Treat Your Lab Rats Right

The National Institutes of Health recently revised their official Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals for the first time in 16 years. This is the guide used by all laboratories who receive funding from the government to conduct their research and all labs receiving this funding must comply with the procedures described in the guide. The revised edition, however, is causing an uproar among facilities, however, because of a little change made on page 57.

The change involves the amount of space that must be allotted to a female lab mouse or rat and her babies. The revised guidelines suggest that a female be allotted for herself and her babies, a cage the size of a shoebox. Nothing extraordinary sounding, until one considers that previous guidelines allowed for two females, their litters and a male mouse or rat to occupy the same amount of space. Animal rights advocates applaud the change, feeling that this increase in allotted space not only allows for more humane conditions and natural development of the lab rat and her offspring, but also is a boon to scientific study, as increased space could mean a less stressful environment, translating to more accurate research results.

Some laboratories, however, are up in arms about the change. Consider Johns Hopkins research institute. They do a lot of research, they have a lot of rats. They have so many rats that research facilities consisting of huge warehouses containing 10,000 cages of rats are not uncommon. That's a lot of rats... and a lot of cages... and a lot of space. The concern for laboratories and research facilities like Johns Hopkins is a logistical one. More space for mama rats means room for fewer cages. In short, it'll cost the labs more money to house the same number of rats that they house now. They aren't happy about that.

In response to the apparent outrage at the changes, the writers of the guide have insisted that the new guidelines are not mandatory and that facilities needn't follow the new suggestions to maintain their government funding. What they aimed to do with the change, one writer has said, is to set a benchmark, a standard from which to work from. This placated some of those concerned about the change, but essentially rained upon the parade of those animal rights advocates who had applauded the measure. They claim that making the guidelines optional allows for abuse.

Sometimes you just can't make anyone happy.

Bringing Down the Stereotypes

Dog = loyal, friendly, playful, cuddly

Cat = independent, anti-social, agile

Llama = funny, stupid

Pig = dirty, greedy

Gazelle = graceful

Mule = stubborn

Does any of this sound familiar? It seems often our experience with animals is limited to our domestic pets and dinner plates and that we largely rely upon these stereotypes to characterize them. I suppose these function like any other stereotype, really. They're a default we depend on because we don't have an accumulation of encounters to prove otherwise. I recent class discussion had me thinking about this and, though I didn't share, these stereotypes bother me to no end.

In the same manner that one might become indignant when confronting any other unfair categorical preconception, I'm saddened that the impressions that we and our children have of animals are based upon these stereotypes, rather than upon personal experience. As convenient as these characterizations may be, given that the average American Midwesterner is unlikely to encounter a gazelle first hand in their entire lifetime, I continue to be struck by a sort of exasperation when people I meet believe these assigned characteristics to be true descriptions of an animal.

As such, I spent all three months of my summer internship at Gorman Heritage Farm trying to break down the barriers erected by these fabricated preconceptions. As a certified "sustainable agriculture intern/farm camp councilor," part of my duties involved giving tours of the farmyard, teaching visitors about the animals and supervising small children around livestock. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but my reaction was of awe when I first realized that many of the children that came to visit the farm actually bought wholeheartedly those animal stereotypes perpetuated by cartoons, children's books and well-meaning parents. Why aren't the pigs pink? Why doesn't the cow make a "moo" sound? Why does the rooster keep crowing, even though it's the afternoon? Sigh.

Though I only spent a short amount of time with these kids on the farm, I did my very best to communicate the fact that every animal is an individual, just as every little girl or little boy is different and unique from every other little girl and little boy. And so... frequent reminders included:

-Pigs aren't dirty, they're really, really smart. And they come in lots of colors, not just pink. Well, sometimes they are dirty.

-Bunnies can bite and scratch, not matter how fluffy and cute. And here they eat alfalfa, not carrots

-Roosters crow all day every day. They stop at nighttime to sleep.

-You can pet Ringo but Don't pet George. Why? George bites and Ringo doesn't, silly!

- No. No one gets to ride Huckleberry. He doesn't like when people ride him.

-Stay away from the cat. She doesn't like people. No, you can't pet her.

- Go ahead, you can pet the chicken. She won't peck at you. And they come in all sorts of colors and eat bugs, isn't that cool!?

-Chicken eggs can be white, blue, green, brown or even pink. You can eat the duck eggs, too!

As is the way with small children, some didn't listen and were bitten by the ferocious bunnies, but most of them did and I can only hope they went home and taught their parents a thing or two...

And speaking of birds...

The US government always seems to make its business the status of various species in the nation. A quick glance at the Endangered Species List, limits placed upon the harvest of certain species of fish -we're always being told not to go overboard in our exploitation of species... until one ventures into the agricultural sector. Since livestock aren't "naturally-occurring" like wild salmon, but are instead "produced," the concerns over exploitation fizzle away. This does not, however, mean that our government takes a hands-off approach.

As demand for chicken meat remains far below the number of birds who are actually being raised and killed, rather than allowing the market to adjust to basic supply and demand principles, the federal government Monday announced it will buy $40 million of unwanted chicken products that will be distributed to our nation's school kids and others in federal food programs.

In short, chicken-meat companies have continued increasing the number of birds they raise for food while demand has remained flat. Normally, in a free market, an industry that produces beyond what consumers want will contract. The poultry industry (much like those farmers who grow nothing but GM corn and soybeans) instead relies on regular government support. Might I mention that these government-subsidezed chickens will be fed upon the aforementioned government subsidized corn and soybeans. The broiler chicken industry alone saved $1.25 billion in feed costs from 1997 to 2005 just from taxpayer-funded subsidies.

In such trying economic times... one must wonder...

The End of Communism Favors Smarter Songbirds

Scientists have discovered that recent regional differences observed in population trends among songbird species accross Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic are linked to increased brain size. Large brain size was correlated to strong population increases of respective songbird species in the Czech Republic since 1989 / 1990 and weaker increases in Eastern Germany. Almost no effect has been observed in North-Western Germany.

This difference between the former 'West' and 'East' suggests that this trend was driven by socieconomic changes that took place in the former communist regions. Relative brain size reflects species' cognitive abilities. The increase of such big-brained songbirds suggests that species with good cognitive abilities might have been better able to adapt to rapid changes. Sceintists speculate that the socioeconomic change and the novel opportunities that would have subsequently arisen after the end of communism provided the change in environment to which these birds adapted. In short, the environmental changes that followed the end of communism favored smarter birds.

Authors of this study suggest that future research should expand to consider more regions. This would enable comparison of relationships between socioeconomic change and its impact on bird populations across nations and give a greater insight on the effects of communism and its downfall on bird populations.

I thought it was pretty cool.

Drug Recycling

Pharmaceutical waste is a really, really big problem, contaminating waterways and potable water and making people and animals sick... or hermaphroditic. It is also a really, really expensive problem. Americans dispose of an estimated $1 billion worth of unused medications every single year. So, not only are we polluting our environment with drugs, we're wasting a lot of money (and with the all controvery over Medicare, Medicaid recently... well...).

A 2008 study found the presence of pharmaceuticals in the water supply of 24 major municipalities nationwide. As legislators push for stronger regulation including extended product responsibility for the drug makers themselves, the truth is that pharmacuticals are big business that depends on throughput for profits. That is to say, the more people watse, the more they have to buy and the more money companies make. And if you don’t believe me, just count the number of drug commercials you see in a 15-minute daytime television viewing.

Global pharmaceutical sales were forecasted at $825 billion last year. Pharmaceutical waste is viewed as an unfortunate bi-product of a profitable, innovative, and admittedly necessary industry. But while some see pharmecutical waste as an unfortunate bi-product of the industry, others see it as an untapped resource.

With each leak into the water system, money is being wasted -and that means there are unmet profits out there. And so, some companies, such as Blue Zone, creators of anaesthetics, decided to create certain "proprietary technologies" to reclaim their waste adn even distill it into its origional componets. They've created a nearly closed-loop delivery system. Yes, this, my friends, is pharmecutical super-recycling.

This technology represents one of the first financially viable solutions to the growing problem of pharmaceutical waste in the environment. As the company is now registered as a generic anesthesia manufacturer in both Canada and the United States, Blue Zone promises a solution that generates pharmaceutical industry profits. The company is poised to literally collect millions of dollars from the operating room waste bin.

Supercool if you ask me.

Cross-Dresser

From personal experience, I've found that people who are really into fashion are really intense about it. Scarily so at times. I've known some to place it above all else, as if they would "die for fashion!" First, I don't think that this is normal, acceptable or healthy. Secondly, new research suggests that it's not healthy for everyone else either.

A Greenpeace investigation has discovered a chemical called nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) in clothing made by 14 major brands, including Adidas, H&M, Converse and Abercrombie and Fitch. Oh, and NPE just happens to be highly toxic. NPE breaks down to form nonylphenol in water, which disrupts hormone levels and has been known to cause fish and amphibians to change gender.

Due to its persistence in the environment, nonylphenol builds up in each level in the food chain, much like the bioaccumulation experienced with DDT. And in case you are rather apathetic toward fish and frogs,this bioaccumulation means that humans receive the highest dosage of toxins and can suffer from hormone imbalances as a result of eating contaminated fish and drinking contaminated water.

NPE is banned from use in textile production in the EU but in China and other Asian countries such as Vietnam (where many global clothing brands source their products from -big surprise) lax restrictions mean that NPE is widely used in the dyeing process.

Some of the clothing labels named in Greenpeace's study have retaliated, with many disputing the significance of the findings. H&M have claimed that the because the methods used for testing NPE levels are "uncertain", studies such as Greenpeace's that rely on a low threshold of contamination are not viable. 'Since the level of the findings stated [by Greenpeace] are very low, you cannot show that our products contain nonylphenol ethoxylate,' the company said in a statement to the journal Ecologist.

Adidas has also pointed out that the NPE levels found by Greenpeace in their own products were all below 100mg/kg. In comparison, one Converse t-shirt in Greenpeace’s study was found to have 27,000mg/kg. 'The concentration was well below our own threshold,' Katja Schreiber, an Adidas spokeswoman, told the Ecologist. Schreiber did, however, add that the findings were, 'a clear sign that we need to continue to work in decreasing the amount of chemical substances in our products.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "cross-dresser" if you ask me.

American Wasteland

It's been a while since I've posted anything, and all I've got to show for it is another book. While spending my summer as a "sustainable agriculture intern" at Gorman Heritage Farm, I found some time to read this book, which delves into just how Americans manage to send so much (eatable) food to the landfill every single day.

Jonathan Bloom's chronicle of waste from farm to fork shows just how lengthy and extended out food production and distribution process is, and how waste occurs with every step. From waste in the fields (some crops are actually not harvested due to low market prices or "suspect quality") to mishaps in transportation to distributers and then retailers, a gros amount of veggies don't even make it to your grocery store. And then, in order to maintain an image of bounty and peak freshness, retailers cull what they've bought, with the belief that the consumer won't buy unless it's perfect. And to be honest, this is partly true. Society has conditioned consumers to think of fresh fruits and veggies as only meeting a certain standard to be edible. This means that cucumbers that are too long or to short, and peppers that are "misshaped" and pears that have harmless spots are thrown out while perfectly edible, simply because they will be passed over by the consumer in search of "pretty food."

Then Bloom examines waste at the level of the individual. At restaurants (which waste large amounts of food in the form of day-old bread, leftover specials and mistaken orders, themselves) diners are served enormous portions of food that they often leave on their plates to be thrown in the trash. And survey research shows that many of those who do take a doggie bag of leftovers, often just throw them away at home later. And speaking of leftovers, apparently the distaste for reheated meals extends beyond the restaurant, with the rest of that cassarole being thrown out the night of, or its moldy and long forgotten guise being thrown out the week later.

He also points out that our shopping and cooking habits aren't exactly conducive to using up all of our food before it becomes inedible. Our large refridgerators accomodate our overfilled shopping carts, laden with food that will not be eaten before it goes bad, or will be lost and forgotten in the fridge while you go out an buy some more. Given that fewer and fewer households cook the way they did in slimmer times (think 1930s Depression era) we often don't know how to use what we have creatively and will buy special ingredients for a recipe we make once and don't know what to do with the rest. And then there's our confusion with "sell by" and "best by" dates on the label.

Throughout his work, Bloom hits on the many ways americans waste almost half of the food we produce/buy (a Rose Bowl full of food every day) and the consequences such waste has. In addition, he also explains just why not all this edible food is not going to those who need it. Health code laws, underfunded agencies and the sheer bulk and perishability of the food that is discarded make it impossible for it to get to the hungry.

Ending his book not with lament, but with a positive, procative approach to what we can do to reduce potable food waste, Bloom's work is enlightening as well as empowering. Too many downers in books covering environmental issues nowadays, if you ask me.