Tag: Asia

Attempts to Control Chicken Influenza Failing in Hong Kong

In 1997, a strain of avian flu jumped the species barrier and infected 18 people in Hong Kong, killing 6 of them. When tests found the flu spreading among Hong Kong chickens, the entire population of more than one million chickens was slaughtered in an effort to wipe out the disease.

But the avian flu returned in 2002 and hundreds of thousands of chickens have died and been slaughtered.

Research into samples of the 2001 and 2002 viruses show that the latest virus is indeed based on the pervious year’s version — efforts to eradicate the disease failed.

At least one research in Hong Kong, microbiologist Guan Yi, says the only solution is to close all live chicken farms in Hong Kong and ban the importation of live chickens from China. “I believe we have to get rid of the farms, and the poultry markets, and the import of fresh chickens,” Guan told China Daily.

Peter Wong Chun-kow, the Hong Kong president of the World’s Poultry Science Association, rejected that idea, telling China Daily that, “Avian influenza is just like any human flu — you just cannot get rid of it. However, it does not make sense to get rid of the poultry industry to get rid of the bird flu. That would be an ignorant act.”

The real problem here is China. Almost all chickens sold either live or ready for sale in Hong Kong are imported from China — only about 20 percent of chicken sold in Hong Kong actually originates from Hong Kong.

China is notoriously inept at efforts to track the origination of the influenza outbreaks. Not only does China not keep accurate records of outbreaks that would allow researchers to trace back the source of new strains of influenza, but even when China has a habit of denying that there is any new strain of influenza even to the point of denying that its farmers have been forced to slaughter chickens when it is easy to confirm that such actions have, in fact, occurred.

Time reported that when there were reports of an avian flue outbreak and the slaughter of chickens in China’s Fujian province, the response of the Chinese government was simply to deny everything.

The situation is so bad that if live chickens from China are refused by Hong Kong because the avian flu is detected, the chickens are simply slaughtered, repackaged as frozen, and re-exported back to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s problem is less with chickens than it is with the politicians in China who do not want to take responsibility for eradicating the avian influenza.

Source:

Hong Kong’s Fowl Problem: Hong Kong’s latest bird flu scare points to a lack of Chinese cooperation. Davena Mok, Time Asia, February 18, 2002.

Hong Kong chicken flu slaughter “failed”. Emma Young, New Scientist, April 19, 2002.

PETA Sues Rosie O'Donnell

Last week People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued talk show host and actress Rosie O’Donnell for defamation after O’Donnell claimed PETA endorses the use of some leather products.

PETA and O’Donnell became entangled after O’Donnell decided to proclaim a “wear leather day” on her show. Many animal rights activists and groups, including PETA, decided to go after O’Donnell, declaring “wear leather day” as promoting cruelty to animals.

On a recent episode O’Donnell told her talks how audience that The Gap used leather approved by PETA. According to PETA spokeswoman Lisa Lange, “There’s no such thing as PETA-approved leather,” and PETA announced a lawsuit seeking an on-air retraction of O’Donnell’s statement as well as $350,000 in damages.

The only problem is that O’Donnell is absolutely right — The Gap does use PETA-approved leather and the lawsuit is completely frivolous.

Earlier in the year PETA launched a campaign to convince The Gap to stop using leather obtained from China and India. PETA argued quite vociferously that animals killed for leather in China and India are treated cruelly, and that it would be better for The Gap to buy leather from countries with higher animal welfare standards.

When The Gap caved in to PETA’s demands, the organization trumpeted its great victory. Now, however, PETA wants to run away from this victory when O’Donnell correct points out that The Gap uses PETA-approved leather.

The bottom line is that this lawsuit is simply just another publicity stunt from a group that excels at such stunts.

Source:

Animal rights group sues O’Donnell. The Associated Press, December 6, 2000.

Exodus of Pharmaceutical Companies from the UK Begins

When anti-abortion protests in the United States made it impossible to manufacture the controversial drug RU-486 in that country, an agreement was reached to produce it in China. Faced with ongoing animal rights and anti-genetic modification protests in the United Kingdom, pharmaceutical company Nycomed-Amersham recently did the same. This week it announced it would be moving all of its genetic research facilities to China.

Not only does China welcome genetic research, which it sees as important in improving crop yields among other things, but it will also be cheaper for Nycomed-Amersham to operate in China — the company estimates cost savings for employing 1,000 PhD-level researchers at $50 million a year.

Parts of the genetic research outfit will also be moved to Brazil and patents on any resulting therapies or drugs will be patented in China and Brazil.

In a story about the move, The Financial Times of London reported that last year Pfizer’s William Steer complained that “Europe seems to be entering a period of the dark ages, where witchcraft and sorcery are prevailing. There’s a definite anti-science attitude in Europe that is not as pronounced in the U.S.”

If Europe doesn’t come to its senses quickly it could find more drug companies moving research operations to the developing world and China, Brazil and other developing countries might relegate the continent to also-rans when it comes to cutting edge scientific discoveries.

Source:

Genetic research to move overseas. David Firm, The Financial Times of London, November 14, 2000.

Burlington Coat Factory Contributes to HSUS

Stung by revelations that
some of its fur-trimmed parkas were made with dog fur, Burlington Coat Factory announced in December it was giving $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States. to help that group lobby for a federal ban on the
commercial sale of cat and dog fur.

What is Burlington Coat Factory
thinking?

Certainly the companyÂ’s anger
is understandable; most of the coats were made in China and the company
had no idea dog fur was being used. Burlington did the right thing in
offering to take back the coats from customers who were misled. But to
donate $100,000 to a group dedicated to making sure no animal products
are used in the production of clothes makes no sense, except as a crass
publicity maneuver.

And one that will certainly
backfire, as executives may already be finding out. As numerous animal
rights activists have pointed out, BurlingtonÂ’s support of a ban on cat
and dog fur is extremely hypocritical. If it is wrong to use cat and dog
fur on coats, isnÂ’t it wrong to use fur from other animals as well? Why
isnÂ’t Burlington lobbying for a ban on leather coats if it is suddenly
so committed to the rights of animals?

Those who deal with animals
canÂ’t have it both ways. Researchers canÂ’t claim itÂ’s okay for them
to experiment on and eventually kill animals for the important medical
knowledge such activities provide, but it is wrong for others to eat animals
or use them for clothing. Hunters canÂ’t go on at length about the mystical
experiences they have in the wilderness, but turn around and argue what
medical researchers do is completely different (so long as, in both examples,
the guidelines for treating the animals are similar – one need not argue
that in order to be consistent an animal researcher or hunter must approve
of the individuals who harm animals solely for the sadistic pleasure of
doing so).

Adrian Morrison, president
of the National Animal Interest Alliance
has coined the term “muddled middle” to describe such positions.
As Morrison wrote in a recent NAIA newsletter:

Those opposing animal use and those questioning the quality of animal
use (traditional animal welfarists) blended into a new grouping, the
animal protection community. And with that came the call to seek a common
ground, to abandon polemics for the sake of the animals. And so was
created (conveniently) a muddled middle, inhabited by those who do not
see that a middle ground between use and non-use of animals is a logical
impossibility . . . The muddled middle does not have a clear understanding
of how a variety of uses fit into a coherent whole: the necessary participation
of humans, and most especially modern humans, in the intricacies of
Nature. At the same time, we who choose to use animals for pleasure
and those who do so out of necessity must do so responsibly.

Ironically, this is a small area of agreement with the animal rights
activists . . . the use of animals in human society either stands or falls
as a whole in this writerÂ’s opinion. If fur is an abomination, certainly
leather is as well. If using animals in circuses (provided they are treated
responsibly) is wrong, I donÂ’t see how seeing eye dogs for the blind become
defensible except through some incredibly complex utilitarian calculus
that few people would find coherent, much less workable.