FDA Regs vs American Farming

[PORKER]

The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 has passed with no objections.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2749/text

This happened because the Bioterrorism law was not followed below, and had too many recalls since being passed and put into effect.

Link; http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr04d09a.html

 

[PORKER]

FDA covers these meats which will be covered in the new proposed food law.

FDA responsible for all non-specified red meats (bison, rabbits, game animals, zoo animals and all members of the deer family including elk (wapiti) and moose)). FDA responsible for all non-specified birds including wild turkeys, wild ducks, and wild geese.

 

[Tex]

FDA covers these meats which will be covered in the new proposed food law.

FDA responsible for all non-specified red meats (bison, rabbits, game animals, zoo animals and all members of the deer family including elk (wapiti) and moose)). FDA responsible for all non-specified birds including wild turkeys, wild ducks, and wild geese.

There is a real distinction between the inspections the FDA and the USDA perform. The USDA can give legal cover while the FDA inspection services do not. A person who does FDA items can also pay the USDA for inspecting to get the legal cover but it is often very expensive on a per unit basis and is usually done through insurance instead of paid federal inspectors.

I don't see where this might or might not cover CSAs. It probably does not. Do you know, Porker?

Tex

 

[PORKER]

CSA's will be exempt except they will need full recordkeeping of all actions and can be fined if records are not up to date. The consumer can buy only direct at the farm as I see it.

 

[PORKER]

Bill Seeks to End Antibiotic Use to Spur Animal Growth
GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.

In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.

Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.

The hearing was held to discuss a measure proposed by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. It would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses.

The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, among other groups, but opposed by farm organizations like the National Pork Producers Council. The farm lobby's opposition makes its passage unlikely, but advocates are hoping to include the measure in the legislation to revamp the health care system.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that as much as 70 percent of antibiotics used in the United States is given to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle to encourage their growth or to prevent illnesses.

The use of antibiotics for "purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use," Dr. Sharfstein said in his written testimony. "Eliminating these uses will not compromise the safety of food."

Much of Dr. Sharfstein's testimony summarized information that has been widely accepted for years by medical groups. But many farm organizations dispute such claims.

"There are no good studies that show that some of these antibiotic-resistant diseases — and it seems like we're seeing more of them — have any link to antibiotic use in food-animal production," said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the pork producers' group.

 

[Anonymous]

Bill Seeks to End Antibiotic Use to Spur Animal Growth
GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.

In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.

Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.

The hearing was held to discuss a measure proposed by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. It would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses.

The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, among other groups, but opposed by farm organizations like the National Pork Producers Council. The farm lobby's opposition makes its passage unlikely, but advocates are hoping to include the measure in the legislation to revamp the health care system.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that as much as 70 percent of antibiotics used in the United States is given to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle to encourage their growth or to prevent illnesses.

The use of antibiotics for "purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use," Dr. Sharfstein said in his written testimony. "Eliminating these uses will not compromise the safety of food."

Much of Dr. Sharfstein's testimony summarized information that has been widely accepted for years by medical groups. But many farm organizations dispute such claims.

"There are no good studies that show that some of these antibiotic-resistant diseases — and it seems like we're seeing more of them — have any link to antibiotic use in food-animal production," said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the pork producers' group.

It does not surprise me a bit...When industry fails to proact to the consumer/public requests (especially the medical world)- you end up with government reaction and usually it takes the place of overreaction...

If industry refuses to stop the practice of filling every animal that walks full of antibiotics and steroids-so they can greater profiteer in Big Corporate confinement production- it won't be long until the only folks with access to antibiotics will be vets- and steroids will be totally banned....The only thing that has kept them still going this long is the strong pharmaceutical/biochemical lobby that has been in Congress...

 

[S.S.A.P.]

....... said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian........

I would like to hear some comments from US producers concerning the above.

 

[Anonymous]

....... said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian........

I would like to hear some comments from US producers concerning the above.

I think the handwriting has been on the wall for years if we didn't self police the industry- government would...
Not only with the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and steroids that many countries years ago banned- and instead has increased in the use in the US by 50% since 1985- but with the self policing of the slaughter and meat/food distribution system which with the ever increasing recalls seems to have proved is failing....

It won't affect me too much as I use a progressive mineral, vitamin, and vaccination program and have marketed calves as all natural for years- redtagging any animals that receive any additional treatment...But depending on what ends up coming out of Congress- it may mean you will need a closer working relationship with your vet to get antibiotics when you need them for therapeutic use...

But like I said- this does not surprise me- as the public/medical world has been screaming for sometime over it....Just sad the industry did not proact- and now government is reacting.....

 

[Tex]

....... said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian........

I would like to hear some comments from US producers concerning the above.

I think the handwriting has been on the wall for years if we didn't self police the industry- government would...
Not only with the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and steroids that many countries years ago banned- and instead has increased in the use in the US by 50% since 1985- but with the self policing of the slaughter and meat/food distribution system which with the ever increasing recalls seems to have proved is failing....

It won't affect me too much as I use a progressive mineral, vitamin, and vaccination program and have marketed calves as all natural for years- redtagging any animals that receive any additional treatment...But depending on what ends up coming out of Congress- it may mean you will need a closer working relationship with your vet to get antibiotics when you need them for therapeutic use...

But like I said- this does not surprise me- as the public/medical world has been screaming for sometime over it....Just sad the industry did not proact- and now government is reacting.....

One problem I see with this: The vets should not be company controlled vets. If they are, their prescriptions will be abused just as Michael Jackson's and Anna Nicole Smith's prescriptions were abused. They will be just another tool to get "efficiency" at the cost of externalities.

Tex

 

[Mike]

But like I said- this does not surprise me- as the public/medical world has been screaming for sometime over it....Just sad the industry did not proact- and now government is reacting.....

The industry did proact. The NCBA offered to set up the BQA program to educate cattlemen on the ins and outs of vaccinations and injections.

The problem came about because of some cattlemen that refused to adhere completely to those policies. It should have been enough make ranchers aware of a potential problem.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. But ranchers will never stick together on anything.

 

[PORKER]

Your Right MIKE. Everyone wants to define their own RULES !!!

 

[Anonymous]

I watched parts of this hearing last night when they replayed it on C-SPAN...Long hearing- over 4 hours with several panels of witness's.....Numerous Doctors, scientists, trade experts, food retailers and restaurant people, and Congressmen/women...

Interestingly there was only one person there that I saw testifying against putting some restrictions on non therapeutic usage of antibiotics in feedlots and raising of livestock- and that was an old fogie Congressman- Boswell of Iowa..His argument was that the producers are already losing too much money raising livestock- and further restrictions would be too tough on them- and little to the science of it...
That argument was pretty well countered by some of the trade people that said it was their beliefs- that antibiotic restrictions would actually raise the demand for US meat products overseas in all the areas that long ago banned their use (UK, Korea, EU, etc.) and that producers could do better....
They compared the US meat industry to the US auto industry in being behind 20 years in producing what the consumer wants....The US meat folks were also often criticized for their stonewalling the groups investigating the use of antibiotics- and for their reluctance to get involved in the hearing or sending reps to testify...

The only damage from the hearing I can see happening to beef producers- is it increasing the demand for all natural and organic raised products- instead of the generic that the Big multinational packers seem to want to market...

Chain restaurant owners testified to the decision they have gone to using- and actively promoting and marketing only naturally raised meat products (altho they said the USDA's wording on that was too lax)- and the difficulty they are having in finding steady sources as the demand has risen so fast- especially in pork products...
Some interesting comments about how they can source Danish "natural" pork easier than they can get US producers to provide what they want...But they said their consumers are willing to pay the extra cost....

 

[Tex]

I watched parts of this hearing last night when they replayed it on C-SPAN...Long hearing- over 4 hours with several panels of witness's.....Numerous Doctors, scientists, trade experts, food retailers and restaurant people, and Congressmen/women...

Interestingly there was only one person there that I saw testifying against putting some restrictions on non therapeutic usage of antibiotics in feedlots and raising of livestock- and that was an old fogie Congressman- Boswell of Iowa..His argument was that the producers are already losing too much money raising livestock- and further restrictions would be too tough on them- and little to the science of it...
That argument was pretty well countered by some of the trade people that said it was their beliefs- that antibiotic restrictions would actually raise the demand for US meat products overseas in all the areas that long ago banned their use (UK, Korea, EU, etc.) and that producers could do better....
They compared the US meat industry to the US auto industry in being behind 20 years in producing what the consumer wants....The US meat folks were also often criticized for their stonewalling the groups investigating the use of antibiotics- and for their reluctance to get involved in the hearing or sending reps to testify...

The only damage from the hearing I can see happening to beef producers- is it increasing the demand for all natural and organic raised products- instead of the generic that the Big multinational packers seem to want to market...

Chain restaurant owners testified to the decision they have gone to using- and actively promoting and marketing only naturally raised meat products (altho they said the USDA's wording on that was too lax)- and the difficulty they are having in finding steady sources as the demand has risen so fast- especially in pork products...
Some interesting comments about how they can source Danish "natural" pork easier than they can get US producers to provide what they want...But they said their consumers are willing to pay the extra cost....

Boswell was reading from the report given to him by the industry he has ended up representing.

It was interesting that so many of the other members of the committee took issue, nicely I might add, with his read view of the issues.

Boswell in that hearing was a perfect sighting of a puppet reading the prescribed script. He carried water for the big boys who were getting a competitive advantage by having vets on staff shoveling Bayer's drugs into our food supply and putting the flouroquinolones and other medicines that are used for humans at risk of genetic irrelevance and putting us all at risk. Boswell is the perfect reason these guys don't need to be in office forever.

The meats industry has moved to crowding livestock and stressing them so much to gain production efficiencies that it has paid to drug them to keep them healthy enough for slaughter. It is a real shame and I was glad to hear the other committee members break down Boswell's read statement by facts that were presented to the committee.

Boswell should just retire. He is out of touch and quite frankly, the poster child of industrial ag working in political committees that are supposed to regulate them.

What a shame it was.

We have the best government money can buy as represented by Boswell's actions on the committee and it was shameful.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

I watched parts of this hearing last night when they replayed it on C-SPAN...Long hearing- over 4 hours with several panels of witness's.....Numerous Doctors, scientists, trade experts, food retailers and restaurant people, and Congressmen/women...

Interestingly there was only one person there that I saw testifying against putting some restrictions on non therapeutic usage of antibiotics in feedlots and raising of livestock- and that was an old fogie Congressman- Boswell of Iowa..His argument was that the producers are already losing too much money raising livestock- and further restrictions would be too tough on them- and little to the science of it...
That argument was pretty well countered by some of the trade people that said it was their beliefs- that antibiotic restrictions would actually raise the demand for US meat products overseas in all the areas that long ago banned their use (UK, Korea, EU, etc.) and that producers could do better....
They compared the US meat industry to the US auto industry in being behind 20 years in producing what the consumer wants....The US meat folks were also often criticized for their stonewalling the groups investigating the use of antibiotics- and for their reluctance to get involved in the hearing or sending reps to testify...

The only damage from the hearing I can see happening to beef producers- is it increasing the demand for all natural and organic raised products- instead of the generic that the Big multinational packers seem to want to market...

Chain restaurant owners testified to the decision they have gone to using- and actively promoting and marketing only naturally raised meat products (altho they said the USDA's wording on that was too lax)- and the difficulty they are having in finding steady sources as the demand has risen so fast- especially in pork products...
Some interesting comments about how they can source Danish "natural" pork easier than they can get US producers to provide what they want...But they said their consumers are willing to pay the extra cost....

Boswell was reading from the report given to him by the industry he has ended up representing.

It was interesting that so many of the other members of the committee took issue, nicely I might add, with his read view of the issues.

Boswell in that hearing was a perfect sighting of a puppet reading the prescribed script. He carried water for the big boys who were getting a competitive advantage by having vets on staff shoveling Bayer's drugs into our food supply and putting the flouroquinolones and other medicines that are used for humans at risk of genetic irrelevance and putting us all at risk. Boswell is the perfect reason these guys don't need to be in office forever.

The meats industry has moved to crowding livestock and stressing them so much to gain production efficiencies that it has paid to drug them to keep them healthy enough for slaughter. It is a real shame and I was glad to hear the other committee members break down Boswell's read statement by facts that were presented to the committee.

Boswell should just retire. He is out of touch and quite frankly, the poster child of industrial ag working in political committees that are supposed to regulate them.

What a shame it was.

We have the best government money can buy as represented by Boswell's actions on the committee and it was shameful.

Tex

Well I hope the Pharmaceuticals and the big confinement feeders he was representing didn't stuff his pockets too full-- because he definitely wasn't worth much...Pretty sad image he presented....And he left a sad impression with the committee...
I kept waiting for the undertaker folks to start measuring the old fogie up for his casket half way thru his bumbling reading of his speach.... :wink:

 

[PORKER]

Obama said he was going to change eveyones lives ,he is doing what he said unless anyone can prove me wrong.

 

[PORKER]

Visited with the local meat processor (Circle M) this weekend at a wedding and he was telling that the meat industry is under the gun. He said he not sure how much it will cost.

With an increasingly problematic strain of E. coli (O157:H7) appearing in some ground beef, the USDA said there will now be regular testing of meat trimmings,like bench trim, the main suspect of contamination. Some 600 meat processing plants — where inspectors already perform tests daily — are expected to be impacted.

I asked him if it will affect the price of cattle, He says not ,but will affect the wholesale and retail prices.

 

[PORKER]

Senate approves $125bn FDA, USDA budget
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 06-Aug-2009
Related topics: Food safety, Legislation, Food safety and labeling

The US Senate has approved a $125bn budget for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which includes extra funding for food safety as well as farming subsidies.

Spending for the FDA would increase by 15 percent under the Appropriations Act, to $2.35bn, partly to help fund additional food safety measures introduced by the Food Safety Enhancement Act which passed through the House last week. In May, the Obama Administration had requested a $3.2bn FDA budget, or a 19 percent increase.

Almost half of the budget for the two agencies, which covers funding for the financial year starting October 1, would provide extra support for government nutrition programs, as use of food stamps has risen to an all-time high. Nearly 34 million people received food stamps in April this year.

The budget, which passed with a vote of 80-17, also covers farm supports and land conservation.

Disagreement on