Slashdot Mirror
Hypo-Allergenic Cats Now Available for Pre-Order
humuhumunukunukuapu' writes "Allerca Inc is now taking reservations for genetically engineered hypo-allergenic cats, which it calls 'lifestyle pets'... and apparently they are just the beginning... Read the press release here... and you can take delivery of a cuddy non-sinus bothering bundle of joy for just $3500. 'The hypoallergenic cats produced by ALLERCA will allow consumers to enjoy the love and companionship of a pet without the cost, inconvenience, risk, and limited effectiveness of current allergy treatments. Clients will take delivery of the first ALLERCA kittens in 2007. The hypoallergenic cat is the first of a planned series of lifestyle pets that ALLERCA will develop over the next few years.' Meow!"
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Digging back, we find that Allerca claims to be owned by Geneticas. If we check out the other "companies" under that umbrella, we'll find Genequus, who claim to do horse cell banking and cloning. Yes, that's right. They'll sell you a clone of your horse for $100k. Discounts for 10 or more.
Another one, LifeARK, claims to be doing cell banking for endangered animals. They want donations, and they accept them through PayPal. Don't think so. A large company that was doing such work wouldn't deal with PayPal's onerous agreement and high fees. Especially not if their other divisions were dealing with large sums of money already.
ForeverPet does cell banking for companion pets. But they can't yet clone them. But another division can clone horses? Yeah, right.
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
The term 'hypoallergenic' is not meaningful in any scientific sense whatsoever.
The FDA states that "There are no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term 'hypoallergenic'." Back in 1973, they tried to establish definitions for the use of the term hypoallergenic, but the regulation was overturned in court.
A little bit of googling returns this
It's a nonsense marketing claim, with no scientific standard or basis. People can be allergic to anything... even themselves.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
'Fraid not. Comparing the amount of the population in a city with relatively low pollution like, say, Stockholm (Sweden), with a relatively dirty one, say, Krakow (Poland), you'd expect the number of allergies to be far higher in the more polluted city. This turns out not true. Allergies are much more common in the modern "Western world" than in, for instance, the old "East block". And this even though there is a much higher percentage of coal used in heating homes, industry pollution levels are higher, and cars are generally older and typically generate worse exhaust. Just stating pollution as a factor doesn't make sense.
What is reasonably clear from a research perspective, however, is that growing up in a spotlessly clean environment makes you MORE susceptible to allergies. It seems better to be subjected to (a reasonable amount of) "filth" than to none at all. Unless, of course, you DO develop an allergy - in which case spotlessness is more or less your only option.
What I would personally like to see, is more research focused on this simple fact - what factors are different between the "richer" and the "poorer" societies - is it the chemicals we use to clean our homes? Or could there be some correlation with the kind of food we tend to consume?
I just think there's a lot we don't know here...