• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

FDA will no longer pursue withdrawl of pen. and CTC in feed

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,947
Reaction score
172
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Animal scientists react to FDA antibiotic policy
American Society of Animal Science | Updated: January 4, 2012

The FDA announced last week that it would close hearings on the potential risks of “subtherapeutic” antibiotic use in food animals. This announcement means the FDA will no longer pursue the withdrawal of the antibiotics penicillin and tetracycline from use in animal feed. Though some object to the policy change, FDA announcement actually comes at the recommendation of several leading animal scientists.
In the U.S., many livestock producers give their animals low-levels of antibiotics to prevent disease and promote growth. Some argue that this practice has led to increased antibiotic-resistant human diseases. When the FDA opened hearings on the issue in 1977, scientists lacked information on whether giving livestock antibiotics for “growth promotion” could lead to antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in humans. Since then, animal scientists have shown that antibiotics can be used safely to promote growth and health in livestock.
According to the FDA notice, published in the Federal Register, “FDA’s thinking on this issue has evolved over the last three decades, and FDA now generally considers disease control and prevention claims to be judicious uses (in other words, therapeutic uses), especially when the drug is administered at the direction and under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian.”
This statement reflects the conclusions of many animal scientists working in animal agriculture and clinical research. In November 2011, after a scientific symposium on antibiotic use in animals, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) concluded that “estimated farm–to–fork risk from on–farm antibiotic use is extremely low.”
Dr. Rodney Preston, a retired animal scientist and member of the Federation of Animal Science Societies’ Committee on Food Safety, agreed with the NIAA conclusion. Preston said risk of antibiotic use in animals leading to antibiotic-resistant human diseases is “minimal.”
Dr. Scott Hurd, former USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and associate professor in veterinary diagnostics and production animal medicine at Iowa State University, called the FDA announcement “a good plan.” Hurd gave his opinion on the part of the FDA announcement calling for the livestock industry to begin “voluntary reforms.”
“What they’re really asking is for the pharmaceutical companies to remove the ‘growth promotant’ labels on their products,” said Hurd.
By instituting “voluntary reform,” the FDA may be encouraging drug companies to prove the effectiveness of their products on specific bacteria—without government interference—said Hurd. Once the companies prove that their products are effective, they could re-label the drugs as “therapeutic” under FDA guidelines. It’s a measure that promotes the use of scientific evidence, Hurd said.
The FDA announcement doesn’t mean regulations on antibiotic use will be relaxed. More regulations could be on their way, Hurd added. Hurd hopes to see more studies of potential antibiotic resistance on farms before and after antibiotic use in animals.
In their notice, the FDA made it clear that end of official hearings on certain antibiotics does not mean the end of research into antibiotic-resistant diseases.
“FDA continues to view antimicrobial resistance as a significant public health issue,” wrote the administration.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But they are removing some uses of the newer antibiotics that are needed for fighting human disease...

I understand this is common names of Excede and Spectramast...


For Immediate Release: Jan. 4, 2012

Media Inquiries: Siobhan DeLancey, 301-796-4668, [email protected]

Trade Inquiries: Laura Alvey, 240-276-9119, [email protected]

Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA



FDA to protect important class of antimicrobial drugs for treating human illness
Agency issues order prohibiting certain uses in food-producing animals



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued an order that prohibits certain uses of the cephalosporin class of antimicrobial drugs in cattle, swine, chickens and turkeys effective April 5, 2012.


Antimicrobial drugs are important for treating disease in both humans and animals. This new order takes into consideration the substantial public comment FDA received on a similar order that it issued in 2008, but revoked prior to implementation.



FDA is taking this action to preserve the effectiveness of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans. Prohibiting these uses is intended to reduce the risk of cephalosporin resistance in certain bacterial pathogens.


Cephalosporins are commonly used in humans to treat pneumonia as well as to treat skin and soft tissue infections. In addition, they are used in the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease, diabetic foot infections, and urinary tract infections. If cephalosporins are not effective in treating these diseases, doctors may have to use drugs that are not as effective or that have greater side effects.



In its order, FDA is prohibiting what are called “extralabel” or unapproved uses of cephalosporins in cattle, swine, chickens and turkeys, the so-called major species of food-producing animals. Specifically, the prohibited uses include:



using cephalosporin drugs at unapproved dose levels, frequencies, durations, or routes of administration;
using cephalosporin drugs in cattle, swine, chickens or turkeys that are not approved for use in that species (e.g., cephalosporin drugs intended for humans or companion animals);
using cephalosporin drugs for disease prevention.

In 2008, FDA issued and then revoked an order that prohibited extralabel uses of cephalosporins in food-producing animals with no exceptions. Today’s announcement responds to public comment and includes the following exceptions, which protect public health while considering animal health needs:



The order does not limit the use of cephapirin, an older cephalosporin drug that is not believed by FDA to contribute significantly to antimicrobial resistance.
Veterinarians will still be able to use or prescribe cephalosporins for limited extra-label use in cattle, swine, chickens or turkeys as long as they follow the dose, frequency, duration, and route of administration that is on the label.
Veterinarians may also use or prescribe cephalosporins for extralabel uses in minor species of food-producing animals such as ducks or rabbits.

"We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals," said Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods.



The new order of prohibition has a comment period that will begin on Jan. 6, 2012 and close on March 6, 2012. To comment on the order of prohibition, visit www.regulations.gov and enter FDA-2008-N-0326 in the keyword box. Following the comment period, the FDA will consider the comments prior to the order of prohibition going into effect on April 5, 2012.

www.fda.gov/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
The article isn't talking about antibiotics as a treatment, as I understand it,
but:

" potential risks of “subtherapeutic” antibiotic", meaning low doses in feed,
etc. (more of a preventative).

Yep- while they opened up some of the older antibiotics for subtherapeutic uses- they banned it for the cephalosporins which are the ones now being used a lot by the medical field for serious/tough to treat infections ...

Specifically, the prohibited uses include:



using cephalosporin drugs at unapproved dose levels, frequencies, durations, or routes of administration;
using cephalosporin drugs in cattle, swine, chickens or turkeys that are not approved for use in that species (e.g., cephalosporin drugs intended for humans or companion animals);
using cephalosporin drugs for disease prevention.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Since the government is planning to take over health care, maybe
those antibiotics are something they won't have to pay for. Ya think?

Nope- but I think putting human health above animal health or factory farm profits is the right way to go...
As fast as the ALL NATURAL cattle/beef marketing is growing- with no antibiotics/steroids- it shows this is the direction the consumer public wants and therefore the industry.... To me its the easiest premium you can get for your cattle....
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Since the government is planning to take over health care, maybe
those antibiotics are something they won't have to pay for. Ya think?

Nope- but I think putting human health above animal health or factory farm profits is the right way to go...
As fast as the ALL NATURAL cattle/beef marketing is growing- with no antibiotics/steroids- it shows this is the direction the consumer public wants and therefore the industry.... To me its the easiest premium you can get for your cattle....


What % of the mkt. has that natural beef captured? I think it will be a couple of months before it is a driving force in the market place :roll:

As always in this country price is the main force that drives the market.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
65
Location
Texas
More federal government stupidity. The way I read that, it will prohibit giving Excede for metaphylactic use. But, still no additional oversight for medical doctors that over-prescribe antibiotics just because a patient insists on having something for his cold or flu.

If I give a 300 pound calf a dose of Excede in the ear, how much will still be in the edible tissue 1,100 pounds later? Idiots.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mwj said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Since the government is planning to take over health care, maybe
those antibiotics are something they won't have to pay for. Ya think?

Nope- but I think putting human health above animal health or factory farm profits is the right way to go...
As fast as the ALL NATURAL cattle/beef marketing is growing- with no antibiotics/steroids- it shows this is the direction the consumer public wants and therefore the industry.... To me its the easiest premium you can get for your cattle....


What % of the mkt. has that natural beef captured? I think it will be a couple of months before it is a driving force in the market place :roll:

As always in this country price is the main force that drives the market.

ALL NATURAL cattle have been being sought around this area for at least 10 years- with the demand rising every year... Usually about at least a $5 cwt premium for doing nothing- and with calfhood vaccinations can amount to much more ...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,947
Reaction score
172
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Oldtimer said:
mwj said:
Oldtimer said:
Nope- but I think putting human health above animal health or factory farm profits is the right way to go...
As fast as the ALL NATURAL cattle/beef marketing is growing- with no antibiotics/steroids- it shows this is the direction the consumer public wants and therefore the industry.... To me its the easiest premium you can get for your cattle....


What % of the mkt. has that natural beef captured? I think it will be a couple of months before it is a driving force in the market place :roll:

As always in this country price is the main force that drives the market.

ALL NATURAL cattle have been being sought around this area for at least 10 years- with the demand rising every year... Usually about at least a $5 cwt premium for doing nothing- and with calfhood vaccinations can amount to much more ...

That would be nice, if it beared out. That absolutely has not been the case in our area.
Lots of people that tried going 'all natural' have abandoned it because
they didn't get paid anything for doing so. And isn't it odd that 'all natural'
is supposed to mean something when selling calves and has no bearing
on yearlings........????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
mwj said:
What % of the mkt. has that natural beef captured? I think it will be a couple of months before it is a driving force in the market place :roll:

As always in this country price is the main force that drives the market.

ALL NATURAL cattle have been being sought around this area for at least 10 years- with the demand rising every year... Usually about at least a $5 cwt premium for doing nothing- and with calfhood vaccinations can amount to much more ...

That would be nice, if it beared out. That absolutely has not been the case in our area.
Lots of people that tried going 'all natural' have abandoned it because
they didn't get paid anything for doing so. And isn't it odd that 'all natural'
is supposed to mean something when selling calves and has no bearing
on yearlings........????

You must not have the right buyers going down there- because most up here want and pay extra if you can sign an ALL NATURAL verification on your cattle...Altho we have our own- the Stockyards now even offers an affidavit for those that qualify (includes age verification)...
Even bulls with an ALL NATURAL affidavit will bring a few dollars more because the buyers need that to get them into programs like Laura's Lean...

And our neighbor that runs 6000-8000 head of yearlings- red tags every calf they doctor either in the lot in the winter or on the range- and those are cut back at shipping time-and sold separate--- as they sell theirs for a premium as ALL NATURAL...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,947
Reaction score
172
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
ALL NATURAL cattle have been being sought around this area for at least 10 years- with the demand rising every year... Usually about at least a $5 cwt premium for doing nothing- and with calfhood vaccinations can amount to much more ...

That would be nice, if it beared out. That absolutely has not been the case in our area.
Lots of people that tried going 'all natural' have abandoned it because
they didn't get paid anything for doing so. And isn't it odd that 'all natural'
is supposed to mean something when selling calves and has no bearing
on yearlings........????

You must not have the right buyers going down there- because most up here want and pay extra if you can sign an ALL NATURAL verification on your cattle...Altho we have our own- the Stockyards now even offers an affidavit for those that qualify (includes age verification)...
Even bulls with an ALL NATURAL affidavit will bring a few dollars more because the buyers need that to get them into programs like Laura's Lean...

And our neighbor that runs 6000-8000 head of yearlings- red tags every calf they doctor either in the lot in the winter or on the range- and those are cut back at shipping time-and sold separate--- as they sell theirs for a premium as ALL NATURAL...

Oh, we have buyers that make noise about it, but when all was said and done,
an extra nickel didn't pay for the ones that perished or the ones the owners
couldn't sell because they had to be treated. It just wasn't worth it, not
enough premium was paid to satisfy the producers.

You didn't answer my question about the yearlings. Many yearlings are
summered being fed low doses of CTC to keep from having hoofrot, pinkeye,
pneumonia and for gaining extra weight.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
That would be nice, if it beared out. That absolutely has not been the case in our area.
Lots of people that tried going 'all natural' have abandoned it because
they didn't get paid anything for doing so. And isn't it odd that 'all natural'
is supposed to mean something when selling calves and has no bearing
on yearlings........????

You must not have the right buyers going down there- because most up here want and pay extra if you can sign an ALL NATURAL verification on your cattle...Altho we have our own- the Stockyards now even offers an affidavit for those that qualify (includes age verification)...
Even bulls with an ALL NATURAL affidavit will bring a few dollars more because the buyers need that to get them into programs like Laura's Lean...

And our neighbor that runs 6000-8000 head of yearlings- red tags every calf they doctor either in the lot in the winter or on the range- and those are cut back at shipping time-and sold separate--- as they sell theirs for a premium as ALL NATURAL...

Oh, we have buyers that make noise about it, but when all was said and done,
an extra nickel didn't pay for the ones that perished or the ones the owners
couldn't sell because they had to be treated. It just wasn't worth it, not
enough premium was paid to satisfy the producers.

You didn't answer my question about the yearlings. Many yearlings are
summered being fed low doses of CTC to keep from having hoofrot, pinkeye,
pneumonia and for gaining extra weight.

Even CTC will knock them out of the program...Those ones that neighbor me get nothing- besides vaccination shots... And these are some straight shooter cattlemen. What they tell you- you could take to the bank...And when you run cattle of that numbers that you are getting a premium on for a management practice it darn sure isn't worth cheating on a few head and getting caught and losing the whole program.. The doctored cutbacks still sell- but just not at the premium price...
And since they run cattle under that program- it has allowed them to buy my calves and many other neighbors at a good price....
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,947
Reaction score
172
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Who said anything about cheating? Odd you brought that up.
There are lots of straight-shooter cattlemen everywhere. I don't think
it's unusual, rather I think ones that aren't straight shooters are unusual.

I know CTC will not allow cattle to be sold as all natural. I know
people here don't get paid enough to go on that program and no longer
strive for it. We have a good friend that buys cattle and he doesn't
mess with it either, pays a premium in our area and all-natural has
nothing to do with it.

Whatever works.
 
Top