When I wrote about the Torygraph article indicating that new European Union regulations mandated that animals on British organic farms now be treated first with homeopathy, I had a few reservations. As I could find no confirmation of that bizarre story on other sites, I said this:
Now let me give a caveat here: the story appears to have originated in theTorygraph, and has been taken from that report by other venues. So there’s a possibility that this is bogus. Stay tuned.
Well, the story was somewhat incorrect, as I’ve just been informed by the eagle-eyed Matthew Cobb, who pointed me to an article on FullFact.org, which says this:
The Telegraph reports of a “new EU directive which came into force in January”. We can’t find any evidence that there is such a directive.
. . . The main EU regulation dealing with organic farming was made in 2007. It says that sick animals can be treated with ordinary medicine, including antibiotics, when the use of more natural remedies is “inappropriate”.
More detailed rules from 2008 list products that should be preferred to medicine and antibiotics “provided that their therapeutic effect is effective”. These include homeopathic products, but also various vitamins and compounds of mineral origin.
If they don’t work, and treatment is needed to prevent the animal from suffering, a vet should be called in.
Well, this seems to be a distinction without a difference, for homeopathic products (and perhaps the other remedies) aren’t “therapeutically effective.” We know that for homeopathic medicines, for they’re just woo-water. And the placebo effect certainly can’t operate in animals, even if there was one. So the EU was still deeply misguided in its directive. Organic or not, the best treatment for a sick animal is scientific veterinary medicine. Here’s an excerpt from the 2008 EU rules, section 24:
That is a requirement, not a suggestion! Woo medicine first! (Of course, I suppose farmers could decide that there’s no “therapeutic effect” of woo-medicine, and that in fact is what a smart farmer should do.)
The site does, however, explain why a affirmed in 2008 was touted seven years later on the Torygraph:
The Telegraph story was published on the evening of 24 April. On the 23rd, the Daily Mail had published a story on the organic rules as they relate to fish (as opposed to livestock), which date from 2009.
The Daily Mail, in turn, cites a Norwegian English-language website, The Local, which ran its story earlier the same day. It makes clear that the issue has come up because Norway, which has to take on board a lot of EU laws despite not being a member, is only now getting around to implementing the rules on organic fish. Its vets aren’t happy about the homeopathy element.
The Local references the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, which in its report on 22 April links through to those 2009 rules on organic aquaculture. Dagbladet confirms that they “are not new” (as per Google Translate).
. . . Another explanation is that the article picks up on a rather odd change to the rules in 2014: “homeopathic products” were put back on the list of approved organic treatments, having been “erroneously” removed in a 2012 amendment.
So the Torygraph was mistaken in saying that the directive was only now being enforced. But it was correct in reporting that real medicine was to be used on sick animals only when homeopathic and other “alternative” remedies were first used and failed. That’s just stupid.
Any story or statement that uses “allopathic” is presumptively quackish. There is scientific and all the other junk, like homeopathy, moxibustion, energy medicine, acupuncture, etc.
That was my first thought upon hearing about this. Perhaps the homeopathic rules are a plot by Big Ag to fool “organic” farmers into hobbling their own livestock – because that is the likely result for any farmer who delays treating sick animals by trying “alternative” remedies first.
Some placebo effects can and do operate in animals — for both good and bad. One of the things which falls under placebo is the perception of cause and effect when simple time and the natural immune system was all that was needed. Regression to the mean. If Bossie’s problem actually cleared up on its own then it’s just as well that antibiotics weren’t used.
That is, that’s a positive outcome if we ignore the fact that the farmer is now likely to be embedded into alt med and magical thinking because they “saw it work.”
A darker version of the placebo effect working on animals is when the owner sees what they expect to see and perceives improvement when there is none. “She was getting better … but then she died.” Maybe yes or no on the first half; a definite ‘yes’ on the second.
There’s another placebo effect that should be mentioned: the effect of the attention of the pet owner while administering the medicine.
There was this nice study which tried to prove this by comparing two groups of animals that were both “treated” with a placebo medicine. One group was treated with the medicine once every two days or so, the other group 4 times per day. The latter group improved significantly faster.
Bossie’s natural defenses came to my mind, too, which always makes me think of Granny Clampett’s folk remedy which was a guar-an-teed cure for the common cold: one dose and your cold is gone … in two to four days.
That’s an interesting note on the placebo effect in not-humans. Thanks!
“And the placebo effect certainly can’t operate in animals, even if there was one”
Not so. Our lab published on this very thing a few years back.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22871471
We ran into opposition (largely shown to be anthropocentric bias) in publishing and presenting at meetings. Now the placebo effect in animals is widely accepted by researchers in the pain/addiction/placebo research fields.
(This is NOT a defense of using homeopathic treatments on animals (which I consider to be abuse), but just to point out that the placebo effect in animals is present and measurable.)
An interesting paper; thanks for the comment. But I’m wondering why, given the complex design of your study, you think it applies directly to, say, donkeys in Kent given a drink of water when they’re sick.
It doesn’t apply to donkeys given a drink of water.
The point is that we tend to, as humans, have a biased perception of what animals can feel/perceive/do, and my comment was directly to your statement about animals ability to exhibit a measurable placebo effect.
So the placebo effect is not only on the farmers giving the woo to the moo cows as they witness their animals natural regression to a healthy state, but also on the animals themselves. Are they given the homeopathic water in the same place and manner they’d be given real medicine? Are they getting extra attention because they’re sick and the administration of the placebo is the same as the administration of real medicine thus causing the animal to associate the treatment with past treatments? Or are some of the animals treated with placebo sick for the first time? I’m asking because it’s easy to see how a placebo works with humans who may think they’re getting an opiate but harder to understand in an animal who may not even know it’s being treated for its illness. Is it possible that chemicals in their bodies may act on opiate receptors whenever they feel pain? Or did you already account for this possibility in the study? And have you done or read of placebo studies that use something other than analgesic effects on animals?
I’m not a scientist, so if my questions seem silly or naive please tell me so and I will accept that without feelings (except of course feelings of inferiority because I’m a lamebrain or a numbskull). Thank you.
My last comment on this post.
Please see my original comment. It was only addressing whether or not a placebo effect can be measured in animals. I made no claims about what is going on with the homeopathic treatment of animals mentioned in the post.
A hallmark of homeopathic claims is that you won’t find documentation of controlled experiments, and no peer reviewed publications by credible scientific journals. What is actually going on with these “treatments” is undocumented in any scientific sense, so not worthy of serious consideration.
And yes, there exists an endogenous opiate system in mammals (and other vertebrate orders as well) that inhibits the pain signal. We suspect the up regulation of endogenous opiate system by the reward/anticipatory centers in the brain is probably the reason for the placebo effect. In this particular study, this is supported by the fact that naloxone (an opiate antagonist) extinguishing the placebo effect.
Finally,
” I’m asking because it’s easy to see how a placebo works with humans who may think they’re getting an opiate but harder to understand in an animal who may not even know it’s being treated for its illness.”
See comment #7. Placebo is conditioning/suggestion in humans and other animals as well.
Thank you.
I should not have said “homeopathic water”. I meant the placebo you used, whatever it was, and in my mind if it’s not real medicine, it could just as well be homeopathic water as any other placebo.
My last question was meant to ask: “what were you doing that would make the patient think it was being treated or receiving medicine so that the placebo effect could take place”. Like did you give them the placebo the same way you had given them medicine in the past? If you stuck a placebo in a cow’s water without her knowing, could there be a placebo effect? How did you make the animal believe it should look forward to opiate-like relief?
I’m simply clarifying my questions. I don’t mean to belabor the point as it isn’t that important to me. I won’t be conducting any follow-up studies. Thanks again.
You substitute the placebo for the regular medication, keeping everything else the same. The animal is conditioned to expect pain relief following medication, and reacts to the placebo as if it were real medication, and you can measure that effect.
Looks like everyone beat me to the punch. My immediate question was wondering why it couldn’t work on animals. Saying otherwise seems to imply some sort of psychological self-healing ability, obviously something I know Jerry doesn’t advocate.
I am horrified by this.
Two problems I have been battling for the last several years re pasteurella and hypothiaminosis. Both require IMMEDIATE intervention in order for treatment to be successful. You don’t have a lot of screwing-around time with either.
I had two kids go down with hypothiaminosis just yesterday. The treatment is with B vitamins, not antibiotics, massive doses of B1 and B-Complex, but both kids are completely recovered today, whereas if I had given them a little bit in a bunch of water, they’d both be dead.
Pasteurella is even worse, and that DOES require antibiotics. I am now vaccinating for that, but I’ve still had cases. It can kill in a matter of hours, and it’s a horrible death. I have had kids, down and drooling, turn around within a couple of hours, be perfectly fine, and survive, but again, there is NO messing around time available for ineffective BS.
People who advocate that nonsense should be forced to watch what I’ve seen before they get so smug. L
It’s shocking to me that the EU would prefer homeopathic remedies etc over those that are scientifically proven, as it promotes cruelty to animals. The caveat in the legislation is dangerous. A remedy should not be allowed to be used unless it’s proven, and the EU should be protecting the animals.
One of my vets explained to me that the pasteurella bacteria start producing toxins, and it’s the toxins that kill them, by causing their tissues to hemorrhage, so that their organs turn to mush. If you start treating before the toxin stage, it’s fairly easy to kill off the bacteria, and they recover, but if you wait too long, you’ll kill the bacteria but the toxins will be present and do their damage.
So, yes, waiting is definitely cruelty. L
What alarming situations — even if your reference to the down and drooling “kids” means young goats rather than young Calhouns. Googling your diseases took me to veterinary sites. I admit I was a little bit relieved.
Sorry, didn’t mean to freak you out; I thought everybody here knew that I’m a goat farmer.
Yes, the situations can be very alarming, especially if you don’t know what’s happening.
But, these two diseases are ones that I’ve had a lot of experience with now, so I know what to do, and what drugs to keep on hand.
The hypothiaminosis is caused by toxins in a weed. Last year’s dead weeds blow against the fence and the kids eat them if I don’t get them removed in time. Because the toxin’s effect is proportional to body weight, it causes problems in the kids that it doesn’t in the mature animals. Plus, the mature animals don’t usually eat that stuff anyway.
It can be a real problem in range cattle as well, since they might eat a whole lot of the kochia if it’s the only thing available where they’re grazing. Nasty stuff, that. L
“The hypothiaminosis is caused by toxins in a weed. Last year’s dead weeds blow against the fence and the kids eat them if I don’t get them removed in time. Because the toxin’s effect is proportional to body weight, it causes problems in the kids that it doesn’t in the mature animals. Plus, the mature animals don’t usually eat that stuff anyway.”
Very interesting. Of our last herdlet of goats, two out of three experienced periodic bouts of polioencephalomalacia, which sounds like what you might be calling hypothiaminosis. (At least, the cure for goat “polio” is immediate thiamine injections.)
WE were never able to ascertain a cause, nor was our vet, and he and other vets we consulted seemed to feel that the cause was largely unknown. (We ruled out wilted black cherry leaves, sweet-clover, etc.)
I’m sorry, I know that this has real consequences and I’m not obtuse to that, but I just have to laugh at how silly that law is. Why not make auto mechanics say a prayer to a whole rolodex of pagan gods before they can use their tools to actually fix your car? At least an old BMW isn’t gonna die while your mechanic makes an offering to Freya.
Livestock are an investment, no? Well, that’s a pretty ambivalent way to treat an investment and a living creature.
I can’t wait to hear what my veterinarian friend will say when she hears about this foolishness.
This is an EU scare story attempting to generate fear in the run-up to the election.
“And the placebo effect certainly can’t operate in animals, even if there was one.”
To the extent that true placebo effects operate (rather than positive effects resulting from observer or participant bias that are often mistakenly called placebo effects), a likely mechanism is Pavolvian conditioning, which does operate in animals.
Right. Twice a day I give my cat oral pain meds for arthritis. If, after months of this, she somehow failed to learn that a squirt in the mouth is followed shortly thereafter by a reduction in joint pain, that would be an anomaly in need of explanation.
It is disappointing to me that a news item is treated as automatically suspect just because it is sourced from a right of centre newspaper such as the Telegraph. And endlessly disparaging the paper as the “Torygraph” may seem amusing but such treatment is not in my opinion conducive to any rational discourse. The Telegraph has generally been much more positive on topics that we here at WEIT would see as needing an expression of a proper “secular viewpoint” – including issues of faith schools, assisted dying, and the pernicious influence of religion on British social legislation. The paper has been a staunch opponent of multi-cultural relativism that excuses and allows some terrible abuses of women arising from religious doctrine.
On the issue of farming and animal welfare only the Telegraph has maintained a consistent stance against the appalling practice of ritual slaughter, which for papers such as the Guardian have long equivocated.
And it was the Telegraph that revealed the expenses scandal – something that destroyed the reputation of the UK Parliament and was, I believe, in part at least, responsible for the growth of what were once fringe parties in the UK.
Just suppose for a moment that homeopathic nostrums really were effective, just suppose.
How would you give one to a fish?
Getting to the story in the Mail, I’m intrigued by the idea of homeopathy for fish. I can see that a fish out of water might suffer and that adding water might help. So perhaps we have a real positive use for the approach.
I suspect that massively overdosing on homeopathic remedies will also probably cure dehydration in humans.
But by opposites day rules that homeopathy follows, an overdose is extremely diluted active ingredient, but taking only a super small drop of it, so no it wouldn’t.