Day: February 25, 2002

Farm Subsidies, Tariffs and Lifesavers

TechCentralStation.Com’s Ryan H. Sanger takes down George W. Bush for his recent statements linking farm subsidies, of all things, to the 9/11 terrorists attacks.

Sanger reports that at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association meeting in Denver, Bush told the cattlemen that, “It’s in our national security interests that we be able to feed ourselves . . . This nation has got to eat.”
As Sanger notes, given the relatively high levels of obesity in the United States, no one seems in danger of going hungry anytime soon. The truly bizarre thing about U.S. agricultural policy, however, is that it encourages low prices for some commodities while encouraging high prices for others.

On the artificially low price side, Sanger correctly notes that the problem with farm subsidies is that they create an excess of supply which makes farming unprofitable — at which point farmers turn into beggars at the government trough demanding one handout after another.

But the other side of the coin is that the United States uses tariffs and other devices to artificially raise the price of some agricultural commodities. A prime example of this is sugar — tariffs on sugar imports are set at such a high level that sugar in the United States costs up to twice as much as it does elsewhere.

The people who make Lifesavers understand that reality. Until a few months ago the major North American plant producing Lifesavers was located in Holland, Michigan — just a couple hours from where I live. But the high sugar costs in the United States finally took their toll, and the company announced it would close the plant and move to Canada where sugar producers don’t have the same influence. Sugar costs about half as much as it does in the United States, even after the exchange rate is accounted for.

Ah yes, thank goodness those tariffs are there protecting American jobs.

Source:

Beast of burden. Ryan H. Sager, TechCentralStation.Com, February 20, 2002.

Does Cod Liver Oil Help Reduce Pain/Damage from Arthritis?

Research funded by Great Britain’s Arthritis Research Campaign recently reported that Omega-3 fatty acids — the main component of cod liver oil — appeared to be able to reduce both pain and damage in inflamed joints.

In the study, researchers injected subjects with a chemical designed to cause inflammation and then took cartilage samples four days later. The researchers reported that in the group treated with Omega-3, enzymes that would normally cause pain and damage to the cartilage had been “turned off” compared to the enzymes in the control group that were fully active.

Fergus Logan, who heads up the Arthritis Research Campaign, told the BC that, “We’re delighted that something as simple and non-controversial as cod liver oil has the potential to bring relief and restore the quality of life to so many people who suffer from osteoarthritis.”

Noncontroversial? At least until People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gets wind of this.

Source:

Cod liver oil benefits confirmed. The BC, February 14, 2002.

Staph Vaccination Succeeds in Animals, Then Humans

Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development recently reported on the successful trial of a vaccination for staphylococcus infection — a relatively common, and potentially deadly disease usually contracted in the hospital environment.

Staph infection fools the body into not realizing that it is under attack. The surface of the bacteria is covered with two sugar molecules which most human immune systems fail to recognize as a threat.

Experimenting in mice, the researchers took those two sugar molecules and added a third protein that they knew the immune system would recognize as a threat. Researchers proved that, at least in mice, that approach would work.

They then conducted trials of the vaccine on 1,900 patients receiving dialysis. Such patients typically have weakened immune systems and are especially vulnerable to staph infection. In the first 40 weeks of the study, those receiving the vaccination had 57 percent fewer staph infections compared to a control group that did not receive the vaccination.

Longer term the success rate was lower, but still represented a statistically significant increase in protection against staph infection compared to the control group.

The upshot of that is that the vaccination is likely to work even better with people who do not have compromised immune systems. As the BC quoted Robert Naso, who works with a company working on developing the vaccine,

Kidney disease patients on dialysis are among the least like to respond to a vaccine because their immune system are generally compromised. Based upon previous clinical studies in normal, healthy volunteers, we believe that other patient populations at risk for rStaph infections will respond to the vaccine with even higher levels of antibodies than was achievable in kidney disease patients.

An excellent example of the sort of discoveries and advances that animal research makes possible.

Source:

Promising results for ‘superbug’ vaccine. The BC, February 14, 2002.

Is Positive Discrimination the Solution to Gender Imbalances in British Parliament?

After last summer’s elections in Great Britain, women made up only 118 of 659 politicians elected to the House of Commons. Great Britain is now considering requiring political parties to nominate women. Is this legal or even a good idea?

In the 1990s, Great Britain experimented with a system that forced parties to nominate more women for the British version of primary elections. That system was ruled illegal when it was challenged by law professor Peter Jepson.

On Jan. 28, Parliament approved a bill that would reinstate this system, essentially allowing political parties to engage in “positive discrimination” that would be illegal for private entities to do.

It is not clear that this is either legal or desirable.

Jepson told Women’s ENews that he would again challenge the practice, this time under European Union law. “I’m not at odds with the Labour Party over the inadequate representation of women in Parliament,” Jepson told Women’s ENews, “But there is nothing positive about discrimination.”

Current Member of Parliament Anne Widdecomb said she opposed the planned change not only because it would violate the human rights of men, but would also create a two-tiered group of female MPs. Widdecombe said,

It would create two groups of women MPs, one who could look everyone from the prime minister down in the eye, and the other that got there because of special favors. I wouldn’t find that helpful. I’d find it humiliating.

Widdecombe believes that the gender balance will shift when women who grew up in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister reach their 40s and 50s. Even then, though, it is questionable if women will ever achieve the exact 50/50 split that some feminists seem to desire.

By comparison, Women’s ENews notes that only 14 percent of U.S. House of Representative members are women. That percentage will almost certainly be higher 20 years from now, but I suspect the same sort of factors that result in a rather persistent wage gap will also result in large gender imbalances in democratically elected legislatures.

Source:
British Parliament passes bill to elect more women. Paul Rodgers, Women’s ENews, February 15, 2002.