Farmed
Animal Watch
A Project of Animal Place
December 13, 2002
(To Search This Page Press Ctrl F)
Issue #97
CONTENTS
1. Canada Rejects Animal Patenting
2. Tail Docking Found Ineffective
3. Factory Farming Series Continued
4. Suing Factory Farms & Feedlots
5. High Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Rate Found in Chickens
6. FDA's Antibiotic Proposal
7. Better Management Beats Drugs
1. CANADA REJECTS ANIMAL PATENTING
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that animals cannot be patented. The
December 5th decision arose from Harvard University's 17-year effort to claim
ownership of a mouse genetically modified to be susceptible to cancer. At issue
was whether the mouse is merely a "composition of matter," based on
Canada's 133-year-old Patent Act. Life forms such as yeasts and molds have been
patentable since 1982. The court determined that animals' capacity to display
emotion separates them from more basic life forms and shows they are more than a
composition of matter. "Higher life forms are generally regarded as
possessing qualities and characteristics that transcend the particular genetic
material of which they are composed," a prevailing judge wrote. About 1500
applications for plant and animal patents have been on hold pending the
decision. They include a patent for a goat altered to produce milk with proteins
used for drug manufacturing, ones for fish, cats, cows and other mammals. The
"onco-mouse" has already been patented in the U.S., Japan, Australia,
and numerous European countries. Harvard spokespersons warned that Canada may be
left behind in the biotech race. The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee,
which advises the federal government on biotech issues, wants the Patent Act
revamped to permit patenting of all but human life. Environmental, religious and
animal-rights groups applauded the ruling. "Life is not a human invention
and living beings should not be treated as commercial commodities," an
environmental lawyer said.
"Animals Can't Be Patented: Top Court," The Ottawa Citizen, December
6, 2002.
http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id={7CC46E67-A4EC-46AE-B2C4-48C2E974D4A3}
2. TAIL DOCKING FOUND INEFFECTIVE
Tail docking, the practice of cutting off much of a cow's tail, grew in
popularity during the 1990's. (See: http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/fall02/taildocking.htm
and http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v11n3/11n3tuck.htm
) Prominent consultants claimed it kept cows cleaner. Others expressed concerns
about pain and behavioral effects (cows use their tails to signal to other
cows). Tail docking is considered animal mutilation and several European
countries have banned it. A recent study by the University of Wisconsin has
found the practice offers no hygienic or health advantage. The findings,
presented at a recent conference of the American Association of Bovine
Practitioners (AABP), are supported by other research including a study by
British Columbia researchers which appeared in the January 2001 issue of the
Journal of Dairy Science (and see nal url above), Canadian research which
suggested the procedure is carried out more for the benefit of the milker than
the cow, and Purdue University research which found cows adopted alternative
fly-avoidance behaviors such as foot stomping. The article notes "If clean
is what you want, you can get a lot more bang for your buck by keeping the cows'
environment clean rather than docking their tails." It concludes: "The
cumulative body of research on tail docking speaks loudly. The early reported
benefits do not exist, and tail docking is now more of a producer preference
than a cow cleanliness/udder health issue....the dairy industry should eliminate
the routine practice of docking tails."
"Tail Docking Makes Little Sense," Dairy Herd Management, Thomas
Quaife, October 16, 2002.
http://www.dairyherd.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=724&ed_id=2190
"Studies offer scientific appraisal of tail docking effects in dairy
cattle," The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Susan
C. Kahler, December 15, 2002.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec02/021215f.asp
See also: "Tailing Docking for Cattle," Cooperative Extension, Penn
State University.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Topic/AgrEnv/ndd/health/TAIL_DOCKING_FOR_CATTLE.html
3. FACTORY FARMING SERIES CONTINUED
The Dayton Daily News (DDN) series on megafarms (see issue
#96) prompted Ohio
State Representative John J. White (R) to initiate legislation to examine the
impact they have on the state's air, quality of life, and ability to control
disease. The legislation, to be introduced in January, calls for a task force to
study air quality and other issues not addressed by Ohio's new rules governing
factory farms. Noting the economic importance of large agricultural operations,
Governor Taft expressed faith in the new state law which goes into effect in
July whereby the farm permitting program will be transferred from the state EPA
to the agriculture department. The director of Ohio's Department of Agriculture
points out that the federal EPA has contracted with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to examine related air quality issues. He feels such a scientific
body is needed to conduct the study. In January, a former megafarm owner will
begin presiding over the Ohio Senate.
Half of the 46 states with huge agricultural operations don't require them to
meet air-quality standards, and only 4 states enforce limits on toxic gas from
them. Only 18 of them have conducted a formal inventory to locate such
operations within their state. A survey of the 46 states can be accessed on the
DDN web site.
In one article, year-round grazing of cattle is promoted over feedlots. OSU
animal science professor David Zartman explains that cows kept on concrete
develop foot and leg problems, are more susceptible to mastitis, and have lower
reproduction rates. The annual replacement rate in confinement dairies is 30-35%
versus 18-22% for cows allowed to graze. Zartman believes potential health and
environmental benefits of grazing outweigh lower production rates.
Two more articles in the series focused on egg production. One article focuses
on Buckeye Egg Farms, Ohio's largest egg company, which "has earned a
national reputation - for environmental irresponsibility" (see issue
#64).
The other examines the egg industry structure. According to an egg industry
lobbyist, 15 years ago there were 2,500 U.S. egg "producers," now
there are 300. Companies with 5 million hens accounted for 44% of the total U.S.
hen population in 2001, up 27% from a decade ago. The country has been
experiencing excess egg production which has depressed prices since Easter of
1999. New welfare guidelines which increase the amount of cage space allotted to
hens are expected to reduce egg production and increase prices. However, if
large companies expand, prices could be kept low, driving more out of the
industry.
A DDN editorial urges the public to vigilantly pursue environmental
accountability from megafarms, and suggests basic steps to be taken. On December
11 e milker than the cow, and Purdue th, the paper published 7 letters in
response to the series, all of which were critical of factory farming.
"Down on the Farm," Dayton Daily News, December 3-8, 2002, Ben
Sutherly et al.
http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/project/farm/index.html
4. SUING FACTORY FARMS & FEEDLOTS
Iowa is the nation's largest pig and egg producer, and the third largest
producer of beef. As long as confinement operations abide by construction and
manure management laws, it is legally assumed they are not creating a
nuisance. There are no standards regulating air quality or pest management, and
nearby residents seeking redress for fly plagues and the like must prove in
court that the nuisance created by the operation unreasonably and continuously
interferes with their life or property, and does so as a result of negligent
management. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are required to pay the defendants' legal
fees. According to a 1995 state law, "The general assembly has balanced all
competing interests and declares its intent to protect and preserve animal
agricultural production operations." Justices in a 1998 Iowa Supreme Court
case ruled that one Iowa law which provided nuisance suit protection was
"flagrantly unconstitutional." This article details a current case
contending with the 1995 law, which goes to court in January.
Residents of Custer County, Nebraska, where license plates used to boast
"The Beef State," are contesting a cattle feedlot of 80,000 animals
which creates a "fecal fog" of atomized manure dust. Custer County has
respiratory disease rates that are 151% higher than the state average. Health
officials say this could be due to the county's large elderly population or
other causes. Feedlot regulations, which are being updated, were written in 1974
when such large operations were virtually unknown. According to the USDA, the
largest feedlots, those with a capacity of 32,000 or more animals, are the
fastest growing category. They grew in number from 73 in 1990 to 118 in 2001,
and now produce nearly half the cattle fattened in feedlots. The largest have
capacities of more than 100,000 animals. See also: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec02/021215g.asp
"Farm or factory?" CropChoice, Hilary Mertaugh, December 9, 2002.
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=1179
"A City of Meat in a 'Fecal Fog,'" The Hartford Courant, November 25,
2002, Mike Swift
http://www.meatpoultry.com/newsfinder.asp?layout=story&gid=1130000913&did=479D-DTK0-010F-04GN-00000-00&cid=480004048
5. HIGH ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA RATE FOUND IN CHICKENS
Consumer Reports had 484 chickens bought from 25 cities nationwide tested for
the types of bacteria most likely to cause food poisoning. Campylobacter was
found in 42% of the birds and Salmonella was found in 12%. Five percent had both
and 51% had neither. While these results were significantly better than a
similar test conducted in 1997, 91% of the Campylobacter and 34% of the
Salmonella was found to be resistant to one or more antibiotics used for human
medicine. This indicates that the 1.1. million Americans sickened each year from
chicken may suffer longer and more serious illness requiring more drugs and
expense to treat. (A chart of specific results of the wide variety of chicken
brands tested is included in the article. Results of similar testing recently
carried out by 2 nonprofit groups can be found at: http://www.iatp.org
)
The use of antibiotics as growth promoters and for disease control in farmed
animal production is criticized as causing increasing antibiotic resistance in
bacteria. As early as 1952, a Scientific American article warned that
"chicks raised on antibiotics may develop resistant bacteria and poison
people who eat them." This suspicion was confirmed by CDC researchers in
1998. The article explains how antibiotic-resistant bacteria infects humans and
what e milker than the cow, and Purdue precautions are being taken during
poultry processing. Among other measures, Consumer Reports recommends Congress
ban subtherapeutic uses of medically important drugs in farmed animals. A
spokesperson for the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents animal
pharmaceutical companies, argues against this, stating "In addition to
making farmers more efficient, there is also a disease prevention role....when
you stop that use, those animals get sick." One antibiotic the FDA did ban
for poultry remains on the market while its manufacturer, Bayer, fights the ban.
"Of Birds and Bacteria" (Chicken Safety), Consumer Reports, January
2003.
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.jsp
"Magazine Finds Harmful Poultry Bacteria," Associated Press, Emily
Gersema, Dec. 11, 2002.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-chicken-bacteria1211dec11.story
6. FDA'S ANTIBIOTIC PROPOSAL
In September, the FDA proposed that companies submitting new animal drugs to the
agency for approval determine their potential to promote antibiotic resistance
in humans. The November issue of National Hog Farmer features a number of
articles about antibiotics. In one, industry representatives criticize the FDA's
proposal for its subjectivity, "lack of science," and excessive risk
estimates. A past president of the National Pork Producers Council states,
"On today's farms, without being able to group medicate, it is simply too
costly and not physically feasible to individually administer antibiotics, that
under the proposed guidance, will be approved for use."
"Draft Guidance for Industry: Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New
Animal Drugs With Regard to Their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human
Health Concern," FDA, 09/13/02.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/antimicrobial/antimicrobial.html
"Critics Resist FDA's Drug Plan," National Hog Farmer, Joe Vansickle,
November 15, 2002.
http://nationalhogfarmer.com/ar/farming_critics_resist_fdas/index.htm
7. BETTER MANAGEMENT BEATS DRUGS
Research in the 1960's suggested that killing bacteria in an animal's gut with
antibiotics allowed more food to be converted to flesh, increasing productivity.
However, in 1995 Professor Henrik Wegener and his colleagues at the Danish
Veterinary Institute discovered that bacteria in the animal's intestines
developed strong resistance to the antibiotics. The resistant bacteria then
found their way into the human population, causing difficult-to-treat
infections. At a recent medical conference, Wegener explained the results of a
voluntary ban on subtherapeutic antibiotic use in animal feed which has been in
place in Denmark since 1995. Researchers found a dramatic drop in the incidence
of antibiotic resistance in farmed animals 3-5 years after the drug use was
curtailed. Good husbandry was found to boost productivity more than did the use
of antibiotics as growth promoters. Improved management, such as better hygiene
and sanitation, offset the theoretical loss of production from the removal of
antibiotics from the feed. A meeting of E.U. agricultural ministers later this
month will decide whether to ban the use of antibiotics in feed altogether.
Wegener noted, "Farmers respond to public health risks. If they fear the
consumers will turn against their products, they will do anything."
A recent report on antibiotics in animal agriculture by the American Academy of
Microbiology includes among its recommendations: "New approaches are needed
for alternatives to antibiotics, not only in product development but also in the
re-thinking of animal production and management practices." The report can
be accessed at: http://www.asmusa.org/acasrc/pdfs/AntibioticsAgReport.pdf
The book "The Antibiotic Paradox: How the Misuse of Antibiotics Destroys
Their Curative Powers," has been revised. A review of it can be found at: http://jama
e milker than the cow, and Purdue .ama-assn.org/issues/current/ffull/jbk1211-4.html
"Antibiotics in Animal Feed Not Necessary," Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, Dec. 4, 2002.
http://www.vetscite.org/cgi-bin/pw.exe/Issue4/news/000849.htm