I’m sure plenty of us have seen, or been involved in, the hard work that volunteers and employees put into running an animal rescue. Countless animals depend on them every day, while huge amounts of time, effort and personal money can go into making sure those animals have everything they need.

For EquiScire, a horse rescue and rehabilitation centre in Cádiz province, that work took an alarming turn on Tuesday morning when staff arrived to find three of their rescued horses suffering from serious digestive problems.

Horses have extremely sensitive digestive systems

What initially appeared to be an isolated case quickly became a much bigger concern. Penny, the oldest member of the herd, was actively colicking when staff members arrived, but within minutes they discovered that two other horses were also suffering from acute diarrhoea. “That was when we knew something wasn’t right,” the EquiScire team told the Euro Weekly News.

Horses are particularly vulnerable to digestive disturbances because of the way their gastrointestinal system works. They cannot vomit because the muscular valve between the oesophagus and stomach prevents food from travelling back up, meaning problems in the digestive tract can become serious quickly. Changes to feed can also contribute to digestive disorders and colic, while severe diarrhoea can lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalances.

EquiScire staff immediately began checking the feeders and water troughs for anything unusual, but initially found nothing. It was only when they walked around the lower section of the paddock that they discovered what had happened. “As we walked down the lower part of the paddock we noticed some handmade canes that had a fork-like device attached on the end of them thrown on the floor next to a prickly pear cactus that is on the other side of the fence. They definitely were not there the evening before.”

Trespasser allegedly picked prickly pear fruit

According to the rescue, the equipment indicated that at least one person had climbed through the fencing and entered the property to collect prickly pear fruit from the cactus. The mature fruit that was ready to eat had apparently been taken, while rotten and fermented fruit was left inside the paddock. Some of the horses subsequently ate it.

Prickly pear, or Opuntia, is not automatically poisonous to livestock. However, the plant can have a laxative effect and excessive amounts have been associated with diarrhoea in animals. The cactus also carries sharp spines and tiny barbed glochids which, if eaten or embedded in the mouth and digestive tract, can cause severe pain, deep ulceration, abscesses and heavy drooling.

For Penny, the situation was particularly serious because she already suffers from gastric ulcers. The sudden consumption of rotten and fermented fruit placed additional strain on her already compromised digestive system and contributed to the severe stomach problems she experienced. One of the other affected horses had eaten less of the discarded fruit and recovered within two days. India, however, became much more seriously ill.

Existing illness made India particularly vulnerable

India and Tsuki both have piroplasmosis also known as Tick fever, a protozoal disease that affects red blood cells and can cause anaemia and other serious health problems.  Eva, a volunteer, explained that while the condition can be managed, treatment does not simply make the underlying parasite disappear.

“There is no cure for piroplasmosis, only managerial treatments that keep the parasite at bay,” Eva said, explaining that the horses generally receive an intravenous treatment top-up once a year. The concern is what happens when a horse’s immune system becomes weakened.

In India’s case, the severe digestive problems meant she was unable to absorb the nutrients she needed, leaving her more vulnerable to the effects of her existing condition. “She was the worst one out of the three. She had such bad tummy issues that she was not able to absorb any nutrients, leading to her immune system weakening.” Fortunately, Eva said their vet responded immediately and India is already showing signs of improvement.

It is not the first time horses have been fed

The rescue says this is not the first incident in which someone has entered the property or left food for their horses. A few years ago, staff repeatedly arrived to find potato, onion and other vegetable peelings scattered around the paddocks. They eventually discovered that a woman who walked past the property each morning had been feeding the horses because she believed they enjoyed it. Co founder Alex told us “She said she did not know that the vegetables were toxic,”.

For the rescue, the incident highlighted a simple but important point: people should never feed someone else’s animals without permission. Even something intended as a harmless treat can cause a digestive emergency, particularly when the animal has existing health problems.

The cost goes beyond the vet bill

For a small rescue funding its work from its founders’ own pockets, the consequences extend beyond the immediate veterinary treatment. “Our rescue is currently funded straight out of our pockets, and we put a lot of love and care into assuring all our rescues receive the topmost care,” Alex said.

“A careless, senseless act like this can put a lot of pressure on an already struggling centre and cause funds that could have gone towards rescuing other horses or covering food costs to be spent treating horses for something that could otherwise have been prevented.”

All three horses have pulled through, but EquiScire hopes the incident will serve as a warning to anyone tempted to feed an animal simply because they think they are doing something kind. The rescue is considering putting up signs asking people not to feed the horses, although locals have warned that signs alone may not stop everyone. Anyone wishing to support EquiScire can do so through its GoFundMe account or contact the rescue directly at EquiScire@gmail.com.

If you regularly reach for a tin of tuna when you need a quick lunch, you probably do not spend much time wondering whether one brand is actually better than another. They can look almost identical on the supermarket shelf, with the same promises of olive oil, quality tuna and an easy meal for a few euros.

But the price on the label does not necessarily tell you what you are getting. A major OCU analysis of 32 tins of tuna sold in Spain found clear differences between products, with some of the lowest-scoring options receiving just 64 points out of 100. 

Three tuna products came bottom

The OCU study examined 32 tins of light tuna in oil, including 19 products in olive oil and 13 in sunflower oil. Researchers assessed everything from the tuna species and oil used to freshness, salt, labelling, the proportion of fish in each tin, physical defects and the results of professional tasting. 

The lowest score went to Conservas Ortiz AOVE Eco, which received 64 points. OCU highlighted its relatively high salt content and shortcomings in its labelling, although no significant defects were found during the tasting assessment. 

Next came Carrefour’s pack of tuna in sunflower oil, with 65 points. The product was marked down following the tasting assessment and because some defects were detected. OCU also noted that its competitive price did not translate into a quality level that matched the better-performing products. 

Cabo de Peñas Aceite Eco scored 67 points. Its relatively high salt content and only acceptable labelling affected the result, while OCU also considered its price high compared with the quality offered. 

The biggest problem was salt

Salt was one of the clearest weaknesses across the products tested. The average salt content was 1.04 per cent, while the Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition considers a food to have a high salt content when it exceeds 1.25 per cent.  That does not mean the tuna tested was unsafe. In fact, OCU’s laboratory checks produced reassuring results on some of the issues consumers might worry about most.

Testing found that the fish in all 32 products belonged to authorised species for light tuna, while analysis of the fatty-acid profile confirmed that the oil used matched what was stated on the packaging. Histamine levels were low and mercury concentrations were well below the permitted maximum in every product examined. 

Cheap tuna beat premium products

One of the more surprising findings was that spending more did not guarantee better tuna. For the olive-oil products, prices ranged from €11.39 to €42.95 per kilogram of drained tuna. OCU found that two supermarket own-brand products offered very good quality for less than €15 per kilogram: Sal de Plata from Aldi and Hacendado from Mercadona. 

Sal de Plata received 86 points, making it the highest-rated product in the analysis, while Hacendado scored 85. Both were recognised for their quality and value for money.  The findings also show why comparing the price of the whole tin can be misleading. Different packs may contain different amounts of actual tuna, so OCU compared prices according to the weight of drained fish rather than simply the size or price of the packet. 

What should shoppers look for?

 The organisation considers the overall quality of the products analysed to be good and says there are plenty of worthwhile options. Shoppers should pay attention to the salt content, the amount of tuna compared with the covering liquid and the information provided on the label. The study also found that good-quality tuna does not necessarily come with a premium price tag. 

The important point for shoppers is that OCU has not found a safety problem with these tins. Its testing found no worrying levels of mercury or histamine in any of the 32 products, and all contained the type of tuna and oil stated on the label. The differences were mainly in quality, salt levels, labelling, taste and value for money.

A small beer with lunch would be enough to put most drivers over the line, and the bill that would do it is back on the table. It lost by a single vote in March, and it returns to Congress with nothing changed.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska confirmed on Monday September 7 that the government will again push its proposal to cut the blood alcohol limit for drivers from 0.5 to 0.2 grams per litre, in the parliamentary session that has just begun. He was speaking at DGT headquarters in Madrid while presenting Spain’s summer road-safety figures. 

Nothing changes at the roadside for now. The 0.5 limit stays in force unless Congress votes for the change, and the last attempt failed by the narrowest margin possible.

What a 0.2 limit would mean at the wheel

The proposed rate is 0.2 grams per litre in blood, or 0.1 milligrams per litre in exhaled air. Pere Navarro, director general of the DGT (the Spanish traffic authority), was blunt when the plan was first put forward: at 0.2, a driver “cannot drink absolutely anything“. He has described the figure as close to zero tolerance. A single glass of wine or a caña before driving would no longer leave any dependable margin.

Most drivers in Spain are currently allowed 0.5 grams per litre in blood, or 0.25 milligrams per litre in breath. Novice drivers in their first two years and professional drivers, including lorry, bus and taxi drivers, are held to 0.3. The bill would remove that split and apply 0.2 to everyone.

The vote that was lost by one

The proposal was defeated on Wednesday March 18 in the Congress Interior Committee, sitting with full legislative powers, by 19 votes to 18. PP, Vox, ERC and UPN voted against it. Their reasons differed. PP argued the change belonged in traffic regulations rather than in the law itself, Vox called the measure revenue-driven, and ERC withdrew support after its own amendments on traffic examiners in Cataluña were rejected.

Marlaska asked on Monday that no parliamentary group subject the bill to what he called unmentionable political horse-trading, saying the debate was about saving lives and nothing else. 

Sharing the location of an alcohol check would become an offence 

The returning text carries more than just the headline number. It would also ban spreading, by any public or private means, information on where police alcohol and drug checkpoints are set up, which covers social media posts and navigation apps that flag them to other drivers. Individual users who share those locations could be sanctioned.

The penalties are graded, running from two licence points for a reading between 0.2 and 0.5 up to six points and a €1,000 fine at the top band. The law would take effect two months after publication in the Boletín Oficial del Estado, the state gazette.

The summer figures behind the new push

Marlaska raised the bill while reporting that 240 people died in 218 fatal crashes on Spanish roads in July and August, 10 more than in the same period last year and an average of four deaths a day. Roughly half of the drivers killed on Spanish roads last year had alcohol, drugs or prescription medication in their system, according to the DGT toxicology report published in July. Alcohol alone was found in about a third of the cases analysed.

That report also feeds the opposing argument. Among drivers who tested positive for alcohol, a large share were well beyond the current limit rather than fractionally over it, which critics have used to question whether a 0.2 threshold would reach the drivers doing the most damage.

The numbers haven’t changed, and the same result could be looming

The bill has to be registered and taken into consideration again before it can reach another committee vote, and Marlaska gave no date beyond the current session, which runs to December.

The numbers in the committee remain the same since March, and unless one of the four parties that blocked it decides to have a change of heart, the same outcome could be waiting on the other side, while drivers may still keep their slightly wider leniency during a test.