much of the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest today.

The Obama administration, in one of its least popular moves with environmentalists, upheld a Bush era decision that gray wolves have returned from the brink of extinction and no longer require federal protection. That decision took effect today, opening the gate for hunting in Idaho and Montana, which share a population of some 1,300 wolves.

Wildlife groups have filed notice that they will sue to overturn the decision, saying state management plans don’t provide enough protection for the species that was listed as endangered in 1974.

Last Friday I proposed that “Save the wolves” campaigns typify a strain of old-school environmentalism that is being swallowed by the much broader movement against climate change. The poster-species for the new environmentalism, the polar bear, faces its own day of reckoning this week:

Later in the week, the legal status of polar bears will become clearer when the Obama administration must decide whether to overturn a last-minute Bush move that denied the arctic mammals key protections under the Endangered Species Act. Acknowledging that the polar bear is threatened by a melting habitat, Bush officials still ruled that endangered species protections cannot apply to causes originating outside of their habitat (in other words, the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the polar regions). Obama has until May 9 to overturn the decision; otherwise, it stands.

Greenwire has a piece on the behind-the-scenes tussle over the polar bear decision; look for more on Grist on this later in the week.

Oh, and it’s also a big week for a little mountainous mammal, the American Pika, whose high-elevation habitat faces climate disruption. KQED’s Climate Watch reports on the pika’s prospects for protection, which ride on decisions from the courts and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Australia Continues to Shoot / Kill / Slaughter Kangaroos

Just another writing in the segment “take the easy way out and kill” that we so sadly have to bring to attention monthly.

Article:

Australia to shoot 6,000 kangaroos

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_killing_kangaroos_2

By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 8, 8:15 am ET

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's army has started shooting 6,000 kangaroos to thin their population on an army training ground near the capital, an official said Friday, outraging conservationists who have vowed to protest.

The killings are intended to protect endangered plants and insects that share the grassy habitat with the kangaroos. A much smaller slaughter of 400 kangaroos on another Defense Department site in Canberra last year was disrupted by protesters.

Civilian marksmen contracted by the department began shooting the kangaroos on Tuesday night at Defense's Majura Training Area, where an estimated 9,000 of the wild marsupials roam, Army Brig. Brian Dawson told reporters.

"The culling is intended to reduce the kangaroo population to sustainable levels," Dawson said, describing the action as that of a "responsible landowner."
The nighttime shooting is expected to continue intermittently until August. The training ground covers more than 7,400 acres (3,000 hectares) and includes grenade and artillery firing ranges.
Bernard Brennan, president of Canberra's Animal Liberation conservation group, said protesters planned to descend on the area starting Friday night and many more would flock from around Australia next week. He could not predict how many.

"We're not going to sit back and let it happen," he said.

The kangaroo slaughter follows a recent government environmental report that the common eastern gray kangaroos are too numerous in Canberra's parkland and grassland, eating scarce native grass which is the habitat of endangered insects such as golden gun moths and perunga grasshoppers.

The kangaroo overpopulation is also threatening endangered reptiles, the grassland earless dragon and the striped legless lizard, the report said.

Kangaroos are slaughtered to control population throughout Australia, but government agencies have been reluctant to kill the beloved national symbol around Canberra in the past 20 years because of public outcry.

“Big Meat” Giant Agribusiness Politician to be put in Charge of Food Safety

No matter who is in charge, it’s still the same ol’ boys up there.  So, don’t expect much in terms of animal treatment changes.  

Article:

Close friend of Big Meat may be put in charge of food safety 

http://www.grist.org/article/close-friend-of-big-meat-may-be-put-in-charge-of-food-safety/

POSTED 9:48 AM ON 11 MAY 2009

BY TOM LASKAWY

Politics, Food

USDA chief Tom Vilsack is once again on the verge of stepping in it regarding his pick for food safety czar, i.e. the head of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Some may recall that back in March the Obama administration nearly appointed Dr. Michael Osterholm to the post only to back off when his views on meat irradation (aka “Zap the Crap”) proved too hot to handle. Ironically, Osterholm—who has ties to the meat industry, biotech heavyweight Monsanto and defense contractor 3M—is also a legitimate expert on pandemic preparedness, a skill which might’ve come in handy recently. Ah, well.

Now, swelling rumor has it that Dr. Mike Doyle is the leading candidate for the post. Obamafoodorama first reported the rumor late last week and it has solidified in recent days. Doyle meanwhile is proving at least as controversial as Osterholm and is just as closely allied with the meat industry. Via Ob Fo:

Doyle is currently Director of the Center For Food Safety at the University of Georgia, and a professor in the department of food safety and technology. His work at the land-grant university has been heavily funded by major meat industry concerns, and Doyle has won big acclaim for his industry-friendly policy wonking, in particular from the American Meat Institute, a huge pro-meat/low-government intervention lobbying force on The Hill.  He’s also received big funding and support from the National Chicken Council, another industry lobbying group.  He’s also recived a lot of funding from USDA’s own Agriculture Research Service. How invested is Doyle in the economics of food safety? He actually holds patents on a number of microbiological solutions for disease outbreaks.

That last bit means that he could personally profit from decisions he might make as head of FSIS. But I’m sure he’ll recuse himself from any decisions regarding use of his patented methods for disease management. I’m sorry, did I say something funny?

Doyle is being championed (again according to Ob Fo) by GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Note to Vilsack: Dude, the GOP LOST THE FRAKKING ELECTION!!! Since when do they get to pick top administration officials? And to hear that Vilsack is listening to Saxby Chambliss of all people, one of the idiots more conservative members of a party already far outside the mainstream, boggles the mind. And apparently, if the administration judges Doyle’s conflicts of interest to be manageable, he will in fact get the nod.

Doyle is also associated with the Animal Agriculture Alliance as well as the American Council on Science and Health (this report [PDF], lists him as on the ACSH science advisory board)—both industry-funded astroturf organizations whose shared mission is to undermine any research that questions the safety of industrial products or practices. To get a sense of where the Animal Ag Alliance is coming from, you simply have to read its full-throated defense of the use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in livestock from this attack on the recent Pew report documenting the dangers of livestock factory farms. In fact, Doyle recently spoke at an AAA “summit” where he discussed his research claiming that sub-therapeutic antibiotic use is crucial to “safe” livestock practices. I wonder what Congress, which is considering legislation to outlaw the practice, will make of this.

The only good news regarding Doyle is that his naming hasn’t been officially announced. We can only hope that Vilsack and Obama come to their senses before it’s too late.

Massachusetts General Hospital to Use and then Kill Sheep in Trauma Training: What you Can do to Stop It

Received this from PCRM, a great group dedicated to ending vivisection.  Please read below for more information.  Pretty easy to act.

By the way, you’ll see the TraumaMan System mentioned below.  This is a surgical simulation tool that provides an alternative to animal testing or vivisection.  You can learn more about this incredible animal testing alternative at http://www.simulab.com/home-traumaman-system

Email received:

On Monday and Tuesday, live sheep are scheduled to be used and then killed in a trauma training course at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. We need your help to end this unnecessary and cruel practice.

Mass General may be one of the nation’s best hospitals, but it is woefully behind the times when it comes to teaching Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Across the nation, more than 90 percent of ATLS courses are taught using only human-based simulators, which Mass General currently owns.

Please call, e-mail, or write a letter to Massachusetts General Hospital president Peter L. Slavin, M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in the institution’s ATLS program. Then forward this message to your friends who care about animals and effective medical education. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. 

Peter L. Slavin, M.D.
President
Massachusetts General Hospital
55 Fruit St.
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-724-9300
E-mail: pslavin (at) partners.org

Mass General owns the American College of Surgeons-approved simulator known as the TraumaMan System. The hospital uses the simulator to teach ATLS surgical skills to medical students while using live sheep to teach the very same procedures to practicing physicians.

On May 14, PCRM filed a formal request with Mass General’s Subcommittee on Research Animal Care asking that it deny the use of animals in the hospital’s ATLS program.

The letter cites an ongoing survey by PCRM, which has so far received responses from 201 ATLS programs in the United States and Canada. The survey has found that 187 of those programs (more than 90 percent) exclusively use nonanimal models for instruction. The vast majority of those 187 programs exclusively use the TraumaMan System.

Learn more about the TraumaMan System (http://www.simulab.com/home-traumaman-system). If you have any questions, please contact me at rmerkley (at) pcrm.org. Thanks so much for your help!
Best regards,
Ryan Merkley
Manager of Humane Education Programs

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Truth Behind The Kentucky Derby: Used Thoroughbreds are Shipped to Canada and

Hello again to you all.  I received this email regarding the upcoming Kentucky Derby.  Sadly, there is a truth behind the Kentucky Derby many have not heard of.  As you’ll read below, “Due to the recession, donations to rescue organizations are at record lows and many thoroughbreds are being shipped to Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered. “ 

Please read on.  There is a link to a press release for more information - http://www.prweb.com/releases/horseslaughter/kentuckyderby/prweb2323154.htm

I know that you have covered horse related issues in the past and
thought you might be interested in this release:

As you know, May 2nd marks the 135th running of the Kentucky Derby in
which many of the world’s fastest thoroughbreds will compete.

Yet there has rarely been a more difficult time for these magnificent
animals.   Due to the recession, donations to rescue organizations are
at record lows and many thoroughbreds are being shipped to Canada and
Mexico to be slaughtered.  (Some of these same animals have earned
millions of dollars for their previous owners.)

Without sufficient funds, nonprofits are unable to save these
ex-racers.  To remedy this situation, Chez Chevaux , a
Washington-based thoroughbred rescue organization, has issued a Derby
Dollar Challenge.  The organization is seeking to raise $135,000
before the Derby, reminding potential donors that even a single dollar
can make a tremendous difference in horses’ lives.

I would be incredibly grateful if you could mention this in your blog.
 Every day, more and more thoroughbreds who could be retrained are
needlessly going to slaughterhouses.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Sick, Cruel Canada Begins its Annual Baby Seal Slaughter: Bludgeoning, Skinning Alive Seal Pups: Largest Slaughter of Marine Mammals on Earth

Every year I unfortunately have to post about this. Unbelievable that it’s still going on. Again, this is grown men going out and bludgeoning baby seals.

As stated at http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp

“Canada’s annual seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. Last year, the world looked on in horror as the Canadian government permitted the slaughter of more than 330,000 harp seals. During the hunt, baby seals are shot or repeatedly clubbed. Sealers bludgeon the animals with clubs and “hakapiks” (clubs with metal hooks on their ends) and drag the seals—who are still conscious—across the ice floes with boat hooks. Many of these animals are even skinned alive. Hunters toss dead and dying seals into heaps and leave their carcasses to rot on the ice floes because there is no market for seal meat. Veterinarians who have investigated the hunt have found that hunters routinely fail to comply with Canada’s animal welfare standards.

It is legal in Canada to kill seal pups when they are about 12 days old. During last year’s hunt, almost all the seals killed were 3 months old or younger. Many had not yet learned how to swim or eaten their first solid meals. Baby seals are helpless and have no way to escape from the sealers’ clubs.”

Unfortunately, they will now take their slaughter to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Friday.

For more about what you can do to stop this, and to view photos and videos that show proof of the horrible violence of this issue, see:

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/

http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp

Article:

Seal hunt ends off Iles de la Madeleine; more than 17,200 killed

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090325/national/seal_hunt

By The Canadian Press

HALIFAX, N.S. - Seal hunters returned to the ice in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence for a few hours Wednesday to kill the last remaining seals allowed under their quota off Iles de la Madeleine.

Phil Jenkins, a spokesman for the federal Fisheries Department, said about 17,200 seals were killed on Monday and Tuesday, leaving only a few hundred remaining before the hunt ended at 10 a.m. local time.

Helicopters carrying observers from two animal welfare groups headed out to witness the final stage of the hunt, which involved sealers from the Quebec islands.

In addition to sealers in boats, the hunt involved sealers who were able to reach the animals by snowmobile and all-terrain vehicles because of ice that reached the shore.

Jenkins said a hunt in the gulf for sealers from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is scheduled to begin at 6 a.m. Friday.

"That's the earliest, weather dependent," he said.

About 50 licensed sealers plus their crew will take part in that hunt between Iles de la Madeleine and Cape Breton. It has a small quota of 1,435 animals.

The federal government has set a combined allowable catch for this year's East Coast seal hunt of 338,200 harp, hooded and grey seals.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Burt's Bees, Tom's of Maine, Naked Juice, Cascadian Farms, White Wave, Boca, Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop: The Truth of Who Really Owns Them

A great article that really brings to light that many of the companies that market themselves as cruelty free or environmental are actually owned by horribly cruel companies that engage in animal testing and create products known for their toxic chemicals.

We wrote a while back about Tom's of Maine Selling Out to Animal Testing Giant Colgate-Palmolive - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/toms-of-maine-sells-out-to-animal.html

In that, we also discuss other sell outs. Notably, White Wave, Celestial Seasonings, Boca, Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop, and numerous others. In fact, I wrote about the Body Shop’s sell out here: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/once-animal-friendly-company-body-shop_17.html.

As I stated, who would know that if you buy Boca you support Altria, or, what was once known as Philip Morris. Or when you buy Ben and Jerry’s you support Unilever. Sad state of affairs.

The point is that if you are committed to animal rights or environmental issues, know the truth behind the brands. Know who owns what.

Here are a few shockers listed in the story below:

“Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.”

“General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.”

“Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola.”

“Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy…”

“Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla.”

“Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.”

“Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins.”

Article:

Burt's Bees, Tom's of Maine, Naked Juice: Your Favorite Brands? Take Another Look -- They May Not Be What They Seem

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/131910/burt%27s_bees%2C_tom%27s_of_maine%2C_naked_juice%3A_your_favorite_brands_take_another_look_--_they_may_not_be_what_they_seem/?page=entire

By Andrea Whitfill, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.

Confident that you are buying good, socially conscious brands? Find out the real story behind all that marketing money and store visibility.

My first introduction to natural, organic and eco-friendly products stems back to the early '90s, when I stumbled upon Burt’s Bees lip balm at an independently owned health food store in the heart of Westport, Kansas City, Mo.

Before the eyesore invasion of ’98, when Starbucks frothed its way into the neighborhood, leading to its ultimate demise, Westport was the kind of 'hood I still yearn for. It was saturated with historically preserved, hip and funky, mom-and-pop-type establishments, delivering their goods people to people.

I was surprised more recently when I saw Burt's Bees products everywhere -- in grocery stores, drug stores, corner bodegas and big-box stores like Target and Wal-Mart. I thought to myself, fantastic; the marketplace is working, and good for Burt. He has made his mark, and the demand for his products is on the rise.

Needless to say, I was shocked when I recently found out that Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.

Clorox; yes, that's right -- the bleach company with an estimated revenue of $ 4.8 billion that employs nearly 7,600 workers (now bees) and sells products like Liquid-Plumr, Pine-Sol and Armor All, a far cry from the origins of Burt.

I now understood. The reason Burt's Bees products were everywhere was precisely because they now had a powerful corporation in the driver's seat, with big marketing budgets and existing distribution systems.

The story of Burt is a charming one gone bad. Burt Shavitz, a beekeeper in Dexter, Maine, lived an extremely humble life selling honey in pickle jars from the back of his pickup truck and resided in the wilderness inside a turkey coop without running water or electricity.

In the summer of 1984, Shavitz was driving down the road and spotted a hitchhiker who needed a lift to the post office. He pulled over and picked up Roxanne Quimby, a 34-year-old woman who eventually became Shavitz's lover and business partner. Quimby started helping him tend to the beehives, and that eventually led to the all natural-inspired health care products made with Shavitz's honey and the birth of Burt's Bees products.

Burt's story and very powerful narrative gave Burt's Bees products their legitimacy in my book. Creative entrepreneurs and knowledgeable consumers together working their magic; not the results of a corporate behemoth out to dominate the marketplace.

However, Quimby and Shavitz's relationship became 'sticky' in the late '90s for reasons unclear, yet probably having little to do with honey. Their romantic break up carried over to the split of their business partnership as well. In 1999, Quimby bought out Shavitz's shares of the company for a small six-figure sum. Quimby then continued, becoming phenomenally successfully and growing sales to $43.5 million by 2002.

In 2003, a private equity firm, AEA investors, purchased 80 percent of Burt's Bees from Quimby, with her retaining a 20 percent share and a seat on the board. In 2006, John Replogle, the former general manager of Unilever's skin-care division became CEO and president of Burt's Bees. The company was sold to Clorox in late October 2007 for $925 million.

Quimby was paid more than $300 million for her stake in Burt's Bees. At the time of that deal, Shavitz reportedly demanded more money, and Quimby agreed to pay him $4 million. Quimby now refurbishes fancy, swank homes in Florida, travels the world and buys massive chunks of land in her free time. Our bearded man Shavitz, on the other hand, now 73 and unchanged, continues to reside amidst nature in his now-expanded turkey coop, which still remains absent of electricity or running water.

The Burt's Bees story is disconcerting. I vaguely remembered long ago that one of my favorite ice cream products, Ben & Jerry's, sold out. Unilever (which also owns Breyers), the giant conglomerate with an estimated market cap of $50 billion and close to 174,000 employees, bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000 for $326 million.

I began to wonder about the other products I liked, trusted and respected for their independence and their social responsibility. How many were really owned by big corporations, who were going out of their way to hide the link between the big corporate company with the small, socially responsible brand? It didn't take long for my list of disappointments to grow and grow.

Upon first meeting someone, I can usually tell a quite a lot about them by the contents of their bathroom. The brand I see most often behind medicine cabinets of people I consider to be environmentally conscious is Tom's of Maine. What Tom's says to me about the person is that they are willing to spend a little bit of extra cash in order to take proactive steps to help green the Earth.

Well, no more. My bathroom assessments will never be the same. Tom's of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a massive, tanklike company with an estimated 36,000 employees and revenue of approximately $11.4 billion. Its big products include: Ajax, Anbesol and Speedstick.

I am only left to wonder, is Trader Joe's, popularly known to showcase Tom's of Maine in its hygiene department, just as much in the dark about all of this as I have been? Or is Joe's simply another conduit for big corporate products?

As my curiosity grew, I took a little field trip to the grocery store with one of my friends to be a "brand anthropologist." "Let's get to the bottom of this," I said, aiming to check out all of the brands that I and countless other good consumers were buying in our efforts to support grassroots business and not corporate behemoths. Little did I know how deep the hole was going to be, and in some cases, how hard to find out who owns what.

Thinking Dairy

In the dairy section sit many flavors of Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins. (In an interesting twist, the still-active Hirshberg sits on the board of Dannon U.S.A. Unlike most of the early entrepreneurs, who took the dough and left the scene, Hirshberg is still involved. )

Meanwhile, I learned that Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.

Thirsty? Juices and Water

Next I ventured to the juice section. Drinking Odwalla juices was an expensive habit I had justified for years because of its healthy California brand. The ubiquitous refrigerators in thousands of stores should have given it away that Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola. Almost as soon as Coca-Cola bought the company, back in 2001 for $181 million, it stopped selling the fresh-squeezed OJ that had made Odwalla famous and popular among the healthy set. With its massive distribution system, fresh squeezed wouldn't last the days and weeks the juices are in transit or on the shelf.

Not to be outdone (although it took it a while), Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla. Smuckers, the brand we are told is the "brand we can trust", grabbed several juice mainstays from the health food store shelves: After the fall -- R.W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organic.

Turns out that Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy -- all bottled waters that are adorably marketed and loaded with sugar. It's no wonder Coca-Cola was slapped with a lawsuit in 2006 for making deceptive and unsubstantiated health claims in its Vitamin Water marketing strategies; they are selling glorified sugar water.

As for bottled water, egads! That's a whole article in and of itself. The scourge of bottled water, of course, is an environmental disaster on many levels, as corporations have moved in to take control of water local supplies, while some of the same companies and their mega advertising budgets have created a giant market for bottled water, with enormous waste from plastic bottles and giant carbon foot prints as water is shipped over many thousands of miles from Fiji for example, or Italy, when pretty much no bottled water is needed. Frequently, tap water is of higher quality and more closely tested than bottled water.

And as Michael Blanding notes on AlterNet, "In fact, many times bottled water is tap water. Contrary to the image of water flowing from pristine mountain springs, more than a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal water supplies. The industry is dominated by three companies, who together control more than half the market: Coca-Cola, which produces Dasani; Pepsi, which produces Aquafina; and Nestle, which produces several "local" brands, including Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka and Calistoga. Both Coke and Pepsi exclusively use tap water for their sources, while Nestle uses tap water in some brands.

The Breakfast Nook

Over in the breakfast aisle, my friend was a bit apoplectic when we learned that the "super healthy" Kashi cereals, the favorites of millions of healthy breakfast eaters, was bought in July 2000 for an "undisclosed sum" by Kellogg's, the 12th-largest company in North American food sales, according to Food Processing. I picked up a box of Kashi's "Go Lean Crunch" and searched every word; not one mention of the fact that Kellogg's owns them. That change was rally below the radar. In 2004, Kraft Foods, known for processed cheeses and Kool-Aid, bought the natural cereal maker Back to Nature. Kraft is a subsidiary of Altria, which also owns Philip Morris USA, one of the world's largest producers of cigarettes.

According to the New York Times, "Many of the alternative cereal brands are owned by larger companies, including Kellogg and General Mills."

"Cereals, like milk, are one of the primary entrance points for use of organics," said Lara Christenson of Spins, a market research group for the natural products industry, "which is pretty closely tied to children -- health concerns, keeping pesticides, especially antibiotics, out of the diets of children. These large firms wanted to get a foothold in the natural and organic marketplace. Because of the mind-set of consumers, branding of these products has to be very different than traditional cereals."

These corporate connections are often kept quiet. "There is frequently a backlash when a big cereal package-goods company buys a natural or organic company," Christenson said. "I don't want to say it's manipulative, but consumers are led to believe these brands are pure, natural or organic brands. It's very purposely done."

A little more digging shows that General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.

The Sweet Tooth

After the Kashi news, I wondered what was next? I didn't have to go any further than the organic chocolate aisle of my favorite deli to find Green and Black's organic chocolate was taken over in 2005 by Schweppes, the 10th-largest company in North American packaged-food sales. And even more surprising to chocolate lovers is that Dagoba Chocolate, which had a little cult chocolate following for a while, is surprise, surprise, owned by Hershey Foods.

There seems to be an apt analogy between the huge growth in the "naturalization" of packaged goods in grocery stores and supermarket aisles and the massive transformation of organic fresh foods. Organic farming began as a grassroots movement to produce food that was healthier and better for the land. But it is now a huge, $20 billion industry, increasingly dominated by large agribusiness companies. Furthermore, when the government certifies food as "organic," it has nothing to do with the original values of locally grown produce, workers being treated fairly, etc.

So it may cheer some to know that on the East Coast, McDonald's has served fair-trade-certified Newman's Own organic coffee in stores, while others may cringe at the words of Lee Scott, former CEO of WalMart, when he said, "We are particularly excited about organic food, the fastest-growing category in all of food."

"What's important to keep in mind is that these big corporations are getting into organics not because they have doubts about their prior business practices or doubts about chemical, industrial agriculture," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "They're getting in because they want to make a lot of money -- they want to make it fast." He said the companies couldn't care less about "family farmers making the transition to organic farms."

What does this all mean? One conclusion it is easy to come to is that big food companies and the stores and supermarkets that deliver their goods have stretched and abused descriptions of food until they are sometimes almost meaningless, and consumers believe that they are getting more benefits than they actually are. Consumers "walk down the aisle in the grocery stores' health and beauty area, and they're confronted with 'natural' at every turn," says Daniel Fabricant, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association. "We just don't want to see the term misused any longer."

On the other hand, Roger Cowe, a financial commentator states: "If you want to change what people consume on a grand scale, you have to penetrate mass markets. And you can't do that if you're a small, specialist brand stuck in the organic or whole-food niche, even if that means you are on supermarket shelves. It is a familiar dilemma: stay pure and have a big impact on a small scale, or compromise and have a small impact on a grand scale."

Some think that socially responsible business sellers don't lose it all when selling out. Both Craig Sams from Green and Black chocolate and the late Anita Roddick from the Body Shop ( sold to L'Oreal/Nestle -- one of the most vilified of multinational companies) have said that they believe that an acquired ethical company can influence its new parent to improve its corporate behavior.

Others are not so positive about this turn of events. Judy Wickes from the Social Venture Network describes corporate takeovers of socially responsible businesses as "a threat to democracy when wealth and power are concentrated into a few hands." And David Korten, in his book, When Corporations Rule the World, explained how sustainable business "should be human scale -- not necessarily tiny firms, but preferably not more than 500 people -- always with a bias to smaller is better."

It is clear that so-called organic brands are a rapidly growing portion of the consumer dollar, and that every major food corporation has invested deeply in buying these already-established brands.

Marketing strategies have been fooling us to trust that the niche brands continue to be small, environmentally conscious businesses that combine ecologically sound practices with a political agenda to put products out on the market under a business model of "the Greater Good."

In fact, they are frequently cogs in the giant corporate wheel. I like to refer to this "other" business model as "We've Been Had." It is time for we, the consumer, to question how much the ownership and neglectful marketing of these "pseudo" responsible brands warrant crossing them off our shopping list.

And it is time to find products more in tune with our values, which include thinking small. At least until they, too, get bought out by some large conglomerate.

The Obvious Cruelty of Keeping Chimpanzees in Captivity: Will it Ever End?

I’ll let this opening quote from the story below state it all: “Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.”

Overall, a great article that points out the obvious.

Article:

Chimps R Us: How Much Longer Are We Going to Keep Our Cousins as Pets?

http://www.alternet.org/story/131900/chimps_r_us%3A_how_much_longer_are_we_going_to_keep_our_cousins_as_pets/


By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.

A life of captivity is too cruel for chimpanzees and dangerous for their owners. We should give them the freedoms we grant ourselves.
Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.

The gruesome attack by an adult chimpanzee on its Connecticut owner last month provided a vivid reminder of why Congress should impose a complete ban on keeping chimps as pets. .

Twenty states still permit this dubious instance of animal loving. Last month, the House has passed a bill ending this option. Now the Senate must do the same. The debate in Congress centers on practical reasons against keeping chimpanzees. They are simply too dangerous to live alongside humans; and caring for them properly, in a private home, is virtually impossible.

The utilitarian case against pet ownership obscures a wider moral lesson about relations between chimpanzees and their human kin. They are too much like us not to be included in our what intellectual historian David Hollinger calls "the circle of we.".

A close genetic relative to humans, chimpanzees are intelligent, sensitive, solve problems and form coherent social relationships. They plan, they improvise, they endure. For those who closely study or assist chimpanzees, either in the wild or in African sanctuaries, come to believe, as I do, that chimpanzees are as glorious as humans -- and deserve to exist on some roughly equal plane as us.

"Chimpanzees deserve to be treated with the same dignity as a human being," says Sheri Speede, an Oregon veterinarian who runs a large chimp sanctuary in the West African country of Cameroon. "They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."

If Speede is correct, should not chimpanzees be as free as humans? Should the nation debate -- with the same energy shown in the national conversation over the practice of keeping chimpanzees as pets -- ending the incarceration of the 269 chimpanzees now captive in 35 American zoos?

I perhaps have no standing to ask this question. I am not an expert in chimpanzees, nor have I been a militant defender of their rights and entitlements. At least not for very long.

My first close encounter with a chimpanzee came eight years ago. On a whim, I visited the zoo in Accra, Ghana. I saw an African woman inside a small enclosure, playing with an orphaned 1-year-old chimpanzee named Jimmy. Hunters had killed his mother.

The woman, named Chizo, was his surrogate mother. She joined Jimmy in his cage -- under the supervision of a primate expert from Europe -- bringing him some measure of natural development, since unrelated chimpanzees would not likely befriend him.

Baby chimpanzees are smarter than humans at the same age, research has shown (and orphaned chimps, given human care can be even smarter; one study, published in February, found that such chimps recorded higher scores on IQ tests than many human infants). As I returned to the zoo in successive days in order to strike up a friendship with Chizo, I came to agree with the scientific consensus, marveling at Jimmy's intelligence.

He quickly concluded, for instance, that I was a rival for Chizo's attention. And with an eerie insight, the afternoon that I first asked her on a date, Jimmy mounted a vigorous effort to prevent her from departing his cage, blocking the escape door over and over, even threatening to break out with her.

He kept me waiting on the other side of the bars. Time and again, I thought he'd planned this whole stalemate, simply to upset me. (Indeed, researchers in Sweden this month published a study documenting the "contingency plans" made by one adult chimp in a Swedish zoo.)

Chizo worked closely with Jimmy more than a year. Their partnership was ended by Chizo's decision move with me to the U.S. Before we left Ghana, we both felt sorrow over leaving Jimmy behind.

An effort by a global network of chimpanzees activists failed to secure Jimmy's release to a sanctuary, where he could live in a natural environment, while still under the protection of humans. After we settled in the U.S., another serious attempt was made to gain Jimmy's release, but again the government of Ghana refused.

The recent controversy over pet chimpanzees made me think about the hundreds of chimps in zoos in America and around the world -- and of Jimmy, too. He remains in a zoo in Ghana, although he's been joined by another orphan, a younger female, also rescued and brought to the zoo after the slaughter by hunters of her parents.

In September, Chizo and I visited Jimmy and his new friend. Jimmy instantly recognized Chizo from a distance of more than 100 feet. Jimmy, now 7 years old, is too big and strong to permit Chizo to join him in his cage. Yet they played anyway, hugging and dancing separated by steel bars. Jimmy showed off, jumping from a high perch onto a trampoline and doing endless somersaults.

He remembered me, too, though with less affection. Shrewdly drawing close to him by extending one hand in friendship, I approached the bars, looked in the eyes -- and then watched in astonishment as he three a hand full of waste at me. I ducked, adroitly, causing him to miss.

For a few hours, we played a game of cat and mouse. He drew me closer through acts of kindness, and then turned against me. Sometimes, he tossed waste at me with an unnerving accuracy, other times he spat in my direction.

Those days visiting Jimmy in the Kumasi zoo convinced me that, while he could not understand why Chizo and I had vanished from his life, he had felt long and hard our absence -- and now celebrated our return.

Before I departed, I asked the zoo director might he ever release Jimmy? I offered, as others have before, to arrange his transfer to sanctuary -- a kind of "gated community" where chimps experience something akin to living in the wild, yet are protected from hunters, each other and truly wild chimps who might attack them with lethal force.

I've visited Speede's sanctuary in Cameroon and seen up close the excellent care the chimps receive -- and their happy communion with each other and the forest. There are two other chimpanzee sanctuaries in this West African country, and together they are searching for land where a select group of their chimps can be released into a freer environment.

Releasing chimps, grown accustomed to the comforts of a sanctuary, is fraught; their survival skills diminished, these chimps can fall prey to other animals, hunters or even disease.

Speede, for instance, gives chimps medical care, and her sanctuary has special fencing, even at the canopy of the forest, to keep wild chimps from mounting attacks.

Lovers of chimpanzees worry of course that these human relatives are doomed to extinction as the lush forests they inhabit get cut down by loggers, bisected by roads and infiltrated by hunters. Trade in so-called bush meat, while illegal and constrained, continues. Demand comes from wealthier city dwellers, some of whom live in Europe or America.

Speede believes that sanctuaries -- and "release" programs of the sort she's preparing -- may be the only means of preventing the ultimate destruction of chimpanzees and their extraordinary ways of being.

If she's right, should Americans consider supporting such sanctuaries rather than the zoos where we now visit chimpanzees? In the case of Jimmy, I'm certain he would prefer to live in one of the two dozen sanctuaries around Africa. His cage in Ghana is small and has a cold concrete floor. The zoo director's desire for Jimmy to impregnate a female at the zoo strikes me as unwise. Given the longevity of chimps, Jimmy could easily live 30 or more years in his cage -- outliving me, easily, yet serving as a source of amusement and education for visitors to the Kumasi Zoo.

"He's our top attraction," the zoo director told me, when he once more rejected the idea of letting Jimmy go.

To free the 269 chimpanzees in American zoos is perhaps less urgent, because these zoos long ago switched to larger, more flexible enclosures that produce an illusion of open space. I do not doubt that the 269 chimpanzees residing in these advanced enclosures are unaware of their captivity.

The question is how long can we, the jailers, allow that to continue?

Cruel Australia will Resort to Shooting Kangaroos to Deal with Population Issues

Again, a group taking a very limited view of how to deal with an issue. Going straight to the “let’s kill it away” proposal.

Article:


Kangaroos in the firing line in Australia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_shooting_kangaroos_3

By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 17, 7:48 am ET
Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia AP – Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia Oct. 23, 2006. An official …

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's capital is plagued by too many kangaroos, and the best solution is to shoot them, an official said Tuesday. Horrified conservationists vowed to demonstrate if authorities followed through.

Canberra has among the densest populations of the common eastern gray kangaroo in Australia, and they are regularly seen hopping in parks and other places around the city.

The kangaroo is a national emblem of Australia, but it can also be a nuisance. The animals munching grass and shrubs around Canberra are degrading their own habitats and adding to threats posed to rare insects and lizards.

Kangaroos hopping across streets are a frequent traffic hazard in the city, and they can pose other problems — as one family in the area discovered last week when a confused and panicked kangaroo leapt through a bedroom window and bounded around the house until it was thrust out the front door.

Jon Stanhope, the chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is located, released a draft plan Tuesday describing how his government would reduce numbers the city's kangaroo population by shooting them — a method that has long divided this community of 330,000 people.

The plan does not say how many kangaroos should be killed.

Supporters say the absence of more effective biological controls leaves shooting as the most humane way to control kangaroo numbers.

"There are probably more eastern gray kangaroos in Canberra now than any time in the last 100 years," Stanhope told reporters. "I think we have perhaps tried too hard not to cull."

The population of kangaroos in the area is hard to determine because the animals move frequently, according to the availability of grass and water.

The territory's government has been involved since 1998 in research to develop an oral contraceptive for kangaroos but none is yet effective in the wild.

Stanhope said the research to develop humane alternatives to shooting would be encouraged.

The report ruled out trapping and trucking kangaroos to where they are less abundant because the process was expensive, unproven and illogical given there was no threat to the species' survival.

Pat O'Brien, president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, warned that authorities would be met by protests if they tried to shoot kangaroos.

"The whole thing is a propaganda exercise to try to get public support for killing kangaroos," O'Brien said. Kangaroo number were high, "but there's certainly not too many of them."

The killing of 400 kangaroos out of 600 at an abandoned military site in Canberra last year triggered several heated protests.

Those kangaroos were killed with lethal injections because firearms were judged to be too dangerous at the site, which was within Canberra's city limits.

Recent government surveys said some 17 percent of Canberra drivers had reported colliding with a kangaroo at sometime in the past, though 82 percent of respondents considered it important that wild kangaroos continue to live in the city.

Lion Shot and Killed at Australian Zoo

Just another posting in the “why zoos are unnatural and unnecessary” segment.

Article:

Lion shot after escaping Australian zoo enclosure

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_as/as_australia_lion_escape_1

Wed Mar 18, 3:43 am ET

SYDNEY – A lioness was fatally shot after breaking out of its enclosure at an Australian zoo and forcing visitors to hide in nearby buildings, a zoo official said Wednesday.

The 9-year-old lioness was shot on Tuesday by an employee of Mogo Zoo in Mogo, about 190 miles (300 kilometers) south of Sydney, the zoo's business manager John Appleby said.

The lion, named Jameila, never reached a public area, but officials were concerned the animal might and decided to shoot it, Appleby said.

"She was moving quite slowly towards a public area, but under the circumstances a decision was made to put her down," he said. "Because it was a lion, it was considered a dangerous animal, and protocol is if there is any potential risk to the public a decision would be made."

Zoo officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how the animal escaped its enclosure.

About 30 people were visiting the zoo when the lion broke loose. After being alerted by zoo officials about the escape, visitors hid in buildings throughout the grounds until the animal was killed, Appleby said.

"I wouldn't say there was any panic — I think it was all very controlled," he said.

Staff members were devastated by the death of the cat, which was born at the zoo.

"It's an absolute loss," Appleby said. "The team are still quite upset."

Friday, February 27, 2009

Threat to Society, Famous Animal Abuser, Convicted Felon, Convicted Dog Fighting Operation Leader Michael Vick to Soon be Released to Home Confinement

Here we go again. A rich famous animal abuser who doesn’t finish his time due to his money and connections. As we all remember, former NFL star Michael Vick was convicted of horrible crimes against dogs, as he operated a dog fighting ring.

For those who have forgotten, please visit our story about his the Michael Vick dog fighting conviction and description of horrible abuse of dogs he carried out at http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-vick-former-quarterback-of.html

Seems the excuse is that he will go home due to no bed space at a halfway house. Not a believable story at all. I’m guessing that his fame and money led to this situation. So, literally, a Threat to Society, Famous Animal Abuser, Convicted Felon, Convicted Dog Fighting Operation Leader will go home after a short time in jail to his comfy bed.

Article:

Dogfighting former NFL star Michael Vick preparing for home confinement

http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/02/26/michael-vick-home-confinement_200902264160.html

Imprisoned NFL player and convicted dog fighter Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official

Jackson, Mississippi (CaymanMama.com) –Animal rights activists will not be happy to learn that imprisoned NFL player Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official.

According to USA Today, “Vick’s lawyers have said they expected him to be moved any day into a halfway house in Newport News, Va. But the official says there’s no bed space, so Vick could be released to his Hampton, Va. home as soon as May 21st.”

The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback will be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device and will only be allowed to leave his home for approved activities through his probation officer.

Vick created a wave of outrage after he was convicted of a dogfighting conspiracy and is currently serving a 23-month sentence at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan.

Website Exposes Truth of Cruelty behind Greyhound Racing: Videos, Pictures and Fact Sheets Educate on Why Shouldn’t Support Greyhound Racing Industry

I’ll let the website speak for itself. You can’t argue with videos and pictures.

Please visit http://www.greyhoundaction.org.uk/igreyhound.html to view the Fact Sheet section and learn more about the cruelty of greyhound racing and the cruelty of the greyhound racing industry.

Famous Vegetarians and Vegans Honored at Web Page - Vegetarians We Love: Macho Men Who Don't Eat Meat

Another great web page dedicated to famous vegetarians and vegans - Vegetarians We Love: Macho Men Who Don't Eat Meat - http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/01/vegetarians-we-love.php?page=1

GEARI has also published a page with links to quotes from famous people regarding animal rights and vegetarianism and veganism - http://www.geari.org/famous-animal-rights-quotes.html

The University of Michigan Medical School Ends Live Dog Lab: Now Help End Live Animal Use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Many of you have probably heard the good news regarding University of Michigan ending its live dog lab. This good news has also been verified via the UM Medical School site at http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057

In a letter sent by PCRM, it seems that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is still caught in the past via its use of live animals - vivisection. If you read the email I pasted below you’ll see how you can help this school step into current non-animal teaching methods.

For those of you who would like to learn more about alternatives to animal testing and vivisection, including what non-animal methods are available, please visit our page on alternatives to animal testing and vivisection at – http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html

One such method mentioned below and used extensively is the TraumaMan System from Simulab. You can learn more about this at http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm06spring/life_or_death.html

Please read on below about the use of live animals at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey (UMDNJ) and how you can help end such archaic practices.

You have sent more than 20,000 e-mails to University of Michigan (U-M) administrators, asking them to use nonanimal training methods in their Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. The school’s Graduate Medical Education Committee recently met and decided that it agrees with you. No dogs or other animals will be killed in the school’s ATLS course, according to a university statement.

Your hard work helped end animal suffering and improve medical education in Michigan. Now we need your help to do the same thing in New Jersey. While more than 90 percent of United States and Canadian facilities no longer use animals for ATLS training, University Hospital in Newark, part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), continues to use live pigs for its course, despite the availability of nonanimal alternatives like the TraumaMan System from Simulab. The hospital’s next ATLS course is scheduled for March 13.

Please e-mail, call, or write to UMDNJ president William Owen Jr., M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in University Hospital’s ATLS course. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. Send an automatic e-mail.

William Owen Jr., M.D.
President
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
65 Bergen St., Room 1535
University Heights
Newark, NJ 07107-3007
Phone: 973-972-4400
E-mail: wfowenmd@umdnj.edu

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Calgary Zoo Admits the Obvious: to Blame for Deaths of 41 Cownose Stingrays

Just another entry in our segment of “Why Zoos Shouldn’t Exist.” Sadly, another zoo is to blame for unnecessary deaths

Article:

Calgary Zoo admits it may be to blame for deaths of 41 stingrays last spring

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090204/national/stingray_deaths

By Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press

CALGARY - An independent investigation is needed to look into the operations of the Calgary Zoo following a spate of wildlife deaths at the facility, an Ontario-based animal protection group said Tuesday.

The call from Zoocheck Canada comes as the president of the Calgary Zoo admitted human error is almost certainly to blame for the deaths of 41 stingrays last spring.

"We need to be very frank here and our main expertise is not in fish at the Calgary Zoo," president Clement Lanthier admitted at a news conference.

Lanthier calculated he was "99 per cent sure" a lack of dissolved oxygen in the water tank killed 41 of 43 cownose rays last May.

"This is something we want to expand. I think we have a responsibility to connect Calgarians - not only to the land animals but what's going on in the ocean."

The stingray exhibit was just reopened to the public in December. Zoo officials said at the time it was impossible to say exactly what had caused last May's deaths.

Cathy Gaviller, director of conservation, education and research at the zoo, still believes that.

"The honest answer is we can't say for sure because we can't prove it," she added. "It's not like we're 99.9 per cent sure and that's a scientific measurement of our certainty levels - it's a figure of speech."

"We can't prove this is the case, but we strongly believe dissolved oxygen was the cause of the mortalities."

There have been a number of other deaths at the Calgary Zoo, including four lowland gorillas, a baby elephant and a hippo that had been transported from the Denver Zoo.

Julie Woodyer from Zoocheck Canada said operations at the Calgary Zoo have been in a downward spiral and there needs to be someone outside the industry to investigate all of its operations.

"I personally think the person at the top is responsible for training his staff, for making sure that he knows how to care for the animals that he's bringing into the facility," Woodyer said from Toronto.

"To me, this just goes to the irresponsibility of this particular facility," she said.

"The Calgary Zoo had a very good reputation for many, many years and, probably in about the last decade, has slipped gradually and continues to get worse as time goes on."

Zoocheck wrote a letter to the Calgary Zoo in November 2008 asking the facility seek an independent investigation into the zoo's operation.

"Presumably if the zoo felt it had no issues and thought it was doing an exemplary job as they are constantly claiming they are, they would welcome such an investigation," said Woodyer.

Gaviller rejected the idea of an independent investigation.

"I'm not sure what Zoocheck's credentials are in terms of knowing how to look after a stingray tank. I think we do a good job of looking after our animals and sometimes I think, what is Zoocheck doing for conservation," she said.

"It's easy to sit back and criticize."

Iceland Re Joins Japan in Whale Killing Business: Reconsiders Whaling Quota Increase

As stated below, “Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorize commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.”

Though this article discusses a possible decrease, it’s clear that Iceland will still take part in whaling. So, unfortunately, the whale killing will resume.

Article:

The Hunt Is On ... Or Not

http://www.grist.org/news/2009/02/03/whales/index.html?source=rss

Iceland reconsiders whaling quota increase

Posted at 2:43 PM on 03 Feb 2009

REYKJAVIK -- Iceland's new fisheries minister said Tuesday he might revise a sixfold increase in the country's disputed commercial whale hunt set by the previous government a week ago.

Steingrimur Sigfusson said whalers would receive a formal warning that the quota of 150 fin whales and up to 150 minke whales a year over the next five years was being reconsidered.

"By this, we are ensuring that expectations will not rise towards something that could change," he told reporters, adding that his ministry would review the North Atlantic island nation's whaling policy along with the ministries of foreign affairs, tourism and the environment.

Before the exiting government increased the quota on January 27, Iceland, which pulled out of an international whaling moratorium in 2006 after 16 years, had a quota of just nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.

The new quota was decided a day after former Prime Minister Geir Haarde's pro-whaling Independence Party and its Social Democratic coalition partner announced the government was to resign after months of protests over the country's economic meltdown.

Iceland's new left-wing interim government, made up of anti-whaling parties the Social Democrats and the Left Greens, took power on Sunday.

Conservation group Greenpeace welcomed Tuesday's announcement, saying in a statement it hoped the new government would not only reverse the quota decision "but end Icelandic whaling entirely."

Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorize commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.

Sea Lions Newest Victims of Human Trash in Sea and Land: Entanglement and Death Occurring at High Rate in Alaska

You’ve probably all heard of how plastic 6 pack holders can entangle wildlife and eventually strangle them. Fish are at a particular threat to this. Well, now many marine mammals are also falling victim to human trash. The article below discuses the threats to sea lions in Alaska. Apparently, entanglement and death are occurring due to human trash.

As stated below, "Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."

I won’t state the obvious disturbing reality of this situation.

Article:

Entangled: Saving sea lions snared in trash

http://juneauempire.com/stories/062908/out_297319388.shtml
Researchers work on methods to free marine mammals

By Riley Woodford | For the Juneau Empire

About 40 sea lions lounged on the rocks at the Benjamin Island haulout north of Juneau, and one was injured. A thin, white plastic packing band circled his neck and cut deep into his skin.

Two biologists studied the animal from a skiff 40 yards off the rocks. Lauri Jemison and Jamie King of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game discussed possible ways to free the entangled animal. None seemed very promising.

Jemison and King are marine mammal researchers and they're trying to help entangled sea lions and prevent further entanglements. In recent years about 400 entangled sea lions have been documented in Southeast Alaska, although biologists believe the actual number is higher. About half the animals have loops around their necks - mostly hard plastic packing bands or heavy rubber loops made from inner tube material. About half are caught in fishing gear. A few are tangled in netting or rope, and one has an old tire stuck around its neck.

"Any kind of loop that goes into the water can be deadly," Jemison said. "A small loop can be deadly to seabirds and fish, a larger loop can entangle marine mammals. Synthetic materials are the worst. A simple solution is to cut any kind of loop you might have."

Bait boxes are often secured by packing bands which are made of a hard plastic material, and if those are lost overboard, uncut, they can be a source of entangling material. "We have seen a number of sea lions with packing bands around their neck, with the band cutting into the skin and flesh," Jemison said. "As the sea lion grows, the band cuts more deeply and eventually can kill the animal."

Jemison said young sea lions are extremely curious and investigate objects in the water and on beaches, and wind up with the loops around their necks.

"We watch the pups and juveniles play with anything and everything on the beach," she said. "Seaweed, we've seen wire in the water and watched them throwing it about, any debris in the water and they'll play with it."

About half the entanglements involve fishing gear. Sea lions will pursue and eat a fish that's been hooked by a sport or commercial fisherman, and wind up swallowing the hook. Jemison and her colleagues see animals with flashers attached to their mouths, hanging from line tied to a swallowed hook. Sometimes fishing lures and hooks are visible, and biologists believe more animals may be hooked but showing no outward sign. A necropsy of a dead sea lion found near Gustavus three years ago revealed a fishhook in its digestive tract.

"There's no way to know how many may be entangled (in this way), as there may be no external sign of entanglement," Jemison said. "They're interested in fish, and the sea lions are basically entangling themselves - when folks are out salmon fishing the sea lions are coming after the fish on the line, going for the fish and eating it."

Helping entangled or hooked animals is difficult. Jemison and King are looking to adapt the proven capture methods generally used for research. But these techniques focus on smaller, juvenile animals, and animals of all ages and both sexes are entangled in all different types of gear and debris. The techniques biologists use to capture animals such as moose and bears don't translate well to sea lions. A sea lion could be darted with a tranquilizer or immobilizing drug, but the animal could fall or jump in the water and then drown. The same could happen if a net gun is used, although there is some potential for these devices that throw nets.

"Basically we need the perfect situation - the animal is up high on the rocks, by itself, so there's no chance of catching two at once, and we need to be able to secure it so it doesn't go in the water," Jemison said.

Jemison said there have been a few successes. One small sea lion was tangled in line, and King was able to grab the line and pull the animal up to the skiff and cut it free. Elsewhere, some small sea lions have been restrained and plastic loops cut off their necks. The bands were embedded in the skin and biologists pulled the plastic through and out.

Far more promising is the prospect of reducing entangling materials in the environment. Cutting any loop is a good start.

"Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."

A number of organizations are working on the issue. The Marine Mammal Stranding Network, part of the National Marine Fisheries Service, is collecting data on entangled animals and sources of materials. The Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation has a Marine Debris program, and they're very interested in cleaning beaches and determining where the debris is coming from, Jemison said. "We're working with them to identify some of the hot spots - area that accumulate a lot of debris, areas that should be cleansed, and sources of material getting washed back in the ocean."

Jemison and King are working with a Prescott grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop methods to disentangle sea lions and to create a short video of entangled sea lions with information on how people can reduce entangling materials in the marine environment. They also plan to clean up beaches and monitor them.

"This summer we'll identify certain beaches near some of the larger haulouts and rookeries where we can monitor marine debris," Jemison said. "We'll clean debris off these beaches this summer, then we'll be able to go back each year as we're doing our annual Southeast-wide sea lion surveys and clean them off again and hopefully get an annual accumulation rate. Cleaning beaches is a great way folks can have a positive impact and reduce entangling materials out there."

• Riley Woodford produces the Sounds Wild radio program and is the editor of Alaska Fish and Wildlife News, www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov., the online publication of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Dogpile.com Search and Rescue Program: Revenue from your Web Searches will go to the ASPCA and Animal Abuse Prevention

Revenue from your Web Searches will go to the ASPCA and Animal Abuse Prevention Simply by Using Dogpile.com for your Web Searches

Seems like a pretty straight forward program. Keep in mind that not every search you perform generates revenue. Money is generated when you support an advertiser that appears on their search results page. As a metasearch engine, Dogpile.com pulls results from the major search engines. So, unless you’re doing advanced search, or tailored search, you will see the same top results from the major search engines that you would have if you used them directly. So, then, if you care about the cause, then why not use Dogpile.com for your web searches? Might as well!

For more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue Program see, http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/

Here is more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue program taken from the program website at http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/

“About Dogpile Search & Rescue

Search and Rescue is a Dogpile program through which we’re donating a portion of our revenue to the ASPCA. Our goal is to contribute $1 million to animal rescue by the end of 2009.
We at Dogpile are passionate about the welfare of animals. We believe in helping pets, and we know many of our loyal users do too. Dogpile Search & Rescue is just the latest of our pet-affinity initiatives. In December 2007, Dogpile raised $25,000 for the Humane Society, and we recently launched a pet adoption widget with Petfinder.com, the leading online pet adoption site in the world. In 2008, we developed the Search & Rescue Toolbar so users could more easily access Dogpile, search the Web right from their browser and connect to sites and communities supporting pet adoption and animal abuse prevention.”

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Pesticides in Pet Products, Including Flea-and-Tick Products Killing Dogs and Cats: Would you put Pesticides Directly Onto your Body?

Unfortunately, the obvious risk of such chemicals to the health of companion animals is once again apparent. Though many chemicals are to blame for early death and on set of such issues as cancer, pyrethroids are discussed in this story. As stated below, “At least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years…”

This really has been common knowledge for some time, as really, would you put pesticides directly onto your body? Well, that’s exactly what happens when you add such products as those that kill fleas and ticks to the hair and skin of a companion animal. Seems pretty obvious.

Sadly though, this idiotic practice continues as you’ll read below.

Article:

Pesticides in Pet Products: Why Your Dog or Cat May Be at Risk

By M.B. Pell and Jillian Olsen, The Center for Public Integrity

Posted on February 2, 2009, Printed on February 3, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/123420/pesticides_in_pet_products%3A_why_your_dog_or_cat_may_be_at_risk/

Last June Diane Bromenschenkel applied a flea-and-tick product to her English pointer, Wings, so the dog wouldn't get ticks while hunting pheasant in the tall grasslands of western Idaho. Wings, a healthy five-year-old with a sleek white coat and a chocolate brown mask, enjoyed long walks in the woods, bacon treats, and burying things in the yard. But three months after the pesticide was applied, the animal was dead.

It was just hours following the use of the product that Bromenschenkel knew something was wrong. She noticed her dog walking around in a daze. Wings was unresponsive. On the advice of her veterinarian, Bromenschenkel tried to wash off the treatment —Bio Spot Spot On Flea and Tick Control for Dogs -- but the next day Wings was still suffering.

The dog stopped eating and drinking despite the application of appetite increasers, said Patricia Pence, the veterinarian and owner of South Wind Veterinary Hospital in Nampa, Idaho, where Wings was treated. "The anorexia is a direct result of the Bio Spot," Pence said. She believes the insecticide in Bio Spot damaged the portion of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. So she inserted a feeding tube into the dog's neck and for the next three months Bromenschenkel and Wings were in and out of the veterinary hospital.

During this period, Bromenschenkel woke up every two hours at night to give Wings an injection of liquid nutrient through the neck. She spent thousands of dollars on vet bills. Despite the best efforts of Bromenschenkel and Pence, however, the damage was done. In September, Wings' kidneys failed and Bromenschenkel made the difficult decision to put her dog to sleep. In days Wings had gone from a healthy dog, running alongside horses in the Owyhee Mountains, to an emaciated wreck, chasing phantom birds in the kitchen. "What's so terrible about it is that if you had known, you would never have used it," said Bromenschenkel of the Bio Spot.
The Debate Over Pyrethroids

imageWings died three months after being treated with Bio Spot flea and tick drops; her vet thinks the product damaged the part of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. Credit: Diane Bromenschenkel. Bio Spot contains a 45 percent solution of the active ingredient permethrin, a synthetic neurotoxin belonging to the pyrethroid family of chemicals. Bio Spot is one of several over-the-counter spot on (meaning squeezed on to a particular spot) anti-flea-and-tick products that consumers apply to cats and dogs between the shoulder blades and sometimes at the base of the tail. The animal's natural oils spread the insecticide over its body, making its skin and fur inhospitable to parasites. These pyrethroid-based flea and tick treatments -- from Hartz, Sergeant's, Farnam, and Bayer -- are approved for sale by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they are readily available at grocery stores, specialty pet retailers, and hardware stores. But they are also linked to thousands of reported pet poisonings, and they have stirred the ire of pet owners, the concern of veterinarians, and the attention of regulatory agencies.

Manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter spot on treatments say the products are generally safe and effective when used properly, but they concede there are cats and dogs that either have a preexisting condition or an acute sensitivity to these treatments that leads to an illness.

The industry position, however, may dismiss safety concerns too casually. At least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years, according to an analysis of EPA pesticide incident exposure data by the Center for Public Integrity. That is about double the number of reported fatalities tied to similar treatments without pyrethroids, such as Frontline and Advantage -- although these products also have critics.

Pyrethroid spot ons also account for more than half of "major" pesticide pet reactions reported to EPA over the last five years -- that is, those incidents involving serious medical reactions such as brain damage, heart attacks, and violent seizures. In contrast, non-pyrethroid spot on treatments accounted for only about 6 percent of all major incidents.

In the last five years, the EPA received a total of more than 25,000 reports of pet pesticide reactions of every sort -- fatal, major, moderate, and minor -- to over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products. This compares to 10,500 reports of all pet incidents related to shampoos, powders, sprays, collars, dips, mousses, lotions, and towels. This analysis does not take into account how much of each product was used over the last five years as the EPA does not have that information.

The EPA cautions that it does not confirm the authenticity of these reports and most of the claims come from consumers and not trained toxicologists. The EPA uses the database to observe broad trends and to identify significant spikes in incidents for specific products and chemicals.
Warning Signs

A few websites, run by pet owners, specialize in educating people on the dangers of over-the-counter spot on treatments. Almost every day someone posts a new horror story, often involving a late-night emergency trip to the vet. "I cannot stop crying knowing that if I hadn't put that on them then they would still be here playing and loving as they always did before," reads one post about a woman's loss of two kittens in October.

imageEllie, a mini dachshund from La Vernia, Texas, suffered chemical burns where Bio Spot flea and tick drops were applied to her back. Credit: Michele Worcester.

The concentrations of pyrethroids in over-the-counter spot on pet treatments range from a 40 percent to an 85 percent solution, eight to 17 times stronger than the strongest pyrethroid product currently approved for use on humans. Neither the EPA, which generally regulates topically applied products, nor the Food and Drug Administration, which generally regulates orally applied pet products, has a product registered for human application containing a pyrethroid concentration above 5 percent, and that FDA-approved product requires a doctor's prescription. In fact, the Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs warning reads: "Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin," while the application portion of the label directs people to apply the treatment "to the dog's skin."

But these high concentrations may be necessary in pet products because pets are more apt to come in contact with fleas and ticks, according to Margaret Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration branch. Some human products, like the 5 percent permethrin shampoo, also call for more of the product to be applied than the just under one ounce in the spot on treatments.

Pyrethroid toxicity targets nerve and muscle cells in pets, according to a study published in The Veterinary Journal in June 2008. The study found that dermal exposure by application to the skin or coat is the most common route of toxic exposure, potentially causing hyperexcitability, tremors, profuse salivation, and seizures. The seizures can result in brain damage or, less frequently, death.

Representatives of Central LifeSciences, the parent company of Farnam, the distributor of Bio Spot, said that they could not discuss the death of Wings because their investigation of the incident is still underway. The company said reports of adverse reactions are rare, about three of every 10,000 doses for cat products and five of every 10,000 doses for dog products. These numbers include incidents that resulted from misapplication and preexisting medical conditions, according to Central LifeSciences. "Bio Spot Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Dogs has met all applicable EPA registration requirements and is approved for topical use on dogs," the company said in a letter they sent in July to one unhappy customer whose dog had recently died.

"Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be," said Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States.

Hartz Mountain Corp. representatives said via e-mail that the active ingredient in the company's spot on dog treatments, the pyrethroid d-phenothrin, and the active ingredient in their cat product that kills adult fleas, the pyrethroid etofenprox, are categorized as least toxic by the EPA, as opposed to the active ingredient in Frontline, fipronil, and the active ingredient in Advantage, imidacloprid, which, while much less concentrated, are rated as moderately toxic. Sergeant's cat spot on treatments also contain etofenprox, but the company has spot on dog products that contain cyphenothrin and products that contain permethrin, moderately toxic pyrethroids.

Another possible explanation for the number of incidents is that consumers often misuse flea and tick products, causing the sickness that pet owners later blame on the treatments, said Jennifer Windrum, a spokeswoman for Sergeant's. "Pet owners feel incredibly guilty if they misapply it to their pet," Windrum said. "It's easier to blame a company." Common misapplications include applying more powerful dog products to cats, applying the product where the pet can lick it, and using a treatment meant for a large animal on a small one. The directions on these products include a description of where to apply, sometimes a diagram, and if it's a dog product, multiple warnings not to it use on cats.

Forest Desmond and his wife Marilynn received a letter from Sergeant's offering to pay their $125 vet bill after they applied Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs to their five dogs. The letter from Sergeant's also stated that the company believed the dogs may have licked the product off each other, a violation of the application instructions. "The Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs is for external use only and has several warnings on the package indicating such," the letter says. The product's label does not instruct consumers to keep dogs separated after treatment, but Sergeant's has submitted a request to the EPA to have the label changed. Sergeant's "Look at the Label" website already recommends people separate their pets after application.

"What they're trying to say is the dogs licked it off each other and thereby took it in internally, but they didn't lick it off, it burned their skin," Marilynn Desmond said. "My response to that is they're trying to shift the blame from the producer to the user. If this had been my first dog, I might have fallen for that."

The authors of the study in The Veterinary Journal agree that misuse of pyrethroid products is often the cause of illnesses, although they also point out that accidental ingestion by mouth or during grooming is another common exposure route. "The best way to avoid serious problems is by educating pet owners to use products strictly according to label directions," the study says. "Veterinarians must advise clients using flea care products to read and follow label instructions completely before applying them on or around their pets." The rub here, some veterinarians say, is pyrethroid spot on treatments are over-the-counter products, easily purchased without consulting a veterinarian.

Michael Murphy, a veterinarian and toxicologist at the University of Minnesota, speaking for the American Veterinary Medical Association, said he rarely hears of pet reactions to spot on treatments, and when he does it's usually because a consumer applied a stronger dog product to a cat. But for some pet advocates, the misapplication explanation misses the point. The Humane Society of the United States has heard this reasoning before, but still recommends pet owners avoid over-the-counter spot on products and only use treatments recommended by veterinarians, according to Stephanie Shain, the organization's director of outreach. "With the number of complaints we get it seems like an extraordinarily high rate of problems," she said. "Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be. I think at the very least there need to be much stronger warnings on those products cautioning pet owners about the dangers involved with using them."

Others express similar concerns. "Sometimes I wonder why it's still approved," said Mark Grossman, a co-owner and veterinarian of Roanoke Island Animal Clinic and a toxicology consultant for the Veterinary Information Network. "They can't get it out there without the EPA approving it. Apparently they say if they do enough tests, it's still OK. In real life though, I think we're seeing more problems than we should."

Paying the Bills

After Samantha Ribble's English bulldog, Bella, and pug, Chloe, developed oozing sores where she placed drops of Sergeant's Gold Squeeze on for Dogs, she asked Sergeant's to pay her veterinarian bill, $309. Without admitting any liability, Sergeant's agreed to pay the bill, on the condition that Ribble sign a release that read as follows: "I agree not to make any oral or written communication which disparages or has the effect of damaging the reputation of or otherwise working in any way to the detriment of Sergeant's. This Release shall inure the benefit of Sergeant's heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns and shall bind me and my heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns." In the same letter, Sergeant's notes that its products are closely regulated by the EPA and tested in "accordance with EPA rules and regulations in order to ensure that the products are safe."

This is true. The EPA approved the company's pyrethroid spot on treatments just as it has approved all spot on treatments, but the agency has a history of approving pet products in the past only to pull them from the market later. The EPA approved the use of chlorpyrifos products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; diazinon products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; and phosmet products, cancelled for use on pets by 2004. The products were approved, defended aggressively by the chemical industry, and then yanked off the market. They were largely replaced by pyrethroid products, which are generally thought to be less acutely toxic.

Even pyrethroid pet products, however, have been approved and then pulled. In 2000, the EPA received a rash of reports from cat owners concerning Hartz Mountain Corp.'s Advanced Care Once a Month Flea & Tick Drops for Cats, a spot on treatment containing the pyrethroid d-phenothrin. The agency received reports of cats losing their hair, salivating uncontrollably, experiencing tremors, and sometimes dying. Judy Van Wyk of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against Hartz in November 2001 on behalf of pet owners whose cats had reacted to Hartz cat drops. The complaint alleged that "Hartz has also known since at least March 2001 that adverse reactions in cats to the Drops is a common problem." The suit was voluntarily withdrawn in November 2002, which may indicate an out-of-court settlement, but neither Hartz nor Van Wyk would comment on the case.

Three years later, after the company and the agency experimented unsuccessfully with stronger warning labels, the EPA entered into negotiations with Hartz Mountain Corp. and the company agreed to stop selling the product.

"When we register these products, we feel they're safe," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division.

Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticides registration branch, said the agency knows it has had problems with these products in the past. Still the EPA holds the position, as with all products registered by the agency, that pyrethroid-based spot on treatments are not harmful if consumers follow label instructions. The 25,000 reported incidents alone will not change this conclusion, Rice said. The EPA is investigating pyrethroid incidents, involving both humans and pets, and when it finishes this process -- the EPA does not have a target date yet for doing so -- it may make regulatory changes, but until then the agency stands by its conclusion. "Our decisions to register these products and compounds are done with significant data," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division. "When we register these products, we feel they're safe."

So safe in fact that Johnson said the EPA does not expect any pets will have a sensitivity to spot on products leading to an illness; the incident reports, in Johnson's view, are not at all definitive. Manufacturers, for their part, do acknowledge the existence of sensitive cats and dogs. "There is a certain percentage of dogs out there that, just like with humans, will have an allergic reaction no matter what," Windrum, the Sergeant's spokeswoman, said. Less than 1 percent of sales result in an adverse reaction when the product is used as directed by the label, she said.

The EPA cannot make its own assessment because unlike the regulations directing the FDA's approval of human products, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act does not require pet products to undergo field trials prior to approval. So the agency can only require less extensive testing, often only on one breed of dog or cat. This makes it difficult to predict the effects on the broader population of users.

The EPA also considers the need consumers have to control fleas and ticks on their pets and the benefit provided by low-cost pyrethroid spot ons when making decisions about these products. The over-the-counter pyrethroid spot ons are typically half the price of Frontline and Advantage.

EPA scientists continue to monitor the safety of pet pyrethroids. In November, several EPA employees at the Office of Research and Development authored a piece in BMC Genomics, an online journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles, that found exposure to the pyrethroids permethrin and deltamethrin in young rats "could result in detrimental effects on neurological function later in life." The study found this was a possibility even using doses of permethrin that do not cause immediate, acute symptoms. The authors of the article suggested many other avenues of research -- including examining the effects of other pyrethroids on neurological function.

The EPA also hopes to improve the quality of incident reports through an online reporting system for veterinarians that began this fall. In addition, the agency is analyzing pet incidents to identify patterns that may lead to additional labeling or further regulatory action, and reviewing the process of approving pet products to see if changes are warranted.

"We need to make sound scientific decisions," Johnson said. "On the one hand we have the data that says this product might be safe and on the other we have incidents that say it might not be."

Search for More Content

Custom Search

Bookmark and Share

Past Articles