National Animal Interest Alliance

Friday Grab Bag: Food Labels, Morrissey, and Remembering Your Dog

And now three for our Friday recap...

Food Labels

A recent university study says most consumers support mandatory labels on meat and dairy which would let them know the treatment and conditions of the animals used to make the product. Furthermore, it goes on to say they would be willing to pay an extra 20% for the labels.

It's an interesting read. Whatever its veracity, it speaks to our growing interest in what we eat and where it comes from... though given the history of consumer statements vs. consumer behavior, I have some serious doubts about that 20% figure.

Food labeling is a fascinating and intimidating issue right now. It has become a marketing arms race as different producers vie for the best sounding, best looking label. But who is more humane? Who is more organic? Who is feeding and treating their animals with what?

This is far too big an issue for today's blurb, but it is clear that there is going to be a need -- and soon -- for universal, clear and consistent practices in labeling or it's all going to become little more than a haze of feel-good white noise.

^{Confused? Maybe that's the point.}

 

Too Soon?

Morrissey left a trail of shock and awe in his wake last Sunday as he compared the Norway attacks to the fast food industry:

“We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried S*** every day,”

I can understand the general media reaction -- they eat this kind of thing up. It's what they do. But the shocked reaction from his fans is puzzling. It's not like Morrissey's feelings on meat and meat eaters are some closely guarded secret. 

I mean, this is the same guy who, a few years ago, walked off stage mid-song after smelling meat on a barbecue, then went and called Chinese people a "subspecies" because of the country's dismal animal welfare record, and most recently had security search his fans for meat before attending one of his concerts.

So should this latest comment really come as any surprise? If you truly believe a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, of course the tragedy in Norway pales in comparison to the fast food industry.

 

Remembering Your Dog

Then, of course, there are those who are able to love animals without wrapping themselves in a straight jacket of misanthropy:

Some will protest that in a world with so much human suffering, it is something between eccentric and obscene to mourn a dog. I think not. After all, it is perfectly normal, indeed, deeply human to be moved when nature presents us with a vision of great beauty. Should we not be moved when it produces a vision — a creature — of the purest sweetness?

There are very few issues animal lovers will not line up to argue about -- even if they generally agree, they'll argue for weeks over degrees or semantics -- but I think this is something everybody who has lost their best friend can agree upon. Eccentric and obscene or not.

But You Can Teach an Old Chimp New Tricks...

And we're back with a little more science nerdery for you, this just in time for the latest Planet of the Apes reboot, which conveniently -- perhaps presciently -- utilizes Alzheimer's research gone wrong* as a major plot:

The human brain normally can shrink up to 15% as it ages, a change linked to dementia, poor memory and depression. Until now, researchers had assumed this gradual brain loss in later years was universal among primates.

But in the first direct comparison of humans to chimpanzees, a brain-scanning team led by George Washington University anthropologist Chet Sherwood found that chimpanzees don't experience such brain loss. From that, researchers concluded that only people are afflicted by this oddity of longevity.

 

Well, there it is: no wonder you can't teach an old human new tricks. Among primates, we're unique like that. But watch out for those chimps -- no ravages of longevity for these guys. Their noggins keep whirring at full speed their whole lives.

And as if that's not enough, they can kick our tails when it comes to visual memories, too:

^Whoa!

 

But while our closest relatives in the animal kingdom don't suffer from the same kind of mental decline we do, our best friends do. Like humans, a dog's brains loses mass with age (in addition to the 30% shrinkage already experienced due to domestication) -- and he can even suffer from Canine Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome, sometimes called Doggie Alzheimer's. And as the average lifespan of our feline overlords increases, we're seeing more and more cases of senility in cats, as well.

No wonder we prefer the company of cats and dogs. We see ourselves in them, and that human-animal bond is further sealed through a recognition of our shared frailties. Plus, Pairs is a lot less intimidating with your cat than with a chimp...

 

---

^{* or perhaps so very right, if you are an uplift supporter.}

A Birth Control Pill for Lassie?

Apparently, this is the week for animals and scientific advancements: petri meat yesterday, and now the potential for chemically-induced menopause in dogs -- something that could have a huge impact in veterinary medicine generally, and animal shelter medicine specifically.

Attempts at chemical sterilization are nothing new; Neutersol was approved all the way back in 2003, and there are numerous animal advocacy groups actively seeking -- or at least passively supporting -- safe and effective methods of non-surgical sterilization.

In this case, however, the discovery wasn't deliberate; the scientists were actually studying human diseases:

Mayer worked with Dr. Patricia Hoyer, an ovarian toxicologist, studying diseases common in aging women but faced an obstacle in the lab when experimenting on mice.

Mice, unlike women, never lose their reproductive capabilities. Hoyer and Mayer developed a drug they dubbed "mouseopause" that induced menopause in female lab mice by eliminating eggs in the ovaries without surgery.

Considering how invasive, costly and painful spaying a dog can be, this really could be revolutionary. Emphasis on could, of course: we don't know if it will be fully effective, we don't know the side effects to the individual dog or future generations, and we don't know if this will be affordable for owners and shelters. And even if it does work and is affordable, will it be preferable to traditional surgical techniques? Stay tuned -- for the next decade or so -- to find out!

But regardless of how it all pans out, it remains a fascinating discovery, and may prove a cutting edge tool in non-lethal methods of curbing feral dog populations... or should that be non cutting edge?

We'll know the answer to that pretty soon: this December, Dr. Mayer will be heading to India, combining rabies vaccinations with chemical birth control methods, in an effort to control disease and feral dog overpopulation. Given the stray dog population crisis in India and many parts of the world, her work could not be coming at a more critical time. We look forward to hearing the results.

---

^{* oh, and by the way: yes, we know Lassie was actually a boy.}

Petri Meat

Last week was a strange one for animal news. There was a call to more tightly regulate experiments performed on human/animal hybrids (OK, didn't we learn anything from Splice?), then there was the McDonald's manager who got mad at a customer who came in with a service dog... and ended up punching her in the face (apparently, the manager had never heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act), and finally, that poor guy who got bit 19 times by a black widow spider... yeesh.

But what really caught our eye were all the stories on petri meat, or attempts to grow edible meat not on a farm, but in a lab...

 

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer stem cells?

Can't deny that there's a gut-level "ick" reaction to the very idea of petri meat. People aren't just concerned about the welfare of animals in agriculture nowadays, but the sci-fi feel to the entire process. Granted, we are able to feed a lot more people than ever before, and it means industrialized countries spend a much smaller percentage of their income on food (ironically, the very thing that allows us the free time to pontificate upon the welfare of animals). But that doesn't change the feeling that the process is sterile, unnatural, and far removed from an authentic human existence -- especially when stuff like antibiotics, soy, corn, and GMOs come into the picture. Petri meat plays directly to that aesthetic.

And aside from the gut-level reaction, there is also the fact that this research is being bankrolled by PETA, as part of their endless quest to get meat off the menu (unless it's grown in a lab, apparently). So even if the end result is positive, their intent is undoubtedly nefarious.

But on the other hand, given the fact that millions of people (mostly kids) die from starvation each year, maybe it's better to get over queasiness in the face of easily-produced, high-protein lab "meat." Really, can it be that much worse than SPAM?

It's a brave new world indeed.

What say you? Would you put petri meat on your menu?

^{Petri Milk?}

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Basset Owner Scorned

A Pennsylvania woman, Wendy Willard, has filed a huge lawsuit against the PSPCA. Those of you who are members or who have been following NAIA are probably already aware of this story, as we have been supportive of her case from the beginning. But for the uninitiated, Wendy Willard is a sportswoman, schoolteacher and environmentalist, who was harassed and bullied by the PSPCA into surrendering 11 of the 23 dogs in her hunting pack under the threat that they would all be taken if she didn't sign their so-called "surrender agreements."

Well, she's back, and here are some choice excerpts from her complaint:

"Rather than seek a warrant, the officers and wardens, however, simply entered the adjoining property of her neighbor, crossing from that property's grassy area to trespass onto the wooded area on Miss Willard's property," according to the complaint.

Willard says the manager of the 340-acre preserve next door had told the PSPCA officers they were trespassing, but the officers responded "that they did not care and that as PSPCA agents they would go wherever they pleased and do whatever they wanted."

Wow, that's pretty amazing! Even the police don't have the power to go wherever they please and do whatever they want! And you get to carry guns. Where do I sign up?

But wait, there's more...

Willard says defendant PSPCA officer Tara Loller falsely accused her of violating Philadelphia's "Limit Law," which prohibits having more than 12 dogs in a single residence.

"Defendants improperly brandished this 'Limit Law' as the pretext to seize Miss Willard's hounds from the heated barn. This inapplicable ordinance was used to oppress and badger Miss Willard into complying with defendants' demands."

[...]

Willard says she involuntarily signed "surrender agreements" for seizure of 11 of her dogs after officers threatened to take all 23 of them "if she refused to sign over the others." She says the officers told her "that the forms had to be signed immediately because one of the dog wardens was going into diabetic shock and needed medical attention; that if she did not sign the dogs over she would get so many citations that PSPCA would 'own her home;' and that defendants Bengal and Loller would not leave her kitchen until the documents were signed."

False charges? Bullying and threats? Well, they did say they can do anything they want. Including going through her mail, apparently:

Willard adds: "While in Miss Willard's kitchen, defendant Bengal began to look through Miss Willard's mail. When Miss Willard asked defendant Bengal to stop reading her mail, he retorted, 'We got a warrant. We can look through anything we want.'"

And perhaps even killing one of her animals:

The arbitrary abuses did not stop with the seizures, Willard says. She claims that for months, PSPCA acted as if all the seized dogs were still alive, though it knew that one had been euthanized after a botched surgical procedure.

And "Incredibly, defendant PSPCA records list 11 hounds being spayed or neutered in its facility, despite the fact that two of those seized hounds had previously been spayed," Willard says.

Like I said...Wow. If even half of this is proved in court this does not bode well for the PSPCA. If you've got the time, here is a copy of the suit. It's definitely worth a read.

^{You want a piece of me?}

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time complaints have been made about heavy-handed behavior by the PSPCA. In recent years they've been accused of ignoring a lack of evidence in favor of hype and sued to the tune of $75,000 for false imprisonment. Not the best track record.

Animal welfare concerns and enforcement are sure signs (I'd even say a "perk") of living in a stable, civilized society. There are people out there who hurt animals; people who hurt them through innocent mistakes, neglect, or wanton cruelty. And having mechanisms in place to alleviate and prevent such suffering is a good thing. But where investigators used to hail from criminal justice backgrounds, we are seeing more and more activists and publicity hounds (pardon the pun) among their ranks, and these PSPCA-type situations are the result. If animal welfare agents are going to have law enforcement powers, they need accountability, proper training, and respect for the laws they are upholding.

Such behavior tramples the guilty and innocent alike with little regard, and only serves to foster an environment among pet owners (especially breeders) where animal agencies are "the enemy," rather than a partner to work with and improve the lives of their animals and communities.

Dog Doody Crimes

When it comes to discussing our furry (or not-so-furry) companions, it seems that pet lovers have the ability to vociferously disagree on virtually any topic that arises. Whether it is preferred training methods, the healthiest diet, cats vs. dogs vs. parrots, safe and appropriate toys, or even what breeds (or non-breeds) are "better" than others, it is hard to find any subject incapable of stirring a heated debate.

But despite our differences, there is one thing I think we can all agree on: that not picking up after one's dog is a high crime against all that is good and holy in this world, and a clear sign of sociopathy. It's rude, gross, poses threats to health and the environment, and fosters a culture in which all pet owners are considered a potential nuisance.

So should it be any surprise that Washington state had paid $27,000 to produce a YouTube video encouraging people to pick up their dogs' poop? That may be a pretty hefty price tag, but given that it's probably the only thing everybody could agree upon, what should we expect?

Whether or not this has any effect on pick-up rates remains to be seen. The importance of cleaning up after one's pets is something that (anecdotally, at least) appears to be sinking in with the general public*, and education efforts such as this may help move the ball forward somewhat in that regard.

Of course, this won't help with the dog poop sociopaths, that small contingent of people who simply will not pick up after their dogs, whose behavior is completely immune to any sort of reasoning, begging, or pleading. No, I'm afraid that for them, bringing back the pillory may be the only way to solve the problem. But for everybody else, the doggy-doo fence-sitters of the world, it might actually have an impact, even if the bang for buck ratio ends up being somewhat embarassing...

 

^{But can you Vapoorize it?}

---

^{*When when we installed several free poop-bag dispensers in areas with high doggy-traffic twenty years ago, they went unused... then vandalized and destroyed. But there has been definite progress over the last two decades. While bag thieves and hoarders are still an issue, most people are actually excited to find them -- and they use them!}

PETA and Pit Bulls: Better off Dead

I'll admit PETA is a bit of a quandary for us. It's not like many adults take them seriously, and they freely admit that they'll do anything for free press, which means talking about them is playing right into their hands. If it weren't for their incessant and downright creepy attempts at converting children into veganism, or statements that are so backward or harmful that they simply have to be addressed, we probably wouldn't mention them at all.

Unfortunately, when they say stuff like this, in praise of shelters that don't adopt out pit bulls, it falls under the "must address" category:

"Nice" families rarely visit shelters in search of pit bulls, and pit bulls from unknown backgrounds don't always make good family additions.

OK PETA, if you'll forgive me for taking precious moments away from your euthanasia parade, I'm afraid I must question this "rarity of niceness" you speak of. Because I happen to know more "nice" individuals and families who raise, love, and rescue pit bulls than I can count -- several of whom actively sought their companions through shelters. And these people aren't thugs. They aren't involved in dog fighting. These are happy, normal families who have chosen to share their lives with the type of dog they are drawn to. And they aren't rare.

There are indeed jerks and criminals who seek out pit bulls because they want to make a mean, tough-looking dog or because they are into dog fighting, and keeping them from getting ahold of and abusing these dogs can be a real challenge. But guess what? This is something anybody who has been involved with pit bull-type dogs for more than seven seconds is acutely aware of -- and something they usually (but unfortunately, not always) take great pains to avoid.

It is also true that "pit bulls from unknown backgrounds don't always make good family additions," but of course this can be said of any dog. This is why it is important to do your homework, be realistic, and have a care strategy in place before bringing a new dog into your home. Trying to live with a Collie in a studio apartment or inflicting a sedentary lifestyle upon an 18 month-old lab is likely to drive all parties insane... just as any large dog -- regardless of breed -- has the ability to cause far more physical trauma than, say, a Pug. Really, this should be common sense. Shouldn't it?

Oh, but if that were only all she wrote:

Bans on breeding or acquiring new pit bulls (provided that such laws grandfather-in registered, well-cared for, spayed and neutered dogs) protect pit bulls from horrendous suffering by helping to prevent them from ending up in the hands of cruel people.

And now passengers, if you look out the window to your right, you can see PETA-ville: That wacky world where killing is a kindness, and breed-based genocide deliverance from suffering. 

You know, I've heard countless arguments against pit bulls and pit bull ownership, and while many favor policies which, upon logical examination, reveal a world in which pit bulls are extinct, it is unusual to hear the true endgame pontificated upon so openly. So from that standpoint, I suppose I can offer up some faint praise for the honesty -- even if the philosophy behind it is beyond redemption.

^{Yet another terrifying pit bull-type dog; clearly just begging to be euthanized, rather than face the risk of cruelty at the hands of humans.}

Thinking About Taking Your Cat on a Spaycation?

In Oregon, there are five areas in the Portland Metro area offering cats free (yes, free!) spay/neuter surgery next week (July 18-22) -- 500 surgeries performed by licensed veterinarians for cat owners or feral cat feeders who qualify. This is being provided by the Spay & Save program of the Animal Shelter Alliance of Portland (ASAP). It should also be pointed out that they offer yearly low-cost spay and neuter as well, going as low as $10. If early results are any indication, ASAP's Spay & Save program could prove to be the real deal.

It seems cats are often an afterthought in discussions of sheltering and adoption, but even if one unspayed female couldn't possibly produce 11 million cats in nine years, the fact remains that cats can reproduce... and quickly. Programs like Spay & Save are positive, non-coercive, and the perfect tool to help people who might otherwise write off getting their pet "fixed" as unaffordable.

^{NAIA Shelter Project Kitty approves of this message.}

Would You Pay an Extra $30 to $50 to Rescue a Dog with Veterinary Certification?

Opponents of Connecticut's new pet importation bill say requiring veterinary certification (the kind of certification already required for people who sell pets for profit) is heavy-handed, redundant, and will make it too hard for them to rescue animals.

Supporters say the importation of unhealthy animals into Connecticut needs to stop, as it spreads disease, breaks both the heart and wallet of new pet owners, displaces local pets who are just as deserving of adoption, and enables the continued outsourcing of irresponsibility from people who don't practice responsible pet ownership.

From our previous entries on this subject, it should be clear that we're big supporters of this bill. However, it is true that the cost of adoption will be going up in Connecticut; the price exacted for weeding out irresponsible (and profiteering) rescues while providing greater assurances to pet owners that their new companion will be free of health issues. Of course, we're not talking hundreds of dollars; more a best estimate of $30 to $50 per adoption.

But this begs the question: is that extra $30 to $50 be worth it to you? Would that make you more or less likely to rescue a dog?

Fair is Fair: The Pennsylvania Fair Data Act

By Julian Prager

As in many states, Pennsylvania requires all regulations to be reviewed and approved prior to becoming effective. Among other things, agencies seeking to promulgate regulations have to comply with the following in a notice requesting public comment:

1. The statutory, decisional, or regulatory authority that the regulation results from and a statement of the need for the regulation.
2. Estimates of the direct and indirect costs of the regulation to the Commonwealth, local governments, and the private sector (including stakeholders and consumers).
3. Procedures developed to meet the needs of affected groups and persons, including minorities, the elderly, small businesses, and farmers.
4. A description of alternate regulatory provisions that have been considered and rejected, and a statement that the least burdensome acceptable alternative has been selected.
5. A plan for evaluating the continuing effectiveness of the regulation.

The regulation must be submitted to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the House and Senate committees.  The IRRC then provides written comments and questions to the agency on the regulations. The legislation required the IRRC to consider the following in evaluating the regulation:

1. The economic or fiscal impact.
2. The protection of the public health, welfare, and safety.
3. The clarity, feasibility, and reasonableness of the regulation.
4. Whether the regulation implements a policy that requires legislative review.

The IRRC decision to disapprove can be appealed to the legislature and the governor.

 

Enter the Pennsylvania Fair Data Act

With the signing of the Fair Data Act on July 7, 2011, a new category to the items that the IRRC is required to consider has been created: Acceptable Data. Acceptable data is defined as empirical, replicable, and testable data as evidenced in supporting documentation, statistics, reports, studies, or research.

It requires an agency submitting a regulation to state any data upon which the regulation is based, describe how it was obtained and why it is acceptable. It places the burden on the agency to prove the data are acceptable. The IRRC is required to determine whether acceptable data are the basis of the regulation and whether the regulation is supported by acceptable data.

While this change does not eliminate the possibility of the passage of laws that have no rational foundation, it makes it harder to pass the kinds of regulations that use false and unscientific beliefs to restrict the activities of others. It also gives us a tool to use in legislative battles – if data used to support regulations has to be valid and science-based, shouldn’t laws follow the same prescription?The real promise of the Fair Data Act is in its future impact in our fight for rational laws.