FUNDING Why, you may ask, does the Pet Welfare Alliance need your support to take direct action on behalf of pets? Because the odds are massively stacked against our pets. Pets are cash cows for the multi-billion pet products industry. The industry goes largely unchecked, and spends BILLIONS to persuade pet owners to buy their products, and veterinarians to prescribe them – whether or not those products are good for the animals. Don’t misunderstand: the Pet welfare Alliance is not against anyone or anything - we are just aware that the pet products industry is poorly legislated and the safeguards are not in place to protect our pets adequately. This is the ‘system’ behind the dog or cat in front of you. Everyone except the animals themselves, and their owners, make money from pets:
|
The Pet Welfare Alliance Needs Funds to: Write to veterinarians and update them on vaccine duration of immunity and adverse effects With your support in the future, we will also: Write to boarding kennels, dog clubs, dog show organisers, etc., to give them the latest science on vaccines and pet food Write to veterinarians to share the health benefits of natural feeding Advertise on TV to tell pet owners that annual vaccinations are not necessary Advertise on TV to share the benefits of natural feeding Lobby government and legislators Have Pet Welfare Alliance representatives on committees that approve drugs and products for the pet market Advise pet owners and, if required, give legal support Run and manage the Pet Welfare Alliance as an effective lobby for good pet health and counteract Big Business sales at the expense of life |
Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with making money. Everyone has to do it to survive on the planet. However, unchecked, profits are often placed ahead of life.
Let’s look at some of the business statistics relating to the animals we share our lives and homes with:
Let’s look at some of the business statistics relating to the animals we share our lives and homes with:
§ During 2011, American pet owners spent $50.84 billion on their pets. This is
broken down into:
§ Food $19.53 billion
Supplies/OTC Medicine $11.4 billion
Vet Care $14.11 billion
Live animal purchases $2.15 billion
Pet Services: grooming & boarding $3.65 billion
§ News service Reuters reported that the veterinary vaccine industry should
reach $3.8 BILLION by 2013.
§ In the UK, two companies dominate the pet food market. The UK is a small
country – upscale the figures for North America and mainland Europe:
o Whiskas canned is the number one brand in the UK, with sales of £87.5m.
o It is followed by Pedigree canned (£82.1m) and Nestlé's Felix canned (£82.0m).
o Procter & Gamble's "super premium" dry dog food is marketed under the Iams
brand. Initially sold through specialist retailers and vets, it was introduced into
mainstream supermarkets in April 2001, backed by a £28m marketing
campaign. “Iams provides an excellent example of how a change in distribution
channel can significantly improve sales,” say the marketing executives.
Let’s stop and think about this. £28 million pounds were spent by one company in one year to promote one pet food brand in one country. You may be appalled to be told that this money buys the way your mind thinks. But it does.
As the 2007 North American pet food recall showed, most of the pet food brands are made by one company, with mostly the same ingredients going into each brand. The only real difference between brands is the way in which they are marketed. Branding is everything, content is largely industrial waste.
Our dogs and cats are BIG BUSINESS. Products are sold at us by highly sophisticated marketing machines within highly lucrative, highly professional, sales organisations.
Web sites funded by individual dog owners, internet discussion groups and facebook are wonderful and do a lot of good to promote ethical pet care, nutritious food, and to warn against the pitfalls of modern drugs and over-vaccination – but they are no match for BIG BUSINESS BILLIONS.
Take a look at how specialist industry magazines talk about you and your pets. In this instance it’s the veterinary drugs industry:
- Total global sales of veterinary medicines amounted to US$11,330 million, a growth of 2.5% from the previous year. By species, the companion animal sector accounts for US$4,165 million, having 36.8% share of global sales. The rest of the sales are from medication used to treat food-producing animals
- Since 1991, the animal health industry has grown by only 1.9% per annum in real terms, compared with the human health-care industry that is touching double-digit growth
- In the past five years, various issues in animal agriculture such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the growing preference for poultry meat and pork, which require fewer animal health inputs, has compounded problems in the food animal sector, reducing its growth to only 0.7 per cent per annum in real terms
- However, one species sector has shown robust growth within this market: companion animals. Since 1991, the companion animal market has grown at 6.6 per cent per annum in real terms, which almost matches human health care.
SHOULD YOU BE FOCUSING ON THE COMPANION ANIMAL MARKET?
Although the pet population has increased marginally, the key driver for growth has been
the willingness of pet owners to spend more on the health of their animals and the ability
of veterinarians to meet that need.
The opportunity to provide long-term care for ageing pets is an attractive one. The human
-pet bond has a high economic ceiling, and both veterinarians and the animal health
industry have recognised the potential of this market segment.
The value of treating chronic conditions has been demonstrated by the evolution of the
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) market for canine arthritis. Perhaps the
next growth segments to follow the explosion in heartworm control since the early
1990s, flea-and-tick control since the mid-1990s and NSAIDs for arthritis since the late
1990s, could be behavioural drugs for canine cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular
drugs for congestive heart failure.
Although the pet population has increased marginally, the key driver for growth has been
the willingness of pet owners to spend more on the health of their animals and the ability
of veterinarians to meet that need.
The opportunity to provide long-term care for ageing pets is an attractive one. The human
-pet bond has a high economic ceiling, and both veterinarians and the animal health
industry have recognised the potential of this market segment.
The value of treating chronic conditions has been demonstrated by the evolution of the
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) market for canine arthritis. Perhaps the
next growth segments to follow the explosion in heartworm control since the early
1990s, flea-and-tick control since the mid-1990s and NSAIDs for arthritis since the late
1990s, could be behavioural drugs for canine cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular
drugs for congestive heart failure.
What the market analysts and money men don’t seem to talk about when they’re talking about profits and growth is the fact that vaccines are known to cause arthritis, and a potential side-effect of NSAIDs and some of the heartworm products is death. Neither do they discuss the fact that that herbs and nutrients can help with cognitive dysfunction - but governments around the world are in the process of banning many herbs and supplements.
§ Big business has tremendous influence within government, and there are revolving
doors between big corporations and the government departments that license
drugs and pet food - and which, importantly, are supposed to ensure the safety
and efficacy of veterinary products.
§ Big business targets veterinarians who are seen as part of the sales force, helping
to promote their products.
§ Government also ties the hands of veterinarians. In the UK, for instance, it is illegal
for vets to prescribe cheaper generic drugs. Who benefits from this? You? Your
pets? Veterinarians? Or big business?
A UK Government report, House of Commons Health Committee “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”, found at this link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
made the following statements about the pharmaceutical industry in relation to drugs for humans. Bear in mind that the legislation for companion animals is nowhere near as ‘good’.
. Throughout this inquiry, we received much evidence about the influence of the
pharmaceutical industry. We were told that it permeates the health service,
regulatory and licensing bodies, research institutions, Government, and the public
perception of medicines. The extent of this influence was pithily expressed by Dr
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet:
The pharmaceutical industry has been enormously successful at inter-digitating
itself in the usual process of healthcare in the UK. It provides people; it provides
equipment, services, buildings, facilities and, of course, hospitality. At almost
every level of NHS care provision the pharmaceutical industry shapes the
agenda and the practice of medicine.
Take a look at Canine Health Concern's correspondence with the British Veterinary Medicines Directorate here. The exact same complaints about the way in which the veterinary pharmaceutical industry influences our government, legislators, the veterinary profession, veterinary teaching, animal charities, and pet owners themselves. The UK Government report continued:
. Marketing and promotional activity in the pharmaceutical industry has increased in
recent years. Since 1995, research staff numbers have fallen by 2% while marketing
staff numbers have increased dramatically. Much competition appears to be
based on marketing techniques and PR.
It’s the same with veterinary pharmaceuticals, except that it’s probably worse. There are more safeguards and checks levied to deliver a parcel to your door than there are on ensuring the safety of products for the companion animal market. Marketing (selling) within these massive corporations are both science and art form. A great deal of money and research has gone into understanding how the minds of doctors (and veterinarians and the pet owning public) can be manipulated:
According to Dr Herxheimer, the influence of the industry:
“…is mediated…by the huge volume of pharmaceutical promotion, direct and
indirect …and intense public relations activity. Competition in the industry is based far
more on innovative marketing methods and public relations than on the effectiveness
and safety of its products.”
The aggressive promotion of medicines shortly after launch, the sheer volume of
information that is received in its many forms by prescribers and the “promotional
hospitality masquerading as education”, in the absence of effective countervailing
forces, all contribute to the inappropriate prescription of medicines.
Did you know that veterinarians are required to keep abreast of scientific advancements and to attend a certain number of educational events each year? But did you know that most veterinary further education is delivered by what Dr Patricia Jordan calls ‘dinners of misinformation’ …. pharmaceutical industry junkets where the latest drugs are showcased. The Government report continued:
At the same time, the blame for inadequate or misinformed prescribing
decisions does not only lie with the pharmaceutical industry, but with doctors and
other prescribers who do not keep abreast of medicines information and are
sometimes too willing to accept hospitality from the industry and act uncritically on
the information supplied by the drug companies.
More pertinently for your pets, Dr Jean Dodds, the world-renowned and highly respected veterinary researcher states:
I totally embrace my profession and always have, but the pharmaceutical industry
has considerable influence on it; there is a huge marketing effort here – that’s their
job. We are the ones that need to ‘sift’ this information appropriately. We, the
consumer professionals, have allowed this influence to go unchecked. It’s time for
senior members of our profession to step up and place controls on the commercial
influence upon relatively naive veterinary students and new graduates. This influence
is even stronger in the pet food and supplements industry. The government also
needs to be more proactive and keep up to date.
With regard to traditional veterinary products such as steroids, NSAIDs,
preventatives and antibiotics, we as professionals using these products need to
more effectively reign-in commercialism.
The Government report added:
A considerable number of documents described PR activity targeting patients and the
consumer press. It is clear that PR activity is vital and part of a coherent strategy,
both reactive and proactive, for many pharmaceutical companies. Specifically, this
activity is consistently designed to tap into and exploit the target audience’s
emotions and deliberate efforts are made to build emotional elements into
campaigns. One document mentions the specific targeting of consumers, while
another mentions the use of “patient case studies for use in articles/press and media
interviews”, with a view to targeting patients and patient groups.
Intervet Schering Plough’s ‘National Vaccination Month’ or ‘Vaccination Amnesty’ marketing campaign is designed to lure pet owners into the vet’s so they can give dogs, cats and rabbits the full initial series of vaccines if their pets have “lapsed” on their boosters by 18 months. The TRUTH is that dogs, cats and rabbits can’t have “lapsed” because immunity to the core viral diseases lasts for up to the LIFETIME of the animal.
Despite the industry’s clear intent to deceive the pet owning public, it has not been possible to persuade the licensing body, government, or even the Advertising Standards Authority to halt this misleading campaign. The result is that pet owners take their friends to their vets and pay for vaccines that are not needed. Potential adverse effects of vaccines are scientifically documented to include cancer, leukaemia, thyroid disease, diabetes, epilepsy and other forms of brain damage, arthritis, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, arthritis, allergies and a whole range of immune-mediated diseases.
Added to this, major animal charities support Intervet’s National Vaccination Month, appearing in press releases to persuade pet owners to over-vaccinate their friends. We would like to know if these charities receive funding from the veterinary vaccine industry – but this information is not made public. The Government report highlighted this problem:
The need for charities’ relationship with the industry to be transparent was
repeatedly made. At present, however, there is no requirement for such groups to
declare to the general public the names of donors or the type or amount of support
received. A report by Health Which? found that, of 125 patient organisation websites,
donors were listed on 32.
Only two groups (Diabetes UK and the Alzheimer’s Society) explained their funding
policy. Furthermore, links between charities and industry may be interpreted
differently by patients and the charities themselves, with the sponsors products seen
as, “preferable by the charity associating itself with the company”.
The government report concluded:
The pharmaceutical industry’s promotional efforts are relentless and pervasive.
The British Government report also stated:
The pharmaceutical industry in turn exerts a strong influence on drug regulatory
policy and process. This influence can be expected to increase because the EU will
take more responsibility for drug licensing and because of the trend to global
development of regulatory standards and protocols.
Referring to the situation in America, the report added:
While our inquiry was taking place, Dr David Graham, Associate Director for Science
and Medicine in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, gave relevant evidence to the US
Senate Committee on Finance in hearings following the withdrawal of Vioxx and
subsequently spoke about the relationship between regulators and industry:
“The FDA has become an agent of industry. I have been to many, many internal
meetings and, as soon as a company says it is not going to do something, the FDA backs
down. The way it talks about industry is 'our colleagues in industry'… it is rather because
the body is entirely geared towards concentrating on approving drugs, doing little once
they are on the market.”
Note that Vioxx was a COX-2 inhibitor, an NSAID – the same class of drug as Rimadyl and Metacam. Vioxx was taken off the market after killing thousands of human beings. After killing dogs, the FDA demanded that the manufacturers of NSAIDs provide datasheets to pet owners warning them of the potential side-effect of death. Outside of the USA, where the FDA has no jurisdiction, pet owners are still in the dark.
During our correspondence with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, it became very clear that this government department is set up to fast-track drugs through the licensing process, defend the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, and underplay any adverse effects from veterinary drugs and biologics. Appealing to our politicians had no effect.
Even on the subject of reactions to human medicine, the Government report stated:
Post-marketing surveillance in the UK is inadequate. This has several causes: the
lack of effective post-marketing investigation of drug benefits and harms in real life
situations, and institutional indifference to the experience and reports of medicine
users. In addition, the focus on drug licensing and on the safety profiles of individual
drugs has contributed to a dearth of information about the overall impact of drug
induced illness in the community.
In its conclusion, the Government report stated:
The process by which drugs are licensed is far from transparent. There is no public
access to the data presented by the pharmaceutical companies nor to the
assessments undertaken by the MHRA. There is not enough involvement of patients,
the public and the wider scientific community, and the Agency does not listen or
communicate well. After years of intense secrecy surrounding UK drug regulation, we
welcome the MHRA’s commitment to improve external communications, and to give
patients a greater voice, but we are not convinced that these changes will be
sufficient to counter the current inadequate state of affairs.
Once again, the above paragraph describes the problems associated with the pharmaceutical industry where human drugs are concerned. The situation with drugs for companion animals is dire in comparison. Pet owners are treated with derision and contempt. The committees which approve veterinary drugs and vaccines are staffed by people who take money from the veterinary pharmaceutical industry. Not one pet owner is represented.
Do you know that when Carbaryl, a chemical used in flea control products for dogs, was deemed too toxic for human head lice shampoo (it causes cancer), and was taken off the market for humans, the VMD gave pet shampoo manufacturers 18 months to use up their stocks on dogs! Carbaryl is more cancerous to dogs than humans.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is supposed to ensure the safety and efficacy of veterinary products. BUT like many regulatory organisations, it is funded by fees from those it regulates. However, unlike many regulators, it competes with other European agencies for fee income. This situation has led to concerns that it may lose sight of the need to protect and promote animal health above all else as it seeks to win fee income from the pharmaceutical industry.
(Drug companies need licenses for their products. These licenses are provided by the regulatory agencies. But in Europe, any country can award a license and receive a fee for doing so, and the drug becomes legal Europe-wide. Therefore the regulatory bodies are earning money in competition with one-another. Safety and efficacy becomes a weak priority.)
America also has its regulatory problems. Witness the debacle surrounding the withdrawal of ProHeart6 from the market due to unacceptable levels of adverse reactions. The scientist at the FDA who pulled ProHeart6 was attacked by its manufacturer and lost her job at the FDA. Shortly after, ProHeart was back on the market.
Industry also plants its people on the boards and committees of veterinary bodies, and gives them sponsorship money. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association Vaccine Guidelines Group is sponsored by Intervet Schering-Plough. The British Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has committees staffed by industry people. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has committees staffed by scientists who take money from the companies they are regulating. Scratch beneath the surface of any organisation that can help license and sell pharmaceuticals, and you’ll find the pharmaceutical industry.
There is NO ORGANISATION sticking up for the interests of pets – just under-resourced individuals struggling alone because their pet died as a result of a veterinary pharmaceutical or inadequate nutrition.
It’s time for us to unite. Will you join us?