Nexus - 1005 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

It depends on what animals they are rendering on that particular day and if they were euthanised, died in the field or were killed by another method. In the last 10 years we have also seen a number of other species, primarily birds of prey, die from ingesting euthanised dogs and cats that have been buried at landfill sites. Sodium pen- tobarbital stays in the tissues of these animals for extended lengths of time. We have also seen bears and even a tiger die after eating animals euthanised with this drug. It is clear that any animal that has been euthanised with sodium pentobarbital should be incinerated, not rendered and fed back to other animals. It depends on what animals they are rendering on that particular —_ not received the denial. Finally, in desperation, I asked that they day and if they were euthanised, died in the field or were killed by fax me the denial, which they reluctantly agreed to do. I might another method. add that the mailed denial finally reached me in late April. In the last 10 years we have also seen a number of other According to Dr Larkins, Ombudsman for the CVM, I was species, primarily birds of prey, die from ingesting euthanised _ denied the report based on the fact that the information the CVM dogs and cats that have been buried at landfill sites. Sodium pen- released was not the final report and was made up of "summary tobarbital stays in the tissues of these animals for extended statements which were the written end-product of some oral brief- lengths of time. We have also seen bears and even a tiger die ings". In other words, the DNA information that the CVM after eating animals euthanised with this drug. released is not worth the paper it is written on. It is clear that any animal that has been euthanised with sodium With just days left to file an appeal, a lawyer for People for the pentobarbital should be incinerated, not rendered and fed back to — Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) agreed to prepare the other animals. appeal. On February 15, I mailed, Priority Post, my appeal to the FOI office. Through a tracking system and communication with DNA TESTING OF PET FOOD the Post Office, I found that by February 27 my document had not The FDA/CYM also undertook DNA testing on the commercial been received by the appropriate office. On February 28, the dog foods they analysed. Results of the study were announced in —_—- Freedom of Information officer informed me that it would be January 2001, and the press release stated that no dog or cat DNA acceptable, given the problems I had encountered with the was detected: "Presently, it is assumed that the pentobarbital agency, to fax my appeal, which I did on that date. residues are entering pet foods from eutha- It is clear that the FDA/CVM has been feel- nized, rendered cattle or even horses." ing the heat from the pet food industry with In communications with agriculture veteri- regard to the use of euthanised pets in commer- narians, most stated that sodium pentobarbital cial pet food. With its press release noting that is seldom, if ever, used to euthanise cattle; its cost is "prohibitive". Cattle are killed by cap- no dog and cat DNA existed in the rendered Having spent dog foods, the agency felt that pet owners tive bolt and gunshot. Horses are sometimes over 13 years would no longer confront the industry with the killed with this euthanising agent but, again, hi thi fact that companion animals were being used unless for some specific reason, i.e., the horse researc Ing Is as sources of protein in their products. is seriously injured at a racetrack, the methods industry, | thought used to kill cattle are also used on horses. RESEARCH BY CORPORATIONS AND The DNA testing results were extremely | was aware of UNIVERSITIES vague and provided no insight into the meth- all aspects Having spent over 13 years researching this ods used to conduct such testing. What it industry, I thought I was aware of al amounted to was: "Take our word for it. as they relate to aspects as they relate to the ingredients No dog and cat DNA was detected in the the ingredients used in pet foods. I was wrong! used in pet foods. food we tested." In early January 2002, I received a let- After I consulted with a number of ter from a student at the University of forensic scientists, it became apparent that Illinois, asking if I could make some sug- if indeed the FDA/CVM undertook such gestions as to what they could do about testing, the methods used would be nine dogs that were housed in a window- extremely important. No information was less lab at the university. These dogs ha given on the DNA primers. No cannulas (tubes) surgically implanted in information was provided regarding their sides so that samples of digeste: whether they tested for all the metabolites food could be taken. The studies include of pentobarbital. Rather than going the feeding the dogs raw and rendered anima route of asking for the documentation by-products including "poultry necks an related to the testing, I immediately filed a request under the __ backs and viscera, and ground-up poultry feathers". Until 2002, Freedom of Information Act. This was on March 3, 2002. this research was funded by the Iams company, but now is being The wait began, once again, and during that time I was sending funded by the soybean industry and the US Department of emails to the department, enquiring into the status of my FOIA Agriculture. request. On December 20, I received what I had hoped was the Over the years I've been aware of dogs and cats being used for information I'd requested, but what I was sent was actually a copy research—research into human medicine, a practice of which I of a paper titled "Validation of a Polymerase Chain Reaction don't approve—but I'd never realised that an industry that claime: Method for the Detection of Rendered Bovine-Derived Materials to care about the welfare of pets would undertake such barbaric in Feedstuffs". This was described as a document "similar" to _ practices. I was soon to learn that this was just the tip of the what I'd requested. But had I wanted a similar report, I would iceberg. Iams had been notorious for carrying on such I was wrong! have asked for such material. experimentation. On January 14, 2003, I contacted Steven Unger, Ombudsman Two animal rights organisations—In Defense of Animals, for the Food and Drug Administration, and was advised by him based in the United States, and Uncaged, based in the United that they would look into the matter. While I was out of the coun- Kingdom—outlined some of the animal experiments. Iams try in late January, Mr Unger wrote to advise me that my request —_ claimed that it used these studies to support its nutritional claims, had been denied by the FDA/CVM and that the denial had been which it uses to market its products. mailed to me on January 22. From the time a request is denied, Iams experimentation conducted on dogs and cats included the you have one month to file an appeal. On February 13,1 still had —_ following: Having spent over 13 years researching this industry, | thought | was aware of all aspects as they relate to the ingredients used in pet foods. I was wrong! 14 ¢ NEXUS WWW.NeXU smagazi ne.com AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 2003