Entry 002 - Lily Toxicity & Cats:

Welcome to this weeks blog post. This entry’s question comes from Sara Dawn, from Big Horn, Wyoming, who writes:

“Why are lilies toxic to cats?”

Sara’s question is in no doubt derived from her recent experience outlined in her blog. Although the question could be answered in a heavily scientific manner, I have attempted to avoid that which may be percieved as enigmatic to foster a better understanding of the question at hand.

WHY LILIES AND CATS DO NOT MIX:

Certain members of the lilaceae plant family (Tiger, Rubrum, Asian, Stargazer, and Easter lilies to be precise) have been observed to cause life threatening illness in cats when the plants are ingested (Teft, 2004). Specifically, when cats ingest lilies, they may develop a renal disorder, causing an acute kidney failure. Kidneys are necessary for a cat to survive as they act as a filtration system, which removes toxins and waste products from the body. When the kidneys fail, toxic substances begin to build up in the body, poisoning the animal's system and having a variety of negative side effects, and ultimately death.

Until recently, research was unable to identify the component of lilies which are toxic to cats (Hall, 1992). Modern research has noted that many lilies contain parent compound(s) or metabolite(s) which induce nephrotoxic tubular necrosis; However, the exact makeup of these compounds have still eluded researchers, preventing the creation of an anti-toxin (Brady & Janovitz, 2000; Rumbeiha et al. 2004). However, these studies note that when lilies are ingested, renal ultrastructural changes occur, which include swollen mitochondria, megamitochondria, edema, and lipidosis. Although many plants are toxic to a variety of pets, cats seem to be most influenced animal in regard to lily consumption, as studies have noted no effects of lily ingestion for rats or rabbits, and only a mild effect on dogs (Hall, 2001; Milewski & Khan, 2006).

SYMPTOMS OF LILY INGESTION:

The first sign of lily poisoning occurs within 30 minutes to several hours after the ingestion. Typically, a cat which has ingested lilies is likely to vomit, show signs of depression, lethargy, tremors, seizures, and have a loss of appetite. Renal failure generally occurs within 24 to 96 hours of ingestion, with signs such as increased urination, thirst, as the kidneys begin to fail. This failure generally leads to dehydration and death (Groff, 1993; Volmer, 1994).

TREATMENT & PROGNOSIS OF LILY INGESTION:

As discussed earlier, scientific research has been unable to find the specific agent within lilies which is poisonous to cats. Given that it is unclear what part of the lily causes renal failure in cats, a suitable anti-toxin cannot be made. As a result, treatment for cats which ingested lilies is somewhat more invasive.

The most common treatment for lily ingestion in cats is the use of decontamination and fluid diuresis. This treatment has been extremely successful in cats which have ingested lilies within 6 hours of treatment (Hall, 1992). The National Animal Poison Control Center recommends that induction of vomiting, followed by the administration of charcoal with a cathartic be utilized.

If treatment is not undertaken within 18 hours of ingestion, acute renal failure is likely to develop (Hall, 1992), with death occurring as early as 3 days without treatment (Hall, 2001). If a cat is unable to pass urine, dialysis is generally the only treatment option remaining.

As stated earlier, renal failure is preventable if decontamination and fluid diuresis are utilized successfully before 6 hours of ingestion, prompting a full recovery. However, once renal failure is noted, the prognosis is not as positive. Although the onset of renal failure may lead to other problems, tubular regeneration has been noted (Langston, 2002; Hall 2001).

OTHER COMMON CAT TOXINS:

Developing treatments for animals which have been exposed to poison is extremely difficult given the communication gap between species. Although one may believe that humans are more likely to succumb to poisonings given the prevalence of drug abuse and suicide, animals often lick their coat when something has been spilled on it, and due to their lack of hands, are more likely to use their mouths to explore. Even thought cats are said to be more cautious than dogs (according to Bjornstad (2008) dogs have indiscriminate eating habits prompted by curiosity), they may face a variety of challenges in navigating a world shaped by humans. These behavioral differences, combined with inherent differences in physiology, anatomy create major problems for veterinarians when it comes to finding a successful treatment. Given the lack of suitable treatments, it is every pet owner’s responsibility to ensure that their environment is pet friendly.

• INSECTICIDES: Toxicology reports have suggested that topical insecticides (e.g. products for dogs with permethrin, or others used for flea control) can lead to tremors and seizurs in cats. Ingredients may include organophosphates or carbamates, pyrethroids, imidacloprid, fipronil, and selamectin, all of which have been contributed to health problems in cats. This can present a challenge for owners of mulitple pets (Richardson, 1999; Volmer, 2004).
• VENLAFAXINE: This bicyclic antidepressant is extremely toxic to cats. A serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor as well as a weak dopamine reuptake inhibitor, cats seem to be drawn to consuming these pills. Less than one 37.5-mg capsule is enough to cause mydriasis, vomiting, and an array of other complications (ASPCA APCC: Database: Unpublished data, 2002-2005).
• GLOW JEWERLY AND STICKS: Any plastic bracelets, necklaces, and wands that contain a liquid that glows in the dark can be hazardous to cats. Given that cats frequently bite into jewelry, dibutyl phthalate can cause hypersalivation, agitation, and, occasionally, vomiting. Given its unpalatable taste, most cats stay clear of this poison (Rosendale, 1999).
• LIQUID  POTPOURRI: Used as  a household fragrance, the open bowl and heat source is often appealing to cats. Liquid potpourri may contain high concentrations of cationic detergents, essential oils, or a combination of both, which can damage the gastrointestinal track, and central nervous system (Richardson, 1999).
• NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS: NSAIDs are often administered to pets by owners; however a vet should be consulted before giving pets any medication. Cats have a low tolerance for NSAIDs, and are thought to be at least twice as sensitive to drugs, such as ibuprofen, as dogs are. When exposed, cats often develop ulceration, hemorrhaging, and acute renal failure. Because of this sensitivity, most exposures require aggressive treatment (Villar, et al. 2004).
• ACETAMINOPHEN: Similar to NSAIDs, acetaminophen (drugs such as Tylenol) is often given to sick cats by their owners. Exposure can cause respiratory distress and hepatic necrosis (Roder, 2004).
• ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES: Although rat baits are generally similar in appearance, many traps do not use anticoagulants with bromethalin (a neurotoxin) or cholecalciferol (a vitamin D analogue). These substances typically cause hemorrhaging of the lungs and respiratory problems (Means, 2004).

NOTE: If you have a question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

CITATIONS:

Bjornstad, M. (2008). Differences between human and animal poisonings. Clinical toxicology, 46, 357-372.

Brady, M.A., & Janovitz, E.B. (2000). Nephrotoxicosis in a cat following ingestion of asiatic hybrid lily (lillium sp.). Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 12, 566-568.

Groff RM, Miller JM, Stair EL, et al.: 1993, Toxicoses and toxins. In: Feline practice, ed

Hall, J., (1992), Nephrotoxicity of Easter lily (Lilium longiflorum) when ingested by the cat. Annual Meeting of Veterinary International Medicine, 6, 121–121.

Hall, J., (2001). Lily nephrotoxicity. In: Consultants in feline internal medicine 4. Philadelphia, ed. August JR, pp. 308–310. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 10. Hardy RM: 1994, Diseases of the exo

Langston, C.E. (2002). Acute renal failure caused by lily ingestion in six cats. Journal of Vetrinary Medicine Association, 220, 49–52.

Means, C., (2004). Anticoagulant rodenticides. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 444-446.

Milewski, L. M. and Khan, S. A. (2006). An overview of potentially life-threatening poisonous plants in dogs and cats. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 16: 25–33.

Richardson, J.A., (1994). Potpourri hazards in cats. Veterinary Medicine, 94, 1010-1012.

Richardson, J. A. (1999). Permethrin spot-on toxicoses in cats.  Journal of veterinary emergency critical care, 10, 103-106.

Roder, J.D., (2004). Analgesics. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 282-284.

Rosendale, M.E., (1999). Glow jewelry (dibutyl phthalate) ingestion in cats. Veterinary medicine,94, 703-712.

Rumbeiha, Francis, Fitzgerald, Nair, Holan, Bugyei, & Simmons (2004). A comprehensive study of Easter lily poisoning in cats. Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 16, 527-541.

Teft, K.M. (2004). Lily nephrotoxicity in cats. Veterinary compendium, 5, 149-157.

Villar, D., Buck, W.B., & Gonzalez, J.M., (1998).  Ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen toxicosis and treatment in dogs and cats. Veterinary human toxicology, 40, 156-161.

Volmer, P.A. (1999). Easter lily toxicosis in cats. Veterinary medicine, 94, 331-342.

Volmer, P.A., (2004). Pyrethrins and pyrethroids. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 188-190.

Entry 001 - Odd Pricing:

All of my cool friends are blogging (Erin Yosai & Sara Davis), and while I cannot claim to be greater than or equal to their level of "coolness", it is 2AM, I am wide awake, and thus, I have decided to blog.

Although my friends have shared the intimacies of their lives, my life is far less interesting, meaning I do not have much to share. However, what I would like to share with you are the answers to odd questions. It could be that you want to know where a saying came from? Perhaps you want to know whether or not a piece of information you heard is true? Or maybe you just want to know if something could actually happen? Regardless of your question, I intend to partake in my favorite activity (reading empirical research) so that I may answer your question!

If you have a random question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

THE QUESTION:

The question of the day (week, month, year, whenever I feel like updating) was submitted by Justin LeBreton of Milford Maine. Justin writes....

"Would a customer really feel they were getting a better bargain if the price of an item was listed as $4.99 as opposed to $5.00?"

What Justin is referring to is the notion of "odd pricing". For those of you who are unaware, "odd prices" are said to lead to increased sales. These odd prices have also been referred to as "magic prices", "charm prices", "psychological prices", "irrational prices", and "intuitive prices" (Boyd & Massy, 1972; Dalrymple & Thompson, 1969; Gabor, 1977; Kreul, 1982; Monroe, 1990; Rogers, 1990; Sturdivant, 1970). In the retailer realm, it is commonly accepted that if a price is reduced by one penny, the item is more likely to be purchased.

THE ORIGINS:

There are some discrepancies regarding where these prices originated. One source (Schindler & Winman, 1989) theorized that odd pricing originated after pricing became fixed in the United States. Before the Civil War ended, customers used to haggle with retailers over the price of an item (Georgoff, 1971). However, shortly after the war ended, prices were fixed. Retailers at the time wanted to remain competitive, and given that the value of a penny was worth $1,009,374,100 in the 1860*, many prices were listed as ending with .99.

Another theory regarding odd prices is derived from an explanation of anti-theft (Harper, 1966; Hogl, 1988, Sturdivant, 1970; Twedt, 1965). Before the introduction of odd pricing, cashiers used to pocket money from the register. However, with the introduction of ending items with .99 cents, cashiers were forced to open the register after nearly every transaction, which made it more difficult for them to pocket cash.

Finally, another theory of the odd pricing is said to have evolved from a price war in at a Texaco in Waco, Texas. Retailers were so anxious to get the upper hand, they started slashing prices by the cents to offer customers a better deal. However, regardless of the origins, odd pricing is extremely common in modern retailing (Schindler & Wiman, 1989), and it is here to stay.

WHY MIGHT THE EFFECT OCCUR:

The next time you go to a store, look around, and you will likely seem items listed as $19.99 or $49.95, as opposed to $20 and $50. According to Wilkie (1990) there are several reasons why this phenomenon may occur.

• Rounding Illusion: It has been theorized that customers approximate prices they pay by a lower integer/decimal rather than a higher price. Thus, if a price is 19.99, people will believe the price is $19 as opposed to $20 (Boyd & Massey, 1972). As a result, consumers may be more likely to "anchor" (Tversky, & Kahneman, 1974), on the first numbers (e.g. "19") as opposed to the full price ("19.99"). 
• Getting Change: People like to get change, and it is theorized that by reducing the price of an item by a few cents, customers may feel that they are getting more back for their purchase.
• Attractive Digits: Some have claimed that people feel that a number like 9,999 is "nice", which serves as an advertising mechanism, as it will attract the attention of more customers.
• Image of Discount: Stores try to create the illusions that they have slashed prices, and by cutting the cost of an item (even by one cent) they can claim that the item is on sale.
• Memory Constraint: It has also been theorized that consumers have a limited capacity for storing accessible information. This means that reducing the price of an item by even one cent will be likely to produce an increased expectancy in sales (Brenner & Brenner, 1982).

While there are many reasons as to why this occurrence may exist, the question remains as to whether or not reducing the price of an item by one cent actually increases sales.

DOES THE EFFECT ACTUALLY OCCUR:

According to Georgoff (1971), although a price illusion may occur for some products, the net effect of sales is weak at best. Lambert (1975) goes on to suggest that reducing based on odd prices is only likely to produce increased sales under some circumstances. Additionally, Dodds and Monroe (1985) found no evidence for a difference in perceived quality, value, or willingness to buy products regardless if the prices were reduces by one cent. Furthermore, Gabor and Granger (1964) found some support, noting that consumers had a higher intention to purchase items when they were reduced by one cent.

This is a tough question to answer, because economic research would dictate that purchasing is related to price, such that as a price decrease, it stands to reason that more people would buy it. Thus, the real question is not whether dropping the price of an item by one cent will increase sales (because lowering the price by any amount should), but rather whether or not decreasing the price of an item by one cent increases sales beyond that which would be predicted by the price index.

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Economic theory purposes that quantity demanded increases when price is reduced. This means that as a price is decreased, people are willing to be more likely to buy it. One study conducted by Gendall, Holdershaw, & Garland (1996) found that individually, the differences between expected and actual purchase probabilities were not significant; however, the overall effect is unlikely to occurred by chance. This suggests that some items may not produce an effect, but collectively, marking items down by one cent may increase sales.

While the cause of odd pricing has yet to be determined from the studies mentioned, it has been noted that pricing an item to end in 99 cents creates a marked odd pricing effect as opposed to ending the item with 95 cents. This may tentatively support the notion that prices ending in ".99" are more likable than those which end at a more "even" integer.

Collectively, the notion of odd pricing is still debatable. However, it does appear that odd pricing is likely to produce an increase in sales among specific items, for a specific portion of the population. The next time you are out, and see a price listed at $19.99, ask yourself, do you round down to $19, or up to $20 when describing the price? Pending how you answer this question may reflect whether or not this tactic is effective toward your purchasing habits.

Finally, as a side note, it should be mentioned that the first few numbers may be most likely to stick with an individual when considering the purchase price. However, any priming effect this focus has elicited on an individual is unlikely to result in persuading individuals to buy the item who originally had not intent to purchase said item. According to North, Hargreabes, & McKendrick (1999), subliminal priming effects do not persuade individuals to do what they had not considered, but rather serve as a means to push them in a specific direction. Thus, if an individual focuses on $19 as opposed to $20, and decides to buy an item, the intent to buy said item must have originally been present.

CITATIONS:

Boyd, H.W. and Massy, W.F. (1972), Marketing Management, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, FL.

Brenner, G.A. and Brenner, R. (1982), “Memory and markets, or why are you paying $2.99 for a widget?”, Journal of Business, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 147-58.

Dalrymple, D.J. and Thompson, D.L. (1969), Retailing - An Economic View, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Dodds, W.B. and Monroe, K.B. (1985), “The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 85-90.

Gabor, A. (1977), Pricing: Principles and Practices, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, London.

Gabor, A. and Granger, C.W.J. (1964), “Price sensitivity of the consumer”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 4, December, pp. 40-4.

Gendall, P., Holdershaw, J., & Garland, R. (1996). The effect of odd pricing on demand. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 799-813.

Georgoff, D.M. (1971), Odd-Even Retail Price Endings, Michigan State University Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Harper, D.V. (1966), Price Policy and Procedure, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY.

Högl, S. (1988), “The effects of simulated price changes on consumers in a retail environment - price thresholds and price policy”, Esomar Congress Proceedings, Lisbon.

Kreul, L.M. (1982), “Magic numbers: psychological aspects of menu pricing”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 70-5.

Lambert, Z.L. (1975), “Perceived prices as related to odd and even price endings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 51, Fall, pp. 13-22, 78.

Monroe, K.B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

North, A.C., Hargreabes, D.J., & McKendrick, J., (1999). The influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 271-276.

Rogers, L. (1990), Pricing for Profit, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Schindler, R.M. and Wiman, A.R. (1989), “Effects of odd pricing on price recall”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 19, pp. 165-77.

Sturdivant, F.D. (Ed.) (1970), Managerial Analysis in Marketing, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

Twedt, D.W. (1965), “Does the ‘9 fixation’ in retail pricing really promote sales?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 54-5.

Wilkie, W., (1990), Consumer Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition.



*NOTE: The value of a penny in the 1860s may not actually have been $1,009,374,100.