Tag: Europe

UK Considers Requiring "Domestic Animal" Label of Some Furs

According to The Independent (London), Great Britain’s Trade and Industry Secretary is considering rules that would require a “domestic animal” label on furs that are made from the fur of dogs and cats.

The United States banned the import, export or sale, of clothes made of cat or dog fur after Burlington Coat Factory sold coats that turned out to contain dog fur. Great Britain apparently currently has no law banning such furs nor requiring labelling.

The Independent quotes Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock as pushing for the rules. Hancock told The Independent,

Cat and dog fur is a cheaper option than other fur and is being used all over Europe. I am sure it’s being sold in Britain and I have spoken to traders abroad in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there is a massive stray dog problem and their fur is routinely used. This fur is being passed off as Siberian fox or rabbit fur and people have no idea it is from dogs and cats.

Source:

Fur clothes to be given ‘domestic animal’ label. Marie Woolf, The Independent (London), June 20, 2003.

Another Bizarre Art Project Involving Killing Animals

In May, the director of Denmark’s Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding was acquitted of animal cruelty charges that stemmed from a bizarre installation at the museum.

Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti set up ten blenders that contained goldfish and gave visitors the “ethical choice” to turn the machines on or not (as depicted in the photo from Reuters).

Inevitably, somebody chose to turn on one of the blenders, police confiscated the exhibit and fined museum director Peter Meyer US$315 for animal cruelty.

But after a two-day trial in May, Judge Preben Bagger acquitted Meyer of the animal cruelty charge. Bagger ruled that since the goldfish were killed instantly by the blender, that their deaths were humane and not cruel.

Correction: When this story was reported in the media, the fish involved was repeatedly described as a goldfish. But the fish depicted in the Reuters picture above is clearly not a goldfish. Presumably either the artist or the media in Denmark did not look closely at the species of fish used in the installation.

Source:

Dane acquitted in goldfish blender case. The Associated Press, May 19, 2003.

Liquidising goldfish ‘not a crime’. The BBC, May 19, 2003.

Australia Considers Banning Popular Animal Antibiotic

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary MEdicinces Authority is proposing to ban the use of the antibiotic virginiamycin for purposes of promoting growth in chickens, pigs and cattle.

Virginiamycin is added as a supplement to feed where it increases the growth of animals as well as reduces mortality. Under the proposed change in Australia, the antibiotic could be used only to treat animal disease. The Veterinary Medicines Authority’s Tim Dyke said in a prepared statement,

Since a related antibiotic is now being used in human medicine we wish to avoid any livelihood of antibiotic resistance developing and affecting people . . . Canceling its use as a growth promotant in animals is the way to do this.

Whether or not the risk is real is debatable. An article currently in press for the Journal of Risk Analysis puts the potential benefit assuming the worst case scenario at less than 1 additional life saved in both the United States and Australia over the next 5 years from a total ban.

Interestingly, virginiamycin and similar drugs have already been banned in the European Union and there is some evidence that it led to a decrease in animal welfare and an increase in the use of other antibiotics. A study by the International Federation for Animal Health — which represents companies that manufacture vaccines, antibiotics and other animal health products found that,

The diminution [of the antibiotics banned by the EU] has, however, been at the cost of a deterioration in animal welfare. There have been reports of increased morbidity and mortality, for example among young pigs, mostly associated with enteric infections, in Denmark, and in poultry, again associated with enteritis, in France. This has driven, at least in part, a substantial increase in the use of therapeutic antibiotics in Europe – in Denmark from an overall 48 tonnes in 1986 to 94 tonnes in 2001. The main antibiotics involved in this increase have been tetracycline, mostly used in pigs, whose usage increased from 12.9 to 27.9 tonnes (a 106% increase), macrolides and lincosamides (7.6 to 14.3 tonnes, 88%), and aminoglycosides (7.1 to 11.9 tonnes, 68%). This has occurred despite attempts to improve other critical aspects of animal husbandry to make up for the loss of the growth promoters. Experience in Sweden suggest that this may eventually be partially effective but with an increased financial burden, but it is far from clear that this will apply to the whole of Europe where conditions are different from those of Scandinavia.

Pfizer, which manufactures virginiamycin unsuccessfully sued to have the European Union ban overturned. The EU ban was denounced as “contrary to scientific evidence” by a member of its own Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition which in 1998 examined a Denmark study on the risks of virginiamycin and found it wanting.

Sources:

Outcome of discussions #14. Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition, July 10, 1998.

NOAH regrets antibiotic ban. National Office of Animal Health, 1998.

The European ban on growth-promoting antibiotics and its consequences for animal and human health. International Federation for Animal Health, November 2002

Ban planned for animal antibiotic. AAP, April 6, 2003.

Animal Rights Activists Target Bullfighting in Barcelona

The World Society for the Protection of Animals and Spain’s Animal Rights Defense Association are targeting Barcelona to convince the city to outlaw bullfight ahead of the 2004 Universal Forum of Culture which Barcelona will host.

The two groups commissioned a survey which found that 63 percent of respondents in Barcelona wanted an end to bullfighting. An earlier study commissioned by the two groups of attitudes about bullfighting in Catalonia as a whole found 94 percent of respondents favored outlawing bullfighting (neither survey is available online, however, so it’s not known exactly what questions the survey asked).

Manuel Cases of the Animal Rights Defense Association told Australian newspaper The Age,

At the end of the 19th century there were three bullrings in Barcelona, now there is just one left. That has bullfights on Sunday from May to October but mostly for people who come in tourist buses from the Costa Brava.

Philip Lymbery of the World Society for the Protection of Animals said in a press release,

Bullfighting is abhorrent to many people internationally. This new survey shows that the majority of people in Barcelona agree that bullfighting has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with cruelty. It is ironic then, that a city that allows over 100 bulls to be ritually tortured and killed as entertainment annually will next year host the Universal Forum of Culture. We therefore urge Barcelona to ban bullfighting and thereby avoid tainting the spirit of this international cultural event.

Catalonia’s animal welfare law forbids the fighting of animals but specifically exempts bullfights that take place on public holidays.

Bullfighting is popular in Spain in general, but not in the Catalonia region. According to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, for example, only about 100 bulls are killed annually in bullfights in Barcelona. This out of an estimated 20,000+ bulls killed annually in bullfights throughout the country.

Sources:

Survey reveals Spanish opposition to bullfighting in Barcelona. Press Release, World Society for the Protection of Animals, April 4, 2003.

Majority of people in Catalonia, Spain, opposed to bullfighting, according to a new survey released today. Press Release, World Society for the Protection of Animals, March 22, 2002.

Iceland Announces Plans to Resume Whaling

Iceland announced in April that it plans to renew whaling under the same pretense as Japan — i.e. that the whaling will be for research. Under the terms of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, the International Whaling Commission allow its members to kill as many whales as it wants for research purposes.

Iceland says it plans to catch 100 minke whales, 100 fin whales, and 50 sei whales over two years, beginning sometime in 2003 or 2004.

Along with Japan, it would join Norway — which is exempt from the commercial whaling ban and never stopped commercial whaling — as the only three countries killing significant numbers of whales.

Iceland could also begin straightforward commercial whaling at any time, although it says that it will not do so until at least 2006. Iceland left the IWC in 1992, and was readmitted by just a single vote in 2002 (and even then, only because the Swedish represenative to the IWC misunderstood a procedural challenge that allowed the vote to take place). As part of its readmission, it was also allowed to lodge an objection to the 1986 moratorium which, along with Norway, renders it exempt from the moratorium.

Iceland also rejects portions of a number of conventions that deal with whales. It joined CITES in 2000, but objected to the ban on trade in the blue whale. It also objects to the listing of the Northern right whale under the Berne Convention, of which it is also a party. Both objections mean that Iceland is not bound by the terms of those conventions as they apply to those species.

Iceland has apparently worked out a deal with Japan to accept whale products from Iceland, without which there would not be a market for the number of whales Iceland is considering killing.

Sources:

Iceland’s whale hunting plans arouse suspicions. Reuters, April 5, 2003.

Iceland bids to resume whaling. The BBC, April 3, 2003.

Iceland Plans to Catch Hundreds of Large Whales. Environmental News Service, April 4, 2003.

European Commission Surveys Opinions of Animal Research in EU Candidate Countries

The Scientist recently reported on the results of a European Commission survey of public opinions of science in 13 countries that are candidates for European Union membership. The goal of the survey was to compare opinions in candidate countries with those of existing EU countries.

The 13 countries surveyed by Gallup were Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. A total of 12,274 adults from those countries were surveyed, and asked the following question about research involving animals,

And could you please tell me if you tend to agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Scientists should be allowed to experiment on animals like dogs and monkeys if this can help sort out human health problems.

Here’s how the answers broke down for each country,

Country

Agree

Disagree
Bulgaria
74
8
Cyprus
73
15
Czech Republic
54
31
Estonia
61
26
Hungary
71
22
Latvia
64
27
Lithuania
62
23
Malta
47
43
Poland
62
26
Romania
58
20
Slovakia
57
28
Slovenia
40
41
Turkey
65
17

The survey also offered an interesting insight into possible motivations/explanations for support of animal rights. This was just one question in a long series of questions about all aspects of science, including a number of questions designed to test the level of scientific knowledge of the individual being polled. Individuals polled were given a short quiz where they were read sentences such as “The oxygen we breathe comes from plants” or “Electrons are smaller than atoms” and then pronounce each sentence as true or false.

In comparing the answers to those questions with the answers about use of animals, there was a tendency for those with little knowledge of science to oppose animal research,

The analysis showed that this attitude is correlated to the degree of scientific knowledge possessed: people scoring high on the scientific knowledge scale are much more likely to find animal experiments justifiable if they are aimed at resolving human health problems (68%), while those who don’t know much about science are much less likely to agree (52%).

Compared to the current EU countries, the 13 candidate countries are far more supportive of medical research on animals.

A survey of the 15 countries that make up the European Union found that only 45 percent agreed that “Scientists should be allowed to experiment on animals like dogs and monkeys if this can help sort out human health problems,” while 41 percent disagreed. Overall, 63 percent of people in the candidate countries agreed with the animal research question, compared to just 22 percent disagreeing.

As Richard Ley of the British Pharmaceutical Industry told The Scientist, this could lead to medical research firms leaving existing European Union countries for the much more accepting climate in candidate countries,

This is a danger. The violence, harassment and intimidation activities of some animal extremists are bound to make companies look at the wisdom of continuing animal research in an environment where that is permitted.

Sources:

Opinions on science in wider Europe. The Scientist, April 3, 2003.

Candidate Countries Eurobarometer: Public Opinion in the Countries Applying for European Union Membership. European Commission, January 2003.

”Europeans and Biotechnology” Survey of Public Perception – EU. Animal Biotechnology, April 1, 2003.