Contact: Jason Taylor 513-622-3205 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 513-622-3205 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 513-622-3205 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 513-622-3205 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – CINCINNATI, June 9, 2010 – The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) (NYSE:PG) is voluntarily recalling specific lots of its Iams canned cat food in North America as a precautionary measure. Diagnostic testing indicated that the product may contain insufficient levels of thiamine (Vitamin B1), which is essential for cats. Cats that were fed these canned products as their only food are at greater risk for developing signs of thiamine deficiency.
The following Iams canned cat foods are included:
Product Name
Date on Bottom of Can
This recall is limited to only Iams canned cat food distributed in North America. No other Iams pet food is involved.
Early signs of thiamine deficiency may include loss of appetite, salivation, vomiting and weight loss. In advanced cases, signs may include ventroflexion (downward curving) of the neck, wobbly gait, falling, circling and seizures. Contact your veterinarian immediately if your cat is displaying any of these signs. If treated promptly, thiamine deficiency is typically reversible.
Consumers who have purchased canned cat food with these codes should discard it. For further information or a product refund call P&G toll-free at 877-340-8826 (Monday – Friday, 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST).
Contact: Trisha Hanson 1-877-266-9757
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – April 12, 2010 – Response Products, Broken Bow, NE is voluntarily recalling Cetyl M for Dogs, lot numbers 1210903 and 0128010, due to a possible Salmonella contamination from the hydrolyzed vegetable protein component provided by Basic Foods of Las Vegas, NV. Tests conducted by Basic Foods to detect Salmonella produced negative results; however, Response Products has determined to recall the above-referenced lots.
People who handle dry pet food and/or treats can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the chews or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
Cetyl M for Dogs was distributed nation-wide through direct sales, retail stores, veterinarians and online retailers.
The above-referenced lots of Cetyl M for Dogs were distributed in either a 120-count bottle (shipped between January 8, 2010 and April 2, 2010) or a 360-count bottle (shipped between February 11, 2010 and April 2, 2010). The affected lot numbers are as follows: #1210903 and 0128010. The lot number can be found directly above the bar code on the label. These lots were sent out in the time periods as set out above. This product is in tablet-form, is approximately the size of a dime and is light brown in coloring.
To date, Response Products has received no reports of illness associated with the use of this product. Response Products recently learned that the FDA and Basic Foods of Las Vegas, NV, the producer of one of the components of the affected product’s vegetable beef flavoring, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, had detected Salmonella in Basic Food’s facility and had issued a recall on said component. The manufacturer of the vegetable beef flavoring used in Cetyl M for Dogs, tested the hydrolyzed vegetable beef protein for Salmonella and the results were negative. However, due to the concern regarding Salmonella in Basic Foods’ facility, it decided to recall two lots (only one lot affected our product) of said vegetable beef flavoring. The finished product manufacturer of Cetyl M for Dogs had tests performed on both the raw materials used to make our product and also the finished product, and all tested negative for Salmonella, however, it has issued a voluntary recall on two lots (see lot numbers listed above) of Cetyl M for Dogs.
Response Products requires that testing for Salmonella and other harmful pathogens is completed during the manufacturing process. Even though the testing performed at each level of the process showed negative results for Salmonella, in an effort to produce the highest quality product for our customers, Response Products ceased distributing the dog product in the above-referenced lots and is issuing a voluntary recall on its Cetyl M for Dogs in the affected lot numbers. In addition to the testing listed above, Response Products sent samples from said lots, as well as from lot produced after those lots, to an independent laboratory, and all samples received a negative result for Salmonella.
Response Products continues to investigate the cause of the problem and continues to be committed to producing a high-quality, effective product for dogs.
Consumers who have purchased the listed lots of Cetyl M for Dogs are urged to contact Response Products or the place of purchase for further direction. Consumers may contact Response Products at 1-877-266-9757, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm CST.
Recently, a new vet opened her clinic in my area. It’s a beautiful, likely multi-million dollar facility, by the looks of it. When I called to inquire about an open house I was told “some time in May.” There would be no “get-acquainted hours” at any time – most people just get an appointment when they have a problem. Upon further questioning, I find the regular office call charge was $59 – way more than I’m used to from other vets in the area. Nor did they have any printed material that outlined their philosophy re: food, vaccines, etc. A web site was “in the works.”
So, one of my dogs needs to have thyroid panel done for OFA – the person on the phone did not know what that was, or what OFA was. I asked her whether she knew about OFA hip x-rays – oh, sure, x-rays…. I once again asked about a thyroid panel, and that it would have to be sent to OFA-approved labs. Well, they do their own lab work in-house. Thyroid panels came at four different levels, from $85 to $285! She didn’t know what the difference was – “the computer didn’t say.” At which point I mentioned that she should know those things and hung up.
So, guess what?! That’s one vet I’m highly unlikely to try to establish a relationship with. I’ve also heard from others who had known her at her previous employment that she’s skittish and afraid of some of her animal clients…. I have large (and very friendly) dogs….
No, I’ll stick with my regular vets….
While this article was written with an Australian focus, it applies equally to US pet owners and their vets. Thank you, Elizabeth! BB
by Elizabeth Hart
Previous articles on this topic were published in National Dog in July 2009 and December 2009. Concerned pet owners are encouraged to do their own research to support any decisions regarding revaccinating their pets.
The latest scientific evidence indicates that most dogs are likely to be protected from viral diseases such as parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus (hepatitis) after the final puppy core vaccination at 16 weeks. No further revaccination is likely to be required for these diseases, although pet owners can seek serological testing if they wish to verify their dog’s antibody status.
This simple message is still not being relayed to pet owners. Veterinarians in countries such as Australia, Britain and the United States continue to mislead pet owners with ill-founded advice, insisting they have their pets revaccinated ‘annually ’or ‘triennially’ with core vaccines when there is no evidence to support this practice.
In Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), and State Veterinary Surgeons’ Boards, have ignored advances in scientific knowledge, and evidencebased companion animal vaccination ‘best practice’ for many years.
An illustration of the delay taken to update vaccination practice in Australia is provided by a special feature discussing the side-effects of companion animal vaccination, which was published in the Australian veterinary magazine The Veterinarian in 2000, i.e., ten years ago.
The article, titled “The needle and the damage done”, reported that the Australian Veterinary Association and Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association had adopted a policy of “wait and see” on vaccination practice. After nearly ten years of ‘waiting and seeing’, the AVA finally announced its new ‘triennial’ dog and cat vaccination policy in August 2009, after negative publicity about unnecessary revaccination of dogs in the Sydney Morning Herald and on the ABC. The AVA finally caught up on vaccination practice that had been adopted in the United States in 2003.
It took nearly seven years for the AVA to act, and that was only after a small group of persistent pet owners demanded the AVA address the problem. During all the years of inaction, pet owners have continued to be urged to pay for unnecessary revaccinations and, most importantly, countless animals have been subjected to unnecessary and possibly harmful revaccinations.
Despite the AVA’s new reduced vaccination policy, annual revaccination remains common practice in Australia. Recent articles in local newspapers in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales quote veterinarians who continue to urge pet owners to have annual parvovirus revaccinations for their pets, even if their pets have already been vaccinated. Veterinarians use the threat of ‘deadly parvovirus’ as the hook to lure pet owners back to their surgeries.
The veterinary community has known for years that dogs that have already responded to vaccination with core vaccines are likely to have lifelong protection – repeated ‘annual’ or ‘triennial’ revaccination is not necessary.
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for Vaccination of Dogs and Cats (launched in Australia in 2007) explain that “dogs that have responded to vaccination with MLV (modified live virus) core vaccines maintain a solid immunity (immunological memory) for many years in the absence of any repeat vaccination”. The WSAVA guidelines Fact Sheets note that duration of immunity after vaccination with these vaccines has been demonstrated to be at least seven years, based on challenge and serological studies.
The WSAVA guidelines recommend that “we should aim to vaccinate every animal, and to vaccinate each individual less frequently”.
The WSAVA guidelines also warn that “core vaccines should not be given any more frequently than every three years…” The guidelines do not actually recommend revaccination “every three years”.
(Note: The ambiguous reference to “every three years” refers to an earlier arbitrary triennial revaccination compromise, probably to placate veterinarians. This compromise was not based on scientific evidence of a proven need for triennial revaccination.)
Earlier vaccination guidelines, issued by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force in the United States in 2003, admit that “there is no scientific basis for the recommendation to revaccinate dogs annually”, stating “when MLV vaccines are used to immunise a dog, memory cells develop and likely persist for the life of the animal”. There is also no scientific evidence to support revaccinating dogs triennially.
A presentation during the 5th International Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference, convened in the United States in July 2009, reiterated that: “a single dose of MLV canine core vaccine (for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus) administered at 16 weeks of age or older will provide life long immunity in a very high percentage of dogs…”
As well as long duration of immunity, the risk of adverse reaction to vaccine products has also been well known in the veterinary community. For example, the WSAVA guidelines warn that “vaccines should not be given needlessly….we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products.” The WSAVA guidelines also admit that “there is gross under-reporting of adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”.
Ronald Schultz, a member of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group, advises that “adverse reactions can range from mild, selflimiting illness to chronic disease or death”.
Veterinary expert Richard Ford notes that “delayed-onset (days-weeks-months) adverse events are much less likely to be recognised, reported and studied.”
Schultz also says “there is a reluctance to report reactions, even those that lead to the death of an animal”.
Schultz warns that “vaccines are medical products that should only be given if needed and only as often as necessary to provide protection from diseases that are a risk to the health of the animal. If a vaccine that is not necessary causes an adverse reaction that would be considered an unacceptable medical procedure, thus use only those vaccines that are needed and use them only as often as needed”.
Michael Day, also a member of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group, has admitted the cumulative effects and consequences of repeated vaccination are unknown, saying that few “investigations have studied the phenomenon of ‘inflammageing’ (the effect of cumulative antigenic exposure and onset of late life inflammatory disease)” in dogs and cats.
A paper titled “Chronic immune activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy”, published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2001, suggests long-term over-activation of the immune system may be a major cause of cancer.
Cancer is reported as being the single biggest cause of death in dogs over two years old. According to information from Texas A&M University, dogs and cats have a higher incidence of many tumors than do humans. Dogs have 35 times as much skin cancer, 4 times as many breast tumors, 8 times as much bone cancer, and twice as high an incidence of leukemia as do humans.
Could unnecessary vaccination, with its ‘long-term over-activation of the immune system’ be causing a variety of cancers in dogs over the long term? This possibility is another important reason to immediately cease unnecessary revaccination of animals.
Given the scientific evidence on long duration of immunity, and the risk of adverse reactions and long term health problems with vaccination, this raises important questions:
■ Why has annual vaccination with core vaccines continued to be ‘accepted practice’ in the veterinary profession for so many years?
■ Why is annual vaccination still being promoted by veterinarians in the Australian media?
■ Is it ethical for veterinarians to continue to urge their clients to have their pets revaccinated annually or triennially, when this possibly harmful intervention has not been proven to be necessary, and carries the risk of adverse reaction or longer term health problems?
■ The WSAVA Guidelines advise that “the principles of ‘evidence-based veterinary medicine’ would dictate that testing for antibody status (for either pups or adult dogs) is better practice than simply administering a vaccine booster on the basis that this should be ‘safe and cost less’”. Why aren’t pet owners being offered the opportunity to have serological testing to verify their dog’s antibody status after puppy vaccination, rather than being pressured to have unnecessary ‘annual’ and ‘triennial’ boosters?
■ In its recently published Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority acknowledges that “the aim should be to ensure that all susceptible animals are vaccinated, rather than that already well-immunised animals are re-vaccinated”.
Why are veterinarians continuing to urge their clients to have ‘well-immunised animals’ revaccinated?
The Veterinarian article “The needle and the damage done”, published in 2000, gives us an answer to this question when it reports that vaccination has “become the backbone of small animal practice”. Veterinarians have a conflict of interest in that they gain a financial benefit from urging pet owners to (unnecessarily) revaccinate their pets against viral diseases such as parvovirus. A vaccine industry newsletter, published in 2005, illustrates this fact, reporting that 89% of veterinarians surveyed indicated that dog and cat vaccinations were the number one contributor to practice turnover, and that 91% of veterinarians felt that a change from annual vaccination would have an adverse effect on their practice turnover. The newsletter concluded: “Annual vaccination appears to be an important source of income for many veterinarians”.
So, it appears unnecessary annual and triennial revaccination is for vets’ financial benefit rather than pets’ health and wellbeing…
For years the veterinary profession has exploited and abused the trust of pet owners. Most importantly, the veterinary profession has subjected pets to unnecessary and possibly harmful revaccinations. Why have veterinarians been able to get away with this? Because the veterinary profession is ‘self-regulated’ and accountable to no-one. There is no effective consumer watchdog over-seeing this ‘profession’. Even the Federal Government regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has been complicit in maintaining the practice of unnecessary vaccination of pets.
Despite the lack of scientific evidence to support repeated vaccination, the APVMA has allowed on the market MLV canine vaccine products, with ‘annual’ and ‘triennial’ revaccination recommendations which have not been proven to be necessary, and with inadequate warnings about possible side effects and long term health consequences.
Pet owners are still not being clearly informed that canine MLV vaccines have been demonstrated to provide long duration of immunity, regardless of the manufacturers’ unproven ‘annual’ or ‘triennial’ revaccination recommendations.
The 2006 AAHA canine vaccine guidelines advise that vaccines produced by the major biologics manufacturers against parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus all produce excellent immune responses, and can be soundly and reliably administered at the discretion of the clinician in extended duration of immunity protocols. It is not necessary to use a designated ‘three year vaccine’ and it has not been proven necessary to revaccinate ‘every three years’.
Nevertheless, many veterinarians have used, and continue to use, the excuse that they have to follow vaccine product label revaccination recommendations. This is not true. The APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats states that “veterinarians should provide pet owners with pertinent, up-to-date information on vaccination best practice to assist in a joint decision as to whether and when to re-vaccinate their pet”. The APVMA’s Position Statement also publicly confirms that “veterinarians and pet owners are under no obligation to follow revaccination intervals recommended on vaccine labels…veterinarians may therefore use vaccines at whatever interval they (and their client) determine is best for each particular animal”.
The APVMA has also finally admitted its failings in this area, saying it “does not support the retention of label statements that direct or imply a universal need for life-long annual revaccinations with core vaccines.” However, the APVMA contradicted this sentiment recently when it endorsed triennial revaccination in a joint media statement with the AVA, even though the APVMA knows very well that triennial revaccination has not been proven to be necessary. The joint media statement was in response to an article in the Courier Mail on 5 February 2010, headlined “Too many needles for pets”, which reported that “hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs are being over-medicated with unnecessary annual vaccinations”.
As well as endorsing triennial revaccination, the AVA’s and APVMA’s joint media statement also ironically complained that the Courier Mail article “did not give an accurate picture”, although another statement on the APVMA’s website admitted that the Courier Mail article “was broadly correct…”
It is alarming that the APVMA, which is a government authority, accountable to the public, is aligning itself so closely with a voluntary association of veterinarians which has reneged on its professional responsibilities, and has allowed the public to be misled about companion animal vaccination practice for many years.
State Veterinary Surgeons’ Boards have also turned a blind eye to unnecessary revaccination. Indeed, the State Veterinary Surgeons’ Board of South Australia continues to brazenly endorse annual revaccination in its ‘strong recommendation’ that boarding kennels require proof of vaccination of dogs against distemper, hepatitis (adenovirus) and parvovirus within the preceding 12 months of admission. (This recommendation remains in place as at 15 February 2010, five months after the announcement of the AVA’s new reduced dog and cat vaccination policy).
The AVA is also making recommendations to boarding kennels that unjustifiably demand repeated revaccination of pets with core vaccines. In its advice on “Pet care businesses and the vaccination policy”, the AVA strongly recommends that boarding kennels demand proof of annual or triennial boosters. This means that dogs that have already responded to vaccination will continue to be unnecessarily revaccinated, and needlessly put at risk of adverse reactions and other health problems if their owners need to board them at kennels.
Who will be responsible if these dogs suffer an adverse reaction or long term health problem due to unnecessary vaccination?
(Note: Non-core vaccination for diseases such as Bordetella bronchiseptica may still be necessary in boarding kennels, although these vaccines have risks too. Refer to the WSAVA guidelines for more information.)
The self-appointed authority of veterinarians who dictate that pet owners have their pets revaccinated without scientific foundation must be challenged. Veterinarians do not have a mandate to dictate vaccination practice to their clients. For too many years, the public has received a biased and non-evidence based view of vaccination of pets. It is way past time that pet owners were provided with critical information on vaccination ‘best practice’.
Judging by past efforts, the veterinary profession cannot be trusted with this task. It is up to government regulators to take leadership on this issue, on an integrated international basis, to ensure that vaccination practice is evidence-based, and the public properly informed.
15 February 2010 _______________
Acknowledgements: To my campaign colleagues Bea Mies and Pat Styles.
*Contact Elizabeth Hart at elizmhart@gmail.com if you would like copies of her fully-referenced papers, which are freely available to any interested parties.
Multi-Million Dollar Animal Rights Group Accused of Corruption; Lawsuit Available at www.HumaneWatch.org
Washington – In a landmark RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit certain to have far-reaching implications for the animal rights movement, Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus sued the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its lawyers, and several other animal rights groups last week. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records today. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org.
“America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.”
In its February 16 lawsuit, Feld leveled bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys; three other animal rights groups; the Washington, DC law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal; and all three of that firm’s named partners.
On December 30, 2009, Federal Judge Emmitt Sullivan ruled that these defendants collaborated to pay more than $190,000 to Mr. Tom Rider, a former Feld employee who was an elephant “barn helper” for two years in the late 1990s, in exchange for his impeached testimony against Feld in an earlier lawsuit—testimony Judge Sullivan declared “not credible” and disregarded in its entirety. That lawsuit was dismissed.
Feld is also suing Mr. Rider, and a nonprofit “Wildlife Advocacy Project” charity, claiming that Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal used it to funnel money from their plaintiff clients to Mr. Rider. These clients included the Fund for Animals, which merged with HSUS in 2004.
“The new HumaneWatch website is the only place the public will be able to read this lawsuit,” Martosko added. “We’re publishing a treasure trove of information about the Humane Society of the United States, including lots of surprising documents that HSUS would rather remain hidden from its contributors.”
Last week CCF launched www.HumaneWatch.org, an online watchdog project dedicated to analyzing HSUS’s activities and keeping the group honest. It includes a blog, an interactive document library, and a growing body of information about HSUS-related organizations and staff.
To read this explosive federal racketeering lawsuit, visit www.HumaneWatch.org.To arrange an interview, call Allison Miller at 202-463-7112
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit watchdog organization that informs the public about the activities of tax-exempt activist groups. It is supported by American consumers, business organizations, and foundations.
FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: January 14, 2010 Media Inquiries: Ira Allen 301-796-5349, ira.allen@fda.hhs.gov Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Products may be contaminated with Salmonella
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to use Merrick Beef Filet Squares for dogs distributed by Merrick Pet Care with a package date of “Best By 111911” because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella.
The product was distributed nationwide through retail stores and Internet sales.
Although no illnesses associated with these products have been reported, the FDA is advising consumers in possession of these products not to handle or feed them to their pets.
In December 2009, the FDA conducted routine testing of Merrick Beef Filet Squares and detected a positive finding for Salmonella. A follow-up inspection found deficiencies in the packaging and manufacturing processes.
Salmonella can affect both humans and animals. People handling dry pet treats can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the treats or any surfaces exposed to these products. Consumers should dispose of these products in a safe manner by securing them in a covered trash receptacle.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella may experience some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Although rare, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis (inflammation of the lining of the heart), arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their health care provider immediately.
Pets with Salmonella infections may become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Some pets may experience only a decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected, but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed any of the affected product or is experiencing any of these symptoms, contact your veterinarian immediately.
The affected Merrick Beef Filet Squares were packaged in a 10-ounce green, red and tan re-sealable plastic bag. The “best by” date is imprinted on the top portion of the bag, which is torn off when the bag is opened. The FDA recommends that consumers who are unable to determine the “best by” date discontinue use of the product.
Consumers can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food and pet treat products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in their area. Please see http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/ucm182403.htm for additional information.
Consider this: many commercial dog foods list corn at or near the top of their ingredient lists.
by Rady Ananda
Global Research, January 3, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16747
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.
The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences(IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published inEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating:
“The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:
“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.” [communication to author]
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we seebee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She spent seven years as an editor, two of them as a web editor for a site with 20,000 members. In December 2003, she graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources
Dogs are more than just flesh and blood. Their emotions and life energy are similar to ours. When we connect on a deeper level, we find ourselves faced by highly evolved beings who are here to help and support us in our own growth and expansion.
The Spiritual Canine invites visitors to explore this deep connection further. We also encourage your to join the related Yahoo! Group.
See you there!
PRESS RELEASE
15 December 2009
UK animal welfare, behaviour, training and veterinary organisations1 are warning of the possible dangers of using techniques for training dogs that can cause pain and fear, such as some of those seen used by Cesar Millan, who has announced a UK tour next year.
The organisations have joined forces to voice their serious concerns about techniques which pose welfare problems for dogs and significant risk to owners who may copy them. These concerns are shared, and the statement supported, by similar organisations around the world2 and in continental Europe3.
Aversive training techniques, which have been seen to be used by Cesar Millan, are based on the principle of applying an unpleasant stimulus to inhibit behaviour. This kind of training technique can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars, restricting dogs′ air supply using nooses/leads or pinning them to the ground, which can cause pain and distress. The use of such techniques may compromise the welfare of dogs and may worsen the behavioural problems they aim to address, potentially placing owners at considerable risk. A number of scientific studies have found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviours in dogs.
The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour. Dog trainers all over the UK use reward-based methods to train dogs very effectively. Where dogs have behaviours which owners find unacceptable, such as aggression or destruction, qualified behaviourists achieve long term changes in behaviour through the use of established and validated techniques of behaviour modification without subjecting dogs to training techniques which may cause pain or distress.
We urge dog owners to carefully consider the help they choose to train their dogs or tackle behavioural problems. Anyone can call themselves a behaviour expert, but we believe that only those with a combination of appropriate qualifications, up to date knowledge as well as skills and experience should be treating dogs, and should only do so in a way which does not put the welfare of the dogs at risk.
Further information on:
* the misconceptions which underlie the use of aversive training techniques * the development of behaviour in dogs * the problems associated with the use of aversive training techniques * finding a suitable trainer or behaviourist
can be found at: www.dogwelfarecampaign.org
1 Dogs Trust, The Blue Cross, Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), The Blue Dog, Wood Green Animal Shelters, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), The Kennel Club, Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare, Canine Partners, UK , Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) Accreditation Ltd, Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC), Association of Pet Dog Trainers, UK (APDT, UK), UK Registry of Canine Behaviours (UKRCB), Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group (CABTSG), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and British Veterinary Association (BVA). 2 Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), Australian Veterinary Behaviour Interest Group (AVBIG), American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) and The Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT)(USA). 3 European Society of Clinical Veterinary Ethology (ESCVE), European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine – Companion Animals (ECVBM-CA), the Flemish Veterinary Working Group on Ethology (VDWE) and Norwegian Association for Pet Behaviour (NAPB) Norsk Atferdsgruppe for Selskapsdyr (NAS).
More information about organisations supporting this press statement can be found at www.dogwelfarecampaign.org
-ends-
I am extraordinarily pleased to announce that Shiny Paw by Therapeutic Pet Solutions is now in partnership with epi4dogs and 10% of every product sold will go to EPI Genetic Research.
The product line includes: Shampoos, Conditioners, Detanglers, Skin Refresheners, Bug Repellents, Ear Cleaners and Flushes, Anti Itch Healing Sprays.
Please go to: http://www.shinypaw.com/ Or go to: http://www.epi4dogs.com/products.htm (check it out and read Dr. Clark’s experience with Shiny Paw)
The entire product line is 100% organic made with all natural plant extracts, vitamins and oils. The formulas have been tested and proven effective against bacteria, fungi, yeasts and many other ailments and conditions that affect dogs, cats and other animals. These products have been especially helpful with those dogs that tend itch, bite or scratch a lot. Their coats/hair will feel and look wonderful afterwards.
Now just might be the perfect time to order something, like the Eucalyptus, Chamomile & Aloe Vera shampoo for only $10 (like I did) to get your dog ready for when family and friends stop by during the holidays!
And please feel free to cross post this message with others that have pets that you know might be interested in quality products ….and in supporting EPI Research!
Happy Holiday to everyone!
Olesia Kennedy
http://www.epi4dogs.com/
This post is provided as a public service. No material connection exists between brigittesdogs.com and shiny Paws.
