search
|
Ian Holloway correspondence
BY EMAIL 24 June 2005
Mr Ian Holloway
RCVS External Affairs Officer
Dear Mr Holloway,
We have recently been supplied with a copy of the December 2004, RCVS Position regarding the Early Day Motion — Processed Pet Foods and Vets.
Please advise who the intended recipients of the position paper were and where the paper was published.
Please provide your sources and evidence for the assertion: ‘We understand that there is currently an abundance of scientific evidence available to
support the use of processed pet foods for everyday feeding of companion animals, together with medicated or ‘science’ diets to provide advanced nutrition for animals that may be unwell, nutritionally deficient or at a certain stage in life’.
We note your statement: ‘We have discussed Mr Lonsdale’s concerns with him on a number of occasions.’ Mr Lonsdale tells us he has no recollection of discussions taking place on a ‘number of occasions’. Please advise.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely
Jackie Marriott
UKRMB
Subject: RE: EDM335 - Processed Pet Food and Vets
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:25:14 +0100
From: "Ian Holloway"
To:
Dear Ms Marriott
Thank you for email of 24 June 2005 and for your
telephone call earlier today. Again, please accept my apologies for not
responding to you sooner.
I understand that you have also been in correspondence with the
Registrar, Jane Hern, in relation to certain aspects
of the queries you put to me. I would, therefore, prefer to await Ms
Hern's return from leave (Monday 15 August) before responding to you in
more detail, so as to avoid any duplication.
I trust this is in order.
Yours sincerely
Ian Holloway
External Affairs Officer
External Affairs Department
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Belgravia House
62-64 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AF
Tel: 020 7202 0727
Fax: 020 7202 0740
www.rcvs.org.uk
Visit the new RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk
Subject: Fwd: RE: EDM335 - Processed Pet Food and Vets
26/8/05
Dear Mr Holloway,
Could I remind you that in your email dated 8th August, in response to our telephone conversation of the same date, you informed me that you were awaiting the return from holiday of the Registrar, Jane Hern, before replying to my queries.
As Ms Hern was expected back on 15th August, I would be grateful for the promised reply.
Yours sincerely
Jackie Marriott (Mrs)
for UKRMB
Subject: RE: EDM335 - Processed Pet Food and Vets
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:39:55 +0100
From: "Ian Holloway"
To:
Dear Mrs Marriot
Thank you for your email. I hope to send a reply to
your original letter this week.
Yours sincerely
Ian Holloway
External Affairs Officer
External Affairs Department
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Belgravia House
62-64 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AF
Tel: 020 7202 0727
Fax: 020 7202 0740
www.rcvs.org.uk
Sign up for RCVS e-News at www.rcvs.org.uk/enews
Subject: RE: EDM335 - Processed Pet Food and Vets
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:32:34 +0100
From: "Ian Holloway"
To:
Dear Mrs Marriott
Thank you for email of 24 June 2005. Again, please
accept my apologies for not responding to you sooner, however I am aware
of the correspondence that you have had in the meantime
with the Registrar and the President. I hope the following responses to
your queries below are helpful.
Following the EDM last year, we produced a position statement, in
December, in readiness for any press enquiries that
we might subsequently receive. We did not issue this statement proactively. If memory serves, we received enquiries from the Veterinary Times, Dog
World and Our Cat Magazine and so sent each publication a copy. I cannot
recall whether or not these publications chose to publish anything as a
result, however I would suggest you contact them to check.
The first RCVS comment to which you refer was based on the same
scientific papers and evidence which were documented by the Pet Food
Manufacturers' Association in its press release dated 17 December 2004.
With regard to the second comment, Mr Lonsdale was invited to the RCVS
in 2003 to discuss his views on processed pet foods with the then
President, Richard Halliwell and Mr Gordon Hockey, (Asst Registrar). In
addition, Mr Lonsdale has also had a number of communications with the
Registrar (mostly by email) to discuss these same views, generally in
relation to his manifestos when he has repeatedly stood for election to
RCVS Council. He has also had correspondence with the Registrar about
reviews of his book "Raw Meaty Bones" in scientific journals and the
veterinary press.
Yours sincerely
Ian Holloway
External Affairs Officer
External Affairs Department
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Belgravia House
62-64 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2AF
Tel: 020 7202 0727
Fax: 020 7202 0740
www.rcvs.org.uk
8th September 2005
UKRMB Comments on:
External Affairs Department, RCVS email 1 September 2005
Paragraph 1
External Affairs Officer, Ian Holloway confirms that the RCVS took no action to inform its 21,000 members of the existence of the 7 December 2004, Early Day Motion that called into question the basis of veterinary life in the UK. Instead, in consultation with the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, they prepared a statement trivializing the concerns of Members of Parliament. The RCVS adopted a strategy calculated to suppress discussion and to strengthen the protective cordon around the pet-food industry/veterinary profession alliance.
Paragraph 2
The 17 December 2004 self-serving statement from the Pet Food Manufacturers Association concludes with the incriminatory statement: ‘The majority of veterinary surgeons, and veterinary associations would recommend feeding a commercially prepared, balanced diet.’ The RCVS, although responsible for policing the veterinary profession, rather than investigate what amounts to a massive scientific and consumer fraud, identifies itself with and endorses the fraud.
Paragraph 3
Mr Holloway’s final paragraph seeks to explain misrepresentations by the RCVS but in fact further confirms their egregious behaviour.
a.) Documented correspondence exists to confirm that it was Dr Lonsdale, not the RCVS, who requested the one and only discussion that took place between himself and a veterinary representative of the RCVS.
b.) Other email communications now labelled ‘discussions’ took place between Dr Lonsdale and The Registrar of the RCVS. The Registrar is a lawyer, not a veterinary surgeon. She variously sought to prevent Dr Lonsdale from making statements in his manifestos, sought to dismiss the importance of the manifesto statements and sought to trivialise the approximately 9% voter support received annually over a nine year period.
c.) The refusal of the UK veterinary press to review Raw Meaty Bones effectively prevented British veterinary surgeons from knowing about and discussing the peer-reviewed and other evidence. The Registrar dismissed concerns about the barriers the British veterinary journals erected. Far from conducting discussions, the Registrar of the RCVS reinforced barriers to discussion.
Peer-reviewed evidence
The nub of the issue turns on the evidence, whether peer-reviewed or otherwise, and the RCVS handling of that evidence. Two past presidents of the RCVS and the administration of the RCVS have copies of Raw Meaty Bones. Flying in the face of the evidence they themselves have, the RCVS published the statement:
We have discussed Mr Lonsdale’s concerns with him on a number of occasions and have urged him to submit scientific evidence to support his claims and to publish this material in peer-reviewed (veterinary) scientific journals. We understand that Mr Lonsdale has not yet accomplished this but we would encourage him to do so.
Dr Lonsdale’s 2001 book Raw Meaty Bones is a 389 page compilation of the peer-reviewed and other evidence from the global veterinary, medical and dental literature. In the book Dr Lonsdale provides a detailed account of two of his own papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Importantly, Dr Lonsdale presents compelling evidence that the veterinary journals run a closed shop where the so called peer-reviewed evidence is mostly misleading or corrupt.
Raw Meaty Bones has been reviewed in open peer review by five veterinary surgeons, including the current and two former Directors of the Sydney University Post Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science.
Besides falsifying or misrepresenting the evidence, it’s outrageous that:
* The RCVS requires Dr Lonsdale, the whisleblower, to fund and carry out investigations into
widespread scientific and consumer fraud.
* The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs relies on advice from the RCVS.
* The RCVS, Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association and DEFRA act in unison against the
interests of pets, pet owners and the wider British community.
Unless otherwise stated, all information, articles, reports, photos and images on this web site are the copyright of UKRMB. Permission to reproduce anything from this web site must be obtained from info@ukrmb.co.uk.
|
|
UKRMB
www.ukrmb.co.uk
|
|
