DOCSLIB.ORG

The Animal Welfare Bill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Animal Welfare Bill House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Animal Welfare Bill Third Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 7 December 2005 HC 683 Published on 14 December 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Mr Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde) (Chairman) Mr David Drew (Labour, Stroud) James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford & Southend East) Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford) Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak) Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury & Atcham) David Lepper (Labour, Brighton Pavilion) Mrs Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend) Mr Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland) Mr Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Sir Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South) David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire) Mr Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire) Mr Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon & Radnorshire) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Matthew Hamlyn (Clerk), Jenny McCullough (Second Clerk), Jonathan Little and Dr Antonia James (Committee Specialists), Marek Kubala (Inquiry Manager), Andy Boyd and Alison Mara (Committee Assistants) and Lizzie Broadbent (Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. The Animal Welfare Bill 1 Contents Report Page The Animal Welfare Bill 3 Formal Minutes 5 Witnesses 6 List of written evidence 7 The Animal Welfare Bill 3 The Animal Welfare Bill 1. In 2004 our predecessor Committee undertook detailed scrutiny of the Government’s draft Animal Welfare Bill, published in July that year. The Committee’s Report was published on 8 December 2004 and the Government replied on 14 February 2005.1 Defra accepted a great many of the Committee’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the structure of the Bill and the drafting of its definitions. The Department also promised to revisit the Regulatory Impact Assessment it had prepared for the draft Bill—a key document, given the range and extent of the delegated powers provided for in the draft Bill. 2. The Animal Welfare Bill was presented on 13 October 2005. On 24 October 2005 we announced a short inquiry to follow up the work of our predecessor Committee. We received 22 memoranda and are grateful to all those who submitted written evidence. We benefited from informal briefings from Defra officials and from Mr Mike Radford, Reader in Law at the University of Aberdeen, who also submitted written evidence.2 We held a single oral evidence session on 15 November with the Minister for Animal Welfare, Mr Ben Bradshaw MP, and Defra officials. 3. In replying to our predecessor Committee’s Report on the draft Bill, the Secretary of State said: The Committee’s hearings and the Report itself have been of considerable assistance in helping me improve the Bill, and I am confident that the Bill I am preparing for introduction is better as a result.3 Defra officials echoed her remarks in evidence to our inquiry.4 4. We are pleased that the Government has taken up our predecessor Committee’s recommendations in key areas and we agree that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny has helped to produce a better drafted Bill. Our predecessor Committee was especially concerned about the scope of the secondary legislation to be introduced by the Bill. We were therefore glad to receive reassurances from the Minister that the Government intends to undertake “full consultation” on the individual issues to be dealt with by means of secondary legislation.5 We share our predecessor Committee’s interest in the proposed secondary legislation on such matters as the docking of dogs’ tails, pet fairs, performing animals and animal sanctuaries,6 and we reiterate our predecessor Committee’s call for public consultation on, and the closest possible Parliamentary scrutiny of, the proposed secondary legislation in these areas.7 We also welcome the Animal Welfare Minister’s 1 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, First Report, Session 2004–05, The Draft Animal Welfare Bill, HC 52- I; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fourth Special Report, Session 2004–05, The Draft Animal Welfare Bill: Government Reply to the Committee’s Report, HC 385 2 Ev 58 3 HC (2004–05) 385, p1 4 Q 2 5 Q 81 6 HC (2004–05) 52-I, paras 336–341, 302–317, 370–385 and 362–369 7 HC (2004–05) 52-I, paras 316 and 367; paras 180–185 4 The Animal Welfare Bill commitment that the House will be given the opportunity to express its opinion on tail docking during the passage of the Bill.8 5. We are publishing all the written and oral evidence received as a follow-up to our predecessor Committee’s work and hope that it will inform the House’s scrutiny of the Bill at Second Reading and at subsequent stages. 8 Q 76 The Animal Welfare Bill 5 Formal Minutes Wednesday 7 December 2005 Members present: Mr Michael Jack, in the Chair Mr David Drew Mr Dan Rogerson James Duddridge Sir Peter Soulsby Patrick Hall David Taylor Lynne Jones Mr Shailesh Vara David Lepper Mr Roger Williams *** Draft Report [The Animal Welfare Bill], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read. Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 5 read and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House. Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence. Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House. *** [Adjourned till Wednesday 14 December at 2.30 p.m. 6 The Animal Welfare Bill Witnesses 15 November 2005 Page Mr Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Mr John Bourne, Head of Animal Welfare Division, and Ms Caroline Connell, Lawyer, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 12 The Animal Welfare Bill 7 List of written evidence 1. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 1, Ev 24 2. Kennel Club Ev 25 3. British Veterinary Association Ev 25 4. Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology Ev 27 5. The Dogs Trust Ev 28 6. Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare Ev 29 7. Bio Veterinary Group Ev 32 8. Animal Defenders International Ev 33 9. RSPCA Ev 36, Ev 65 10. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Ev 43 11. National Gamekeepers’ Association Ev 47 12. The Gamer Farmers’ Association Ev 47 13. Country Land and Business Association (CLA) Ev 48 14. National Farmers Union (NFU) Ev 49 15. Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) Ev 50 16. League Against Cruel Sports Ev 51 17. The Captive Animals’ Protections Society (CAPS) Ev 52 18. The Shellfish Network Ev 53 19. BirdsFirst Ev 54 20. Animal Protection Agency Ev 55 21. Mike Radford, Reader in Law, University of Aberdeen Ev 58 8 The Animal Welfare Bill Reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee since 2003 The following reports have been produced (Government responses in brackets): Session 2005–06 Second Report Reform of the EU Sugar Regime HC 585-I First Report The future for UK fishing: Government Response HC 532 Session 2004–05 Ninth Report Climate Change: looking forward HC 130-I (HC 533 05–06) Eighth Report Progress on the use of pesticides: the Voluntary HC 258 (HC 534 05–06) Initiative Seventh Report Food information HC 469 (HC 437 05–06) Sixth Report The future of UK fishing HC 122 (HC 532 05–06) Fifth Report The Government’s Rural Strategy and the draft HC 408-I (Cm 6574) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill Fourth Report Waste policy and the Landfill Directive HC 102 (Cm 6618) Third Report The Work of the Committee in 2004 HC 281 Second Report Dismantling Defunct Ships in the UK: Government HC 257 Reply First Report The draft Animal Welfare Bill HC 52-I (HC 385) Session 2003–04 Nineteenth Report Water Pricing: follow-up HC 1186 (HC 490 04–05) Eighteenth Report Dismantling of Defunct Ships in the UK HC 834 (HC 257 04–05) Seventeenth Report Agriculture and EU Enlargement HC 421 (HC 221 04–05) Sixteenth Report Climate Change, Water Security and Flooding HC 558 (HC 101 04–05) Fifteenth Report The Departmental Annual Report 2004 HC 707 (HC 100 04–05) Fourteenth Report Sites of Special Scientific Interest HC 475 (HC 1255) Thirteenth Report Bovine TB HC 638 (HC 1130) Twelfth Report Reform of the Sugar Regime HC 550-I (HC 1129) Eleventh Report GM Planting Regime HC 607 (HC 1128) Tenth Report Marine Environment: Government reply HC 706 Ninth Report Milk Pricing in the United Kingdom HC 335 (HC 1036) Eighth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Practical Ethics, Third Edition
    This page intentionally left blank Practical Ethics Third Edition For thirty years, Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics has been the classic introduction to applied ethics. For this third edition, the author has revised and updated all the chapters and added a new chapter addressing climate change, one of the most important ethical chal- lenges of our generation. Some of the questions discussed in this book concern our daily lives. Is it ethical to buy luxuries when others do not have enough to eat? Should we buy meat produced from intensively reared animals? Am I doing something wrong if my carbon footprint is above the global average? Other questions confront us as concerned citizens: equality and discrimination on the grounds of race or sex; abortion, the use of embryos for research, and euthanasia; political violence and terrorism; and the preservation of our planet’s environment. This book’s lucid style and provocative arguments make it an ideal text for university courses and for anyone willing to think about how she or he ought to live. Peter Singer is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He is the author or editor of more than forty books, including Animal Liberation (1975), Rethinking Life and Death (1996) and, most recently, The Life You Can Save (2009). In 2005, he was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Practical Ethics Third Edition PETER SINGER Princeton University and the University of Melbourne cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao˜ Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521707688 C Peter Singer 1980, 1993, 2011 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals Series: Animal Welfare
    springer.com Claudio Carere, Jennifer Mather (Eds.) The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals Series: Animal Welfare Takes animal welfare into a wholly new and challenging dimension Provides essays across various taxa Illustrates how and why welfare should be achieved and formally anchored Shares cutting-edge findings, helping readers understand invertebrates in care This book is devoted to the welfare of invertebrates, which make up 99% of animal species on earth. Addressing animal welfare, we do not often think of invertebrates; in fact we seldom consider them to be deserving of welfare evaluation. And yet we should. Welfare is a broad concern for any animal that we house, control or utilize – and we utilize invertebrates a lot. The Authors start with an emphasis on the values of non-vertebrate animals and discuss the 1st ed. 2019, XVIII, 248 p. 21 illus., 16 need for a book on the present topic. The following chapters focus on specific taxa, tackling illus. in color. questions that are most appropriate to each one. What is pain in crustaceans, and how might we prevent it? How do we ensure that octopuses are not bored? What do bees need to thrive, Printed book pollinate our plants and give us honey? Since invertebrates have distinct personalities and Hardcover some social animals have group personalities, how do we consider this? And, as in the 179,99 € | £159.99 | $219.99 European Union’s application of welfare consideration to cephalopods, how do the practical [1]192,59 € (D) | 197,99 € (A) | CHF regulatory issues play out? We have previously relegated invertebrates to the category ‘things’ 212,50 and did not worry about their treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Lactobacillus Reuteri DSM 17938 in Survival of Artemia Franciscana
    Role of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in survival of Artemia franciscana Development of a new experimental model for probiotic studies Tiziana Racca Master Degree Project in Infection Biology, 45 hp. VT 2020 Department of Molecular Sciences, SLU Supervisor: Stefan Roos Co-supervisor: Ludwig Lundqvist To my parents, who simply made it possible TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. POPULAR SCIENCE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 2. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 2 3. INTRODUCTION 3.1. Probiotics ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.2. Lactobacillus reuteri ............................................................................................................... 4 3.3. Artemia franciscana ................................................................................................................ 5 4. AIM ................................................................................................................................................ 7 5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 7 6. MATERIAL AND METHODS 6.1. Bacterial strains ....................................................................................................................... 8 6.2. Bacterial cultures
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Animal Protection Legislation Into Line with Its Purported Purposes: a Proposal for Equality Amongst Non- Human Animals
    Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 37 Issue 2 Spring 2020 Article 1 May 2020 Bringing Animal Protection Legislation Into Line With its Purported Purposes: A Proposal for Equality Amongst Non- Human Animals Jane Kotzmann Deakin University Gisela Nip Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Part of the Animal Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Jane Kotzmann and Gisela Nip, Bringing Animal Protection Legislation Into Line With its Purported Purposes: A Proposal for Equality Amongst Non-Human Animals, 37 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 247 (2020) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol37/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE Bringing Animal Protection Legislation Into Line With its Purported Purposes: A Proposal for Equality Amongst Non-Human Animals JANE KOTZMANN* & GISELA NIP† The United States has a strong history of enacting laws to pro- tect animals from the pain and suffering inflicted by humans. In- deed, the passage of the Massachusetts’ Body of Liberties in 1641 made it the first country in the world to pass such laws. Neverthe- less, contemporary animal protection laws in all jurisdictions of the United States are limited in their ability to adequately realize their primary purpose of protecting animals from unnecessary or unjus- tifiable pain and suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lobster Considered
    6 ! e Lobster Considered Robert C. Jones ! e day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. — Jeremy Bentham Is it not possible that future generations will regard our present agribusiness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero ’ s entertainments or Mengele ’ s experiments? — David Foster Wallace ! e arguments to prove man ’ s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in su" ering the animals are our equals. — Peter Singer In 1941 M. F. K. Fisher " rst asked us to consider the oyster,1 n o t a s a m o r a l but as a culinary exploration. Sixty-three years later when David Foster Wallace asked us to consider the lobster2 for ostensibly similar reasons, the investigation quickly abandoned the gustatory and took a turn toward the philosophical and ethical. In that essay, originally published in Gourmet magazine, Wallace challenges us to think deeply about the troubling ethical questions raised by the issue of lobster pain and our moral (mis)treatment of these friendly crustaceans. Since the publication of that essay, research on nonhuman animal sentience has exploded. News reports of the " ndings of research into animal behavior and cognition are common; 2010 saw the publication of a popular book of the title Do Fish Feel Pain? 3 In this essay, I accept Wallace ’ s challenge and argue not only that according to our best 1 M. F. K. Fisher, Consider the Oyster (New York: Still Point Press, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • The Takeover Chicken Farming and the Roots of American Agribusiness 1St Edition Download Free
    THE TAKEOVER CHICKEN FARMING AND THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN AGRIBUSINESS 1ST EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE Monica Gisolfi | 9780820349718 | | | | | Journal of Southern History Drawing on USDA files, oral history, congressional records, and poultry publications, Gisolfi puts a local The Takeover Chicken Farming and the Roots of American Agribusiness 1st edition on one of the twentieth century's silent agribusiness revolutions. Book Description Condition: New. A United Nations press release states: "Governments, local authorities and international agencies need to take a greatly increased role in combating the role of factory-farming, commerce in live poultry, and wildlife markets which provide ideal conditions for the virus to spread and mutate into a more dangerous form Animal euthanasia Cruelty to animals Pain in animals Pain in amphibians Pain in cephalopods Pain in crustaceans Pain in fish Pain in invertebrates Pain and suffering in laboratory animals Welfare of farmed insects. Poultry producers routinely use nationally approved medications, such as antibiotics, in feed or drinking water, to treat disease or to prevent disease outbreaks. Delaware Online. Following a trajectory from Reconstruction through the Great Depression to the present day, Monica R. How did the modern poultry industry emerge from a region of cotton farms? Australian Broadcasting Corp. Main article: Yarding. Osteoporosis may be prevented by free range and cage-free housing systems, as they have shown to have a beneficial impact on the skeletal system of the hens compared to those housed in caged systems. New Quantity Available: 3. In the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Defra states that a free-range chicken must have day- time access to open-air runs during at least half of its life.
    [Show full text]
  • Humane Slaughter of Edible Decapod Crustaceans
    animals Review Humane Slaughter of Edible Decapod Crustaceans Francesca Conte 1 , Eva Voslarova 2,* , Vladimir Vecerek 2, Robert William Elwood 3 , Paolo Coluccio 4, Michela Pugliese 1 and Annamaria Passantino 1 1 Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, Polo Universitario Annunziata, 981 68 Messina, Italy; [email protected] (F.C.); [email protected] (M.P.); [email protected] (A.P.) 2 Department of Animal Protection and Welfare and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic; [email protected] 3 School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK; [email protected] 4 Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence-Viale Pieraccini, 6-50139 Firenze, Italy; paolo.coluccio@unifi.it * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Decapods respond to noxious stimuli in ways that are consistent with the experi- ence of pain; thus, we accept the need to provide a legal framework for their protection when they are used for human food. We review the main methods used to slaughter the major decapod crustaceans, highlighting problems posed by each method for animal welfare. The aim is to identify methods that are the least likely to cause suffering. These methods can then be recommended, whereas other methods that are more likely to cause suffering may be banned. We thus request changes in the legal status of this group of animals, to protect them from slaughter techniques that are not viewed as being acceptable. Abstract: Vast numbers of crustaceans are produced by aquaculture and caught in fisheries to Citation: Conte, F.; Voslarova, E.; meet the increasing demand for seafood and freshwater crustaceans.
    [Show full text]
  • |||GET||| Do Fish Feel Pain? 1St Edition
    DO FISH FEEL PAIN? 1ST EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE Victoria Braithwaite | 9780199551200 | | | | | Do fish feel pain? The king pulls the smaller bird into the palace, infuriating the hawk, which demands replacement for its lost meal, so he slices off his own arm and foot to feed it. Thank you for taking your time to send in your valued opinion to Science X editors. The argument over fish feeling pain has driven a wedge between anglers and animal-rights activists, but one of the study's authors feels the divisive debate is unproductive. Share Twit Share Email. You can be assured our editors closely monitor every feedback sent and will take Do Fish Feel Pain? 1st edition actions. User comments. Fish and Fisheries. ILAR Journal. Do Fish Feel Pain? 1st edition Read Edit View history. In a study, fish were injected in the lips with bee venom or an acid solution. Movement groups, parties. The monk was wearing a white mask like those that some Jains wear to avoid inhaling insects and other tiny creatures. Emotional pain is the pain experienced in the absence of physical trauma, e. The places where they worship and tend to animals seemed, to me, like good places to contemplate the Do Fish Feel Pain? 1st edition frontier of animal-consciousness research. Do Fish Feel Pain? 1st edition Bees love getting high on caffeine. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C. Independent Premium comments 0 Independent Premium comments Open comments 0 open comments. These receptors send electrical signals through nerve-lines and the spinal cord to the cerebral cortex neocortex.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare
    Animal Welfare Series Editor Clive Phillips School of Veterinary Science University of Queensland Gatton, QLD Australia Advisory Editors Marieke Cassia Gartner Atlanta, GA, USA Karen F. Mancera Mexico City, Mexico Fiona C. Rioja-Lang Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5675 Claudio Carere • Jennifer Mather Editors The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals Editors Claudio Carere Jennifer Mather Department of Ecological and Biological Department of Psychology Sciences, Ichthyogenic Experimental University of Lethbridge Marine Centre (CISMAR) Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada University of Tuscia Tarquinia, Viterbo, Italy ISSN 1572-7408 Animal Welfare ISBN 978-3-030-13946-9 ISBN 978-3-030-13947-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13947-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Abdominal Cutaneous Nerve Entrapment Syndrome (ACNES): a Commonly Overlooked Cause of Abdominal Pain
    clinical contributions Abdominal Cutaneous Nerve Entrapment Syndrome (ACNES): A Commonly Overlooked Cause of Abdominal Pain By William V Applegate, MD, FABFP Introduction two patients with this diagnosis for every 150 patients Abdominal cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome overall but have seen as many as three such patients (ACNES) may sound like an esoteric condition rarely per consultation session in a busy evening clinic where seen by clinicians but is a common condition. When a 15 or more clinicians were on duty. patient is seen for abdominal pain without other clini- Acute cases of ACNES are usually seen in the evening, cally significant symptoms, ACNES should be high on especially in spring and summer, when people are more the list of likely diagnoses. active. Chronic and recurrent cases are more likely to Beginning in 1792 with J P Frank’s description of the be seen in the daytime throughout the year. condition he named “peritonitis muscularis,”1 a sam- To avoid causing the patient unnecessary anxiety and pling of pertinent medical literature on this subject2-9 tension, loss of work time, and both the expense and shows how often the subject has been written about possible hazard of multiple diagnostic procedures, the over the years. These articles state that abdominal wall first physician examining the patient must establish the pain is often wrongly attributed to intra-abdominal dis- diagnosis of ACNES if this condition is present. Com- orders and that this misdirected diagnosis can lead to piled from my own experience and that of other inves- unnecessary consultation, testing, and even abdominal tigators who have written about ACNES, the informa- surgery, all of which can be avoided if the initial exam- tion presented here should give readers the tools iner makes the right diagnosis.
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH ARTICLE Shock Avoidance by Discrimination Learning in the Shore Crab (Carcinus Maenas) Is Consistent with a Key Criterion for Pain
    353 The Journal of Experimental Biology 216, 353-358 © 2013. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd doi:10.1242/jeb.072041 RESEARCH ARTICLE Shock avoidance by discrimination learning in the shore crab (Carcinus maenas) is consistent with a key criterion for pain Barry Magee and Robert W. Elwood* School of Biological Sciences, Queenʼs University, Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) SUMMARY Nociception allows for immediate reflex withdrawal whereas pain allows for longer-term protection via rapid learning. We examine here whether shore crabs placed within a brightly lit chamber learn to avoid one of two dark shelters when that shelter consistently results in shock. Crabs were randomly selected to receive shock or not prior to making their first choice and were tested again over 10 trials. Those that received shock in trial 2, irrespective of shock in trial 1, were more likely to switch shelter choice in the next trial and thus showed rapid discrimination. During trial 1, many crabs emerged from the shock shelter and an increasing proportion emerged in later trials, thus avoiding shock by entering a normally avoided light area. In a final test we switched distinctive visual stimuli positioned above each shelter and/or changed the orientation of the crab when placed in the chamber for the test. The visual stimuli had no effect on choice, but crabs with altered orientation now selected the shock shelter, indicating that they had discriminated between the two shelters on the basis of movement direction. These data, and those of other recent experiments, are consistent with key criteria for pain experience and are broadly similar to those from vertebrate studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Protect Decapod Crustaceans Used As Models in Biomedical Research and in Ecotoxicology? Ethical and Legislative Considerations
    animals Article Why Protect Decapod Crustaceans Used as Models in Biomedical Research and in Ecotoxicology? Ethical and Legislative Considerations Annamaria Passantino 1,* , Robert William Elwood 2 and Paolo Coluccio 3 1 Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina-Polo Universitario Annunziata, 98168 Messina, Italy 2 School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK; [email protected] 3 Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, 50139 Firenze, Italy; paolo.coluccio@unifi.it * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Current European legislation that protects animals used for scientific purposes excludes decapod crustaceans (for example, lobster, crab and crayfish) on the grounds that they are non-sentient and, therefore, incapable of suffering. However, recent work suggests that this view requires substantial revision. Our current understanding of the nervous systems and behavior of decapods suggests an urgent need to amend and update all relevant legislation. This paper examines recent experiments that suggest sentience and how that work has changed current opinion. It reflects on the use of decapods as models in biomedical research and in ecotoxicology, and it recommends that these animals should be included in the European protection legislation. Abstract: Decapod crustaceans are widely used as experimental models, due to their biology, their sensitivity to pollutants and/or their convenience of collection and use. Decapods have been Citation: Passantino, A.; Elwood, viewed as being non-sentient, and are not covered by current legislation from the European Par- R.W.; Coluccio, P. Why Protect liament. However, recent studies suggest it is likely that they experience pain and may have the Decapod Crustaceans Used as capacity to suffer.
    [Show full text]