Marie Schatz commented about getting the runaround from the USDA in
enforcing Michigan's animal care laws.  I've experienced this when I worked
in Washington D.C.  with NIH and had contact with a lot of Public Health
Service (NIH, CDC and FDA) researchers and administrators.  There isn't a
huge amount of respect for USDA among PHS folks.  Whereas the PHS agencies
are chartered with protecting the public health, USDA's main mission is to
support the agriculture industry in the U.S.  They're also supposed to
protect the health and well-being of humans and animals, but some people
feel the USDA gives that a definite lower priority.  USDA has been caught in
the dilemma in the past of promoting farming and ranching practices but not
following up with regulations or enforcement of humane care standards once
farms and ranches are running...well, at least until something ugly hits the
headlines or Congress makes USDA amend the regulatory end of things.  I
hasten to add that there are definitely USDA officials and researchers who
are very concerned with the humane treatment of all animals and work toward
that goal, but the agency has not embraced that as its main goal.  If
Michigan has any US House or Senate representatives who sit on any of the
Agriculture committees or subcommittees in Washington, you might get a
better response from USDA by going through them.  Sometimes it's quite
effective and surprisingly speedy.
 
I misquoted Carla Smith about using masks to prevent transmission of disease
between ferrets and humans.  (Sorry, Carla...that's what I get for relying
on scribbled Post-It notes rather than a printout.) She made a good point
about masks keeping you from rubbing your nose without thinking.  I do that
all the time.  I find that wearing disposable latex gloves reminds me not to
do that, too.  The masks available from the pharmacist will be much better
than hardware store-type masks, but still won't fully inhibit 100% of virus
transmission.  And, actually, you don't need to in most cases since every
disease has a minimum infective dose.  Usually, if you're infected with ten
virus particles, for example, it won't be able to cause infection, whereas
100 viruses will.  The minimum infective dose varies with each microbe and
each individual, but a mask should help to cut down the number of airborne
or aerosolized viruses transmitted.  Of course, I'm only talking about
respiratory viruses.  The viruses that cause GI tract infections are passed
on surfaces or in contaminated food and water.  For those infections, a mask
won't have any protective effect.
 
--Jeff ([log in to unmask])
[Posted in FML issue 1701]