Cleaning up the Thames

The River Thames, which was biologically “dead” as recently as the 1960s, is
now the cleanest metropolitan river in the world, according to the Thames Water
Company. The company says that thanks to major investment in better sewage
treatment in London and the Thames Valley, the river that flows through the
United Kingdom capital and the Thames Estuary into the North Sea is cleaner
now than it has been for 130 years. The Fisheries Department, which is
responsible for monitoring fish levels in the River Thames, has reported that the
river has again become the home to 115 species of fish including sea bass,
flounder, salmon, smelt, and shad. Recently, a porpoise was spotted cavorting
in the river near central London.

But things were not always so rosy. In the 1950s, sewer outflows and industrial
effluent had killed the river. It was starved of oxygen and could no longer
support aquatic life. Until the early 1970s, if you fell into the Thames you would
have had to be rushed to hospital to get your stomach pumped. A clean-up
operation began in the 1960s. Several Parliamentary Committees and Royal
Commissions were set up, and, over time, legislation has been introduced that
puts the onus on polluters - effluent-producing premises and businesses - to
dispose of waste responsibly. In 1964 the Greater London Council (GLC) began
work on much enlarged sewage works, which were completed in 1974.

The Thames clean-up is not over though. It is still going on, and it involves
many disparate arms of government and a wide range of non-government
stakeholder groups, all representing a necessary aspect of the task. Each of the
urban and non-urban London boroughs that flanks the river has its own reasons
to keep the river clean, and if these reasons do not hold out a sufficiently
attractive carrot, the government also wields a compelling stick. The 2000 Local
Government Act requires each local borough to “prepare a community strategy
for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of
their area". And if your area includes a stretch of river, that means a sustainable
river development strategy.

Further laws aimed at improving and sustaining the river’s viability have been
proposed. There is now legislation that protects the River Thames, either
specifically or as part of a general environmental clause, in the Local
Government Act, the London Acts and the law that created the post of the
mayor of London. And these are only the tip of an iceberg that includes
industrial, public health and environmental protection regulations. The result is a
wide range of bodies officially charged, in one way or another, with maintaining
the Thames as a public amenity. For example, Transport for London - the
agency responsible for transport in the capital - plays a role in regulating river
use and river users. It is now responsible for controlling the effluents and
rubbish coming from craft using the Thames. This is carried out by officers on
official vessels regularly inspecting craft and doing spot checks.

Another example is that Thames Water (TW) has now been charged to reduce
the amount of litter that finds its way into the tidal river and its tributaries. TW’s
environment and quality manager, Dr Peter Spillett, said: “This project will build
on our investment which has dramatically improved the water quality of the
river. London should not be spoiled by litter which belongs in the bin not the
river.” Thousands of tons of rubbish end up in the river each year, from badly
stored waste, people throwing litter off boats, and rubbish in the street being
blown or washed into the river. Once litter hits the water it becomes too heavy
to be blown away again and therefore the river acts as a sink in the system.

While the Port of London already collects up to 3,000 tons of solid waste from
the tideway every year, Thames Water now plans to introduce a new device to
capture more rubbish floating down the river. It consists of a huge cage that sits
in the flow of water and gathers the passing rubbish. Moored just offshore in
front of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, southeast London, the device is
expected to capture up to 20 tons of floating litter each year. If washed out to
sea, this rubbish can kill marine mammals, fish and birds. This machine, known
as the “Rubbish Muncher”, is hoped to be the first of many, as the TW is now
looking for sponsors to pay for more cages elsewhere along the Thames.

Monitoring of the cleanliness of the River Thames in the past was the
responsibility of a welter of agencies - British Waterways, Port of London
Authority, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Commission,
Thames Water - as well as academic departments and national and local
environment groups. If something was not right, someone was bound to call foul
and hold somebody to account, whether it was the local authority, an individual
polluter or any of the many public and private sector bodies that bore a share of
the responsibility for maintaining the River Thames as a public amenity.
Although they will all still have their part to play, there is now a central
department in the Environment Agency, which has the remit of monitoring the
Thames. This centralisation of accountability will, it is hoped, lead to more
efficient control and enforcement.

Persuasion and Smell

The link between smell and memory is well established; most people have
experienced the phenomenon of unexpectedly encountering a smell, perhaps
the scent of a particular flower or a specific cooking odour, which brings back a
flood of long-forgotten memories. The fact that smell can conjure up feelings,
whether enjoyable or unpleasant, is also undeniable; the perfume industry is
built upon the premise that certain scents make us feel good about ourselves
and, hopefully, also make us more attractive to others. But can smell do more
than just evoke feelings and memories? Can it in fact alter people’s behaviour
and decisions?

A tip offered by property magazines and estate agents to people trying to sell
their house is to bake a batch of bread or cakes shortly before a prospective
buyer arrives. The smell of freshly-baked produce is said to evoke feelings of
comfort and happiness that the purchaser will associate with the house, thus
making him or her more likely to buy it. The advice is well known, but is there
any truth in it? Research into smell and how it is processed by the brain has
come up with some interesting answers.

The olfactory system is the oldest sensory system in mammals and can process
about 10,000 different odours. When people smell something, its scent enters
the nose and is transmitted to the olfactory bulb, which forms part of the limbic
system. Briefly put, the limbic system is a set of structures in the brain that
govern emotional responses and memories, as well as regulating autonomic
functions such as breathing and heart rate. Thus the sensory input from odours
that enter the limbic system can trigger memories or involuntary emotional
reactions, and these responses can be exploited by advertisers to influence
potential customers. However, that is not the entire picture. The olfactory
system also sends information to other parts of the brain that are responsible for
more complex functions like language, abstract thought, judgement and
creativity. In other words, smells not only provoke automatic emotional
reactions, but also hold messages that may help people to generate mental
models, form attitudes and make decisions.

A number of behavioural studies validate this hypothesis. Research conducted

in France used scents like coffee, cinnamon and perfume to influence people’s
reactions. The researchers chose a store front either on a street or in a mall and
the area was misted with one of the aforementioned odours. As individuals
walked past the misted store front, hired actors would drop wallets from a bag
or purse. When the area was scented with one of the three scents, passers-by
were more likely to pick up and return the object than when the area was not
scented.

A commercial rather than moral experiment was undertaken with footwear. Two
identical pairs of branded running shoes were placed in two different rooms,
one of which contained scent previously shown to create positive feelings and
one which had no scent added. Eighty-four per cent of participants in the study
reported back that they were more likely to buy the running shoes in the room
with the scent. An interesting additional finding was that the study’s participants
estimated that the running shoes in the scented room were $10 more
expensive.

Scent research also indicated a direct influence on improving sociability. A

recent study in the US showed that when environments were sprayed with
scents linked with hygiene, such as citrus, individuals reported a desire to
connect with those who were in the vicinity of the scent. The respondents in that
study also indicated that they were more willing to give money to charity and to
help others. This again shows that scent holds messages that we incorporate
and process alongside other sensory input to create mental models, make
decisions, and alter our behavioural responses.

These findings may raise worries as they suggest that advertisers have greater
power to influence consumers’ choices and behaviour than was previously
thought. However, these fears are probably exaggerated. One of the other
sections of the brain that processes input from odours is the prefrontal cortex.
This structure is the reasoning centre of the brain and it enables people to think
analytically before making choices. Its effect on regulating thoughts and
behaviour is dependent upon each person’s character and levels of self-
awareness. Although there are some individuals who receive external
messages and react emotionally without thought, many others process and
evaluate them before accepting or rejecting them. The majority of people are
unlikely to be guided solely by odours when making significant choices; a
persuasive argument or strategy would need to be added in order to influence
their choices.

Furthermore, scenting an area does not mean people snap into a certain mode
of action that would normally be wholly uncharacteristic for them; achieving that
result would require a greater limbic system influence. Odours in certain
environments can affect emotions, thoughts and behaviour, but the influence is
contextual; the effects are immediate and dissipate once the surroundings have
changed. It seems that a pleasant aroma might influence our choice of running
shoes, but neither house sellers nor advertisers are about to take over our
thoughts, decisions and actions by means of scents alone.

Deer Farming In Australia

Deer are not indigenous to Australia. They were introduced into the country
during the nineteenth century under the acclimatisation programmes governing
the introduction of exotic species of animals and birds into Australia. Six species
of deer were released at various locations. The animals dispersed and
established wild populations at various locations, mostly depending upon their
points of release into the wild. These animals formed the basis for the deer
industry in Australia today. Commercial deer farming in Australia commenced in
Victoria in 1971 with the authorised capture of rusa deer from the Royal
National Park, NSW. Until 1985, only four species of deer, two from temperate
climates (red, fallow) and two tropical species (rusa, chital) were confined for
commercial farming. Late in 2005, pressure from industry to increase herd
numbers saw the development of import protocols. This resulted in the
introduction of large numbers of red deer hybrids from New Zealand, and North
American elk directly from Canada. The national farmed deer herd is now
distributed throughout all states, although most are in New South Wales and
Victoria.

The number of animals processed annually has continued to increase, despite

the downward trend in venison prices since 2007. Of concern is the apparent
increase in the number of female animals processed and the number of whole
herds committed for processing. With more than 40,000 animals processed in
2011/12 and 60,000 in 2012/13, there is justified concern that future years may
see a dramatic drop in production. At least 85 per cent of all venison produced
in Australia is exported, principally to Europe. At least 90 per cent of all velvet
antler produced is exported in an unprocessed state to Asia. Schemes to
promote Australian deer products continue to have a positive effect on sales
that, in turn, have a positive effect on prices paid to breeders. The industry
appears to be showing limited signs that it is emerging from a state of
depression caused by both internal and external factors that include: (i) the
Asian currency downturn; (ii) the industry’s lack of competitive advantage in
influential markets (particularly with respect to New Zealand
competition); and (iii) within industry processing and marketing competition for
limited product volumes of venison.

From the formation of the Australian Deer Breeders Federation in 1979, the
industry representative body has evolved through the Deer Farmers Federation
of Australia to the Deer Industry Association of Australia Ltd (DIAA), which was
registered in 1995. The industry has established two product development and
marketing companies, the Australian Deer Horn and Co-Products Pty Ltd (ADH)
and the Deer Industry Projects and Development Pty Ltd, which trades as the
Deer Industry Company (DIC). ADH collects and markets Australian deer horn
and co-products on behalf of Australian deer farmers. It promotes the harvest of
velvet antler according to the strict quality assurance programme promoted by
the industry. The company also plans and co-ordinates regular velvet
accreditation courses for Australian deer farmers.

One problem that the Australian deer farming industry has faced recently is that
of Johne’s disease, a chronic wasting disease that can be found in cattle,
sheep, goats, deer and camelids. This has affected meat production and how
the industry has been able to expand. The bacteria that cause Johne’s disease
live in animals’ intestines and cause thickening of the bowel wall, which
interferes with normal absorption of food. The prevalence of Johne’s disease
varies in different regions of Australia, but it is most commonly found in deer
farms in southeast Australia. Identifying Johne’s disease requires the help of a
vet, but symptoms include progressive weight loss and emaciation in older
animals despite good appetite. Diarrhoea and bottle jaw are also common signs
of the disease.

Deer farmers should develop and implement a farm bio-security plan and only
purchase deer stock with an animal health statement. In areas where Johne’s
disease is common, a vaccination programme can be implemented, but this can
be quite expensive and not 100 per cent effective. Once the disease has taken
hold in a deer herd, the effects can be catastrophic as culling is usually the only
answer. Johne’s disease can cause long-term supply difficulties in various
products, particularly venison; one case of this arose as a result of the 2009
slaughter of a significant number of young breeding females. The net result was
the depletion of the industry’s female breeding herds.
F

Industry programmes are funded by statutory levies on sales of animals for

venison, velvet antler sales and the sale of live animals to export markets. The
industry had a recent 5-year plan including animal nutrition, pasture quality,
carcass quality, antler harvesting, promotional material and technical bulletins.
All projects have generated a significant volume of information, which
complements similar work undertaken in New Zealand and other deer-farming
countries. Major projects funded by levy funds include the Venison Market
Project from 2010 to 2015. This initiative has resulted in a dramatic increase in
international demand for Australian venison and an increase in domestic
consumption. In an effort to maintain existing venison markets in the short term
and to increase them in the long term, in 2005 the industry’s top priority became
the increase in size and production capacity of the national herd.

Write about the following topic:

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should
be outlawed.

However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made

from animal experiments.

Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge and experience.