PORKER
Well-known member
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Residue_Violators_List.pdf
The Dairy industry is the problem.
The Dairy industry is the problem.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FSIS RESIDUE VIOLATION INFORMATION SYSTEM
- Thread starter PORKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
PORKER
Well-known member
Hormones in U.S. Beef
US beef is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones. The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.
When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 extra profit per animal.
Also, and not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the FDA and USDA, residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.
Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the U.S. since 1975, 60% for prostate, 59% for testis, and 10% for breast. Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA maintain that hormone residues in meat are within "normal levels," while waiving any requirements for residue testing.
Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.
The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38% since 1975.
These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.
A January 1986 report, "Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs," unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that "the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility - has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.
Based on these concerns, Europe banned imports of U.S. beef in 1989, and Japan followed up with its own ban in 2003. Before the ban, Japan was the most lucrative overseas market for American beef, importing more than $1.5 billion worth in 2002.
In this connection, it is well recognized that American women have about a five-fold greater risk of breast cancer than Japanese.
However, as recently confirmed by studies of cancer rates in Los Angeles County, the most highly populated ethnically diverse county in the U.S., the low risk in Japanese women increases sharply in immigrants to the U.S. after one to two generations. This, and a wide range of other studies in migrant populations, are supportive of avoidable, dietary, and possibly other "Westernized" lifestyle, causes of breast cancer, particularly hormonal meat.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust, his awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; author of 250 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and also Toxic Beauty (2009).
Contact:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Chicago, Illinois
[email protected]
www.preventcancer.com
312-996-2297
US beef is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones. The hormones in past and current use include the natural estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, and the synthetic zeranol, trenbolone, and melengesterol.
When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 extra profit per animal.
Also, and not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the FDA and USDA, residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal. Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues.
Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the U.S. since 1975, 60% for prostate, 59% for testis, and 10% for breast. Nevertheless, the FDA and USDA maintain that hormone residues in meat are within "normal levels," while waiving any requirements for residue testing.
Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.
The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels. Not surprisingly, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38% since 1975.
These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.
A January 1986 report, "Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs," unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that "the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility - has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.
Based on these concerns, Europe banned imports of U.S. beef in 1989, and Japan followed up with its own ban in 2003. Before the ban, Japan was the most lucrative overseas market for American beef, importing more than $1.5 billion worth in 2002.
In this connection, it is well recognized that American women have about a five-fold greater risk of breast cancer than Japanese.
However, as recently confirmed by studies of cancer rates in Los Angeles County, the most highly populated ethnically diverse county in the U.S., the low risk in Japanese women increases sharply in immigrants to the U.S. after one to two generations. This, and a wide range of other studies in migrant populations, are supportive of avoidable, dietary, and possibly other "Westernized" lifestyle, causes of breast cancer, particularly hormonal meat.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust, his awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; author of 250 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and also Toxic Beauty (2009).
Contact:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Chicago, Illinois
[email protected]
www.preventcancer.com
312-996-2297
PORKER
Well-known member
Beef is half as bad as Chicken and Turkey. Consumer Reports has just came out with the 2010 report and the pork and beef industrys can cheer a little.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/food/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/food/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm
PORKER
Well-known member
Senator Feinstein on Processed Food Safety Act
Posted on December 1, 2009 by Bill Marler
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today introduced legislation to require that food producers take responsibility for keeping food free from harmful pathogens.
The bill would amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any food that has not been certified to be pathogen free.
"Food producers must be obligated to produce food that is free of pathogens." Senator Feinstein said. "It is the responsibility of the food producer, not the consumer, to make sure our food safe to eat."
"Anyone who visits the websites of the USDA or the FDA can see that recalls are not a rare occurrence. In the last month, these two federal agencies recalled thousands of pounds of beef because of E. coli contamination, packages of apples and carrots which contained botulism spores, and dried plums which contained traces of lead.
Serious reform is needed. This bill would require companies that process any kind of food, from ground beef to frozen pot pies, to test their finished products and their ingredients to make sure that they are safe to eat and pathogen free."
Last month, The New York Times reported two people from New Hampshire and New York died after eating ground beef that may have been tainted with E. coli. Fairbank Farms, a producer in western New York State, has issued a voluntary recall for 545,699 pounds of ground beef products that are suspected to have caused the deaths, according to the newspaper.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that foodborne illnesses sicken up to 76 million people, cause 325,000 hospital visits and result in more than 5,000 deaths each year.
Bill Summary
The Processed Food Safety Act requires everyone in the food chain to take responsibility for keeping food free of harmful pathogens. Specifically, the bill:
* Amends the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any processed poultry, meat and FDA-regulated food that has not either undergone a pathogen reduction treatment, or been certified to contain no verifiable traces of pathogens.
* Requires that labels on ground beef, or any other ground meat product, specifically name every cut of meat that is contained in the product, and;
* Does away with loopholes in current laws that allow for producers to add coloring, synthetic flavorings and spices to their products without informing the consumer.
By enacting these simple changes, the Processed Food Safety Act will drastically reduce the presence of pathogens in our food and improve the ability of the consumer to make informed choices about the products they wish to eat.
Posted on December 1, 2009 by Bill Marler
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today introduced legislation to require that food producers take responsibility for keeping food free from harmful pathogens.
The bill would amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any food that has not been certified to be pathogen free.
"Food producers must be obligated to produce food that is free of pathogens." Senator Feinstein said. "It is the responsibility of the food producer, not the consumer, to make sure our food safe to eat."
"Anyone who visits the websites of the USDA or the FDA can see that recalls are not a rare occurrence. In the last month, these two federal agencies recalled thousands of pounds of beef because of E. coli contamination, packages of apples and carrots which contained botulism spores, and dried plums which contained traces of lead.
Serious reform is needed. This bill would require companies that process any kind of food, from ground beef to frozen pot pies, to test their finished products and their ingredients to make sure that they are safe to eat and pathogen free."
Last month, The New York Times reported two people from New Hampshire and New York died after eating ground beef that may have been tainted with E. coli. Fairbank Farms, a producer in western New York State, has issued a voluntary recall for 545,699 pounds of ground beef products that are suspected to have caused the deaths, according to the newspaper.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that foodborne illnesses sicken up to 76 million people, cause 325,000 hospital visits and result in more than 5,000 deaths each year.
Bill Summary
The Processed Food Safety Act requires everyone in the food chain to take responsibility for keeping food free of harmful pathogens. Specifically, the bill:
* Amends the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale of any processed poultry, meat and FDA-regulated food that has not either undergone a pathogen reduction treatment, or been certified to contain no verifiable traces of pathogens.
* Requires that labels on ground beef, or any other ground meat product, specifically name every cut of meat that is contained in the product, and;
* Does away with loopholes in current laws that allow for producers to add coloring, synthetic flavorings and spices to their products without informing the consumer.
By enacting these simple changes, the Processed Food Safety Act will drastically reduce the presence of pathogens in our food and improve the ability of the consumer to make informed choices about the products they wish to eat.
PORKER
Well-known member
FDA Petitioned to Ban Arsenic from Animal Feed
Groups Urge Government Ban of Common Additives Used in Feed for Chicken, Turkeys and Hogs
WASHINGTON - December 8 - Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling for the immediate withdrawal of approvals for all animal drug applications for arsenic-containing compounds used in animal feed. These additives are commonly used in poultry production to induce faster weight gain and create the appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens, turkeys and hogs. The petition was supported by a coalition of food and farm groups around the country.
"The fact that arsenic - a known and powerful carcinogen - in these feed additives leads to arsenic residue in chicken is now well known," said the Center for Food Safety's Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell. "FDA's failure to investigate the mounting evidence that these compounds are unsafe is a breach of the public trust, and the use of arsenic-containing compounds in food animal production is a needless and dangerous risk to human health."
"Arsenic can be poisonous. Its use in animal feed, therefore, is unnecessarily risky and has not been shown to be safe given the latest science," said David Wallinga, M.D. of the IATP. "To best protect public health, all avoidable exposures to arsenic should be eliminated. FDA can and should act."
Arsenic-containing compounds have been approved additives to animal feed since the 1940s and are currently used in chicken, turkey and swine production. Most arsenic-containing animal feed additives are not used to treat sickness. Instead, arsenicals are generally approved for "increased weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and improved pigmentation." The European Union has never approved the use of arsenicals in animal feed, acknowledging the lack of science supporting health or safety standards for such use.
Arsenic-containing compounds are most widely used in chicken production, and most chickens receive arsenic-laced feed. In 2004 and 2005, the IATP tested for total arsenic in retail packages of raw chicken and in "fast food" chicken sandwiches and nuggets. Test results revealed detectable levels of arsenic in the majority of both supermarket and fast food chicken with higher levels found in brands of chicken raised conventionally. Lower or non-detectable levels of arsenic were found in certified organic and other "premium" brands where the use of arsenic-containing feed additives were either legally prohibited or claimed not to have been used. These results strongly suggest that use of arsenic-containing compounds in poultry feed leads to arsenic residues in U.S. marketed and eaten chicken.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Representative Steve Israel of New York announced legislation calling for a ban on the use of the arsenical compound roxarsone in poultry feed. His bill, the "Poison-Free Poultry Act of 2009," would prohibit all uses of roxarsone as a food additive in poultry. The groups applaud the bill, but maintain that it does not go far enough. Their petition not only calls for a ban on roxarsone, but also on Arsanilic acid, Nitarsone, and Carbarsone, commonly used compounds which contain arsenicals.
Other groups signing the petition include: Food Animal Concerns Trust, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Center for Environmental Health, Institute for a Sustainable Future, Health Care Without Harm and Ecology Center of Michigan.
Read the full petition.
Read IATP's report on arsenic in poultry: Playing Chicken: Avoiding Arsenic in Your Meat.
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
Groups Urge Government Ban of Common Additives Used in Feed for Chicken, Turkeys and Hogs
WASHINGTON - December 8 - Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling for the immediate withdrawal of approvals for all animal drug applications for arsenic-containing compounds used in animal feed. These additives are commonly used in poultry production to induce faster weight gain and create the appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens, turkeys and hogs. The petition was supported by a coalition of food and farm groups around the country.
"The fact that arsenic - a known and powerful carcinogen - in these feed additives leads to arsenic residue in chicken is now well known," said the Center for Food Safety's Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell. "FDA's failure to investigate the mounting evidence that these compounds are unsafe is a breach of the public trust, and the use of arsenic-containing compounds in food animal production is a needless and dangerous risk to human health."
"Arsenic can be poisonous. Its use in animal feed, therefore, is unnecessarily risky and has not been shown to be safe given the latest science," said David Wallinga, M.D. of the IATP. "To best protect public health, all avoidable exposures to arsenic should be eliminated. FDA can and should act."
Arsenic-containing compounds have been approved additives to animal feed since the 1940s and are currently used in chicken, turkey and swine production. Most arsenic-containing animal feed additives are not used to treat sickness. Instead, arsenicals are generally approved for "increased weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and improved pigmentation." The European Union has never approved the use of arsenicals in animal feed, acknowledging the lack of science supporting health or safety standards for such use.
Arsenic-containing compounds are most widely used in chicken production, and most chickens receive arsenic-laced feed. In 2004 and 2005, the IATP tested for total arsenic in retail packages of raw chicken and in "fast food" chicken sandwiches and nuggets. Test results revealed detectable levels of arsenic in the majority of both supermarket and fast food chicken with higher levels found in brands of chicken raised conventionally. Lower or non-detectable levels of arsenic were found in certified organic and other "premium" brands where the use of arsenic-containing feed additives were either legally prohibited or claimed not to have been used. These results strongly suggest that use of arsenic-containing compounds in poultry feed leads to arsenic residues in U.S. marketed and eaten chicken.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Representative Steve Israel of New York announced legislation calling for a ban on the use of the arsenical compound roxarsone in poultry feed. His bill, the "Poison-Free Poultry Act of 2009," would prohibit all uses of roxarsone as a food additive in poultry. The groups applaud the bill, but maintain that it does not go far enough. Their petition not only calls for a ban on roxarsone, but also on Arsanilic acid, Nitarsone, and Carbarsone, commonly used compounds which contain arsenicals.
Other groups signing the petition include: Food Animal Concerns Trust, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Center for Environmental Health, Institute for a Sustainable Future, Health Care Without Harm and Ecology Center of Michigan.
Read the full petition.
Read IATP's report on arsenic in poultry: Playing Chicken: Avoiding Arsenic in Your Meat.
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
PORKER said:FDA Petitioned to Ban Arsenic from Animal Feed
Groups Urge Government Ban of Common Additives Used in Feed for Chicken, Turkeys and Hogs
WASHINGTON - December 8 - Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling for the immediate withdrawal of approvals for all animal drug applications for arsenic-containing compounds used in animal feed. These additives are commonly used in poultry production to induce faster weight gain and create the appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens, turkeys and hogs. The petition was supported by a coalition of food and farm groups around the country.
"The fact that arsenic - a known and powerful carcinogen - in these feed additives leads to arsenic residue in chicken is now well known," said the Center for Food Safety's Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell. "FDA's failure to investigate the mounting evidence that these compounds are unsafe is a breach of the public trust, and the use of arsenic-containing compounds in food animal production is a needless and dangerous risk to human health."
"Arsenic can be poisonous. Its use in animal feed, therefore, is unnecessarily risky and has not been shown to be safe given the latest science," said David Wallinga, M.D. of the IATP. "To best protect public health, all avoidable exposures to arsenic should be eliminated. FDA can and should act."
Arsenic-containing compounds have been approved additives to animal feed since the 1940s and are currently used in chicken, turkey and swine production. Most arsenic-containing animal feed additives are not used to treat sickness. Instead, arsenicals are generally approved for "increased weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and improved pigmentation." The European Union has never approved the use of arsenicals in animal feed, acknowledging the lack of science supporting health or safety standards for such use.
Arsenic-containing compounds are most widely used in chicken production, and most chickens receive arsenic-laced feed. In 2004 and 2005, the IATP tested for total arsenic in retail packages of raw chicken and in "fast food" chicken sandwiches and nuggets. Test results revealed detectable levels of arsenic in the majority of both supermarket and fast food chicken with higher levels found in brands of chicken raised conventionally. Lower or non-detectable levels of arsenic were found in certified organic and other "premium" brands where the use of arsenic-containing feed additives were either legally prohibited or claimed not to have been used. These results strongly suggest that use of arsenic-containing compounds in poultry feed leads to arsenic residues in U.S. marketed and eaten chicken.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Representative Steve Israel of New York announced legislation calling for a ban on the use of the arsenical compound roxarsone in poultry feed. His bill, the "Poison-Free Poultry Act of 2009," would prohibit all uses of roxarsone as a food additive in poultry. The groups applaud the bill, but maintain that it does not go far enough. Their petition not only calls for a ban on roxarsone, but also on Arsanilic acid, Nitarsone, and Carbarsone, commonly used compounds which contain arsenicals.
Other groups signing the petition include: Food Animal Concerns Trust, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Center for Environmental Health, Institute for a Sustainable Future, Health Care Without Harm and Ecology Center of Michigan.
Read the full petition.
Read IATP's report on arsenic in poultry: Playing Chicken: Avoiding Arsenic in Your Meat.
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
let me get this straight, they ban arsenic in wood i.e. CCA treated lumber, but it is legal to feed arsenic to livestock producing animals, for human and animal consumption. wow, what a wonderful world we live in. who thinks this **** up ???
TSS
PORKER
Well-known member
Antibiotic Resistance Explored on Hill
by Helena Bottemiller | Dec 18, 2009
Congressional staff heard from a panel of experts yesterday on the public health hazards of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and the increase in antibiotic-resistant pathogens, two public health issues that are intimately tied to the safety and sustainability of the food system.
"A key contributor to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the overuse of drugs on industrial farms," according to the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, which co-hosted the briefing with U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Antibiotics important to human health are fed to food animals at low doses, often over long periods of time, creating a breeding ground for new and resistant bacteria and a potentially hazardous workplace."
Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the primary sponsor of legislation aimed at addressing antibiotic resistance, invited the panelists to brief staffers on the myriad of public health risks associated with CAFOs and the routine use of antibiotics in agriculture.
Slaughter, chairwoman of the powerful House Rules Committee--and the only microbiologist in Congress--has become a champion for those concerned about antibiotic resistance.
Slaughter introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, commonly known as PAMTA, in the House in early 2007, and again last March. The bill would require that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), deny any new animal antibiotic drugs unless the federal government is certain the drugs will not contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
The bill would also ban the routine, or nontherapeutic, use of antibiotics in food-producing animals--a widespread practice in animal agriculture.
Michael Blackwell, a veterinarian and former senior FDA official who spoke at the briefing, said the reasons to ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals are clear.
"We know we cannot feed [food animals] antibiotics at these levels and everything will be okay," said Blackwell, who emphasized the overwhelming scientific evidence tying antibiotic use to antimicrobial resistance. "It's not okay."
by Helena Bottemiller | Dec 18, 2009
Congressional staff heard from a panel of experts yesterday on the public health hazards of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and the increase in antibiotic-resistant pathogens, two public health issues that are intimately tied to the safety and sustainability of the food system.
"A key contributor to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the overuse of drugs on industrial farms," according to the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, which co-hosted the briefing with U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Antibiotics important to human health are fed to food animals at low doses, often over long periods of time, creating a breeding ground for new and resistant bacteria and a potentially hazardous workplace."
Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the primary sponsor of legislation aimed at addressing antibiotic resistance, invited the panelists to brief staffers on the myriad of public health risks associated with CAFOs and the routine use of antibiotics in agriculture.
Slaughter, chairwoman of the powerful House Rules Committee--and the only microbiologist in Congress--has become a champion for those concerned about antibiotic resistance.
Slaughter introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, commonly known as PAMTA, in the House in early 2007, and again last March. The bill would require that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), deny any new animal antibiotic drugs unless the federal government is certain the drugs will not contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
The bill would also ban the routine, or nontherapeutic, use of antibiotics in food-producing animals--a widespread practice in animal agriculture.
Michael Blackwell, a veterinarian and former senior FDA official who spoke at the briefing, said the reasons to ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals are clear.
"We know we cannot feed [food animals] antibiotics at these levels and everything will be okay," said Blackwell, who emphasized the overwhelming scientific evidence tying antibiotic use to antimicrobial resistance. "It's not okay."
PORKER
Well-known member
Dairy Rapped For Drug Residues in Meat
by Dan Flynn | Dec 19, 2009
The Graham Farm in Moore Haven, FL has a problem with the animal drug sulfamethazine.
Sulfamethazine is an antibacterial drug consisting of any of several synthetic compounds capable of inhibiting growth of bacteria. It is used in both cattle and pigs.
The tolerance level is 0.1 parts per million (PPM) for residues of sulfamethazine in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle. A calf sold by Graham Farm had 126.95 PPM of sulfamethazine in the liver tissue.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected the Graham dairy farm on April 29 and May 1, 2009. It found that a calf tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety & inspection Service (FSIS) had a high level of the drug in the animal's edible tissue but was sold by the dairy on Dec. 6, 2008.
In a recently released Nov. 16 "Warning Letter" to The Graham Farm, FDA said the high drug levels mean the dairy is selling "adulterated" food under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
"Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply," FDA Florida District Director Emma R. Singleton wrote.
The Graham Farm was rapped for poor record keeping and using the drug in a manner not consistent with instructions on the label, which FDA refers to as "extralabel" use.
High concentrations of the drug being found in the edible tissues likely resulted from not stopping dosages at least two weeks prior to slaughter, experts say.
The Graham Farm at Moore Haven is apparently not related to properties owned in the Miami Lakes area that were developed by the family of former Florida Gov. Bob Graham.
The Moore Haven dairy was asked to respond to the FDA within 15 working days with information of how it plans to come into compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.
by Dan Flynn | Dec 19, 2009
The Graham Farm in Moore Haven, FL has a problem with the animal drug sulfamethazine.
Sulfamethazine is an antibacterial drug consisting of any of several synthetic compounds capable of inhibiting growth of bacteria. It is used in both cattle and pigs.
The tolerance level is 0.1 parts per million (PPM) for residues of sulfamethazine in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle. A calf sold by Graham Farm had 126.95 PPM of sulfamethazine in the liver tissue.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected the Graham dairy farm on April 29 and May 1, 2009. It found that a calf tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety & inspection Service (FSIS) had a high level of the drug in the animal's edible tissue but was sold by the dairy on Dec. 6, 2008.
In a recently released Nov. 16 "Warning Letter" to The Graham Farm, FDA said the high drug levels mean the dairy is selling "adulterated" food under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
"Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply," FDA Florida District Director Emma R. Singleton wrote.
The Graham Farm was rapped for poor record keeping and using the drug in a manner not consistent with instructions on the label, which FDA refers to as "extralabel" use.
High concentrations of the drug being found in the edible tissues likely resulted from not stopping dosages at least two weeks prior to slaughter, experts say.
The Graham Farm at Moore Haven is apparently not related to properties owned in the Miami Lakes area that were developed by the family of former Florida Gov. Bob Graham.
The Moore Haven dairy was asked to respond to the FDA within 15 working days with information of how it plans to come into compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.
PORKER
Well-known member
Canada is lowering the boom on products; http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/food-safety-violations-bring-fines-in-canada/
Here in the US. some Experts say: Halt Use Of Livestock Antibiotics in the U.S. lawmakers are fighting for a new law that would ban farmers from feeding antibiotics to their animals unless they are sick.
"If you mixed an antibiotic in your child's cereal, people would think you're crazy," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Renewed pressure is on from Capitol Hill from Slaughter's bill and new rules discussed in regulatory agencies. There is also pressure from trade issues: The European Union and other developed countries have adopted strong limits against antibiotics. Russia recently banned pork imports from two U.S. plants after detecting levels of tetracycline that the USDA said met American standards. Link below to this story;
http://www.wlwt.com/health/22073579/detail.html
Here in the US. some Experts say: Halt Use Of Livestock Antibiotics in the U.S. lawmakers are fighting for a new law that would ban farmers from feeding antibiotics to their animals unless they are sick.
"If you mixed an antibiotic in your child's cereal, people would think you're crazy," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Renewed pressure is on from Capitol Hill from Slaughter's bill and new rules discussed in regulatory agencies. There is also pressure from trade issues: The European Union and other developed countries have adopted strong limits against antibiotics. Russia recently banned pork imports from two U.S. plants after detecting levels of tetracycline that the USDA said met American standards. Link below to this story;
http://www.wlwt.com/health/22073579/detail.html
PORKER
Well-known member
Government Agencies
Idaho Cattleman Abusing Animal Drugs
by Dan Flynn | Dec 30, 2009
With 75,000 head, Millenkamp Cattle located northwest of Jerome, ID is not finishing out 2009 on a positive note. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators early last September visited Millenkamp's calf-raising operation and found evidence of animal drug abuse.
In a recently released Dec. 14th "Warning Letter" to owner William J. Millenkamp, FDA presented evidence from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service that showed analysis of the kidney tissue of a calf Millenkamp Cattle had sold and shipped. The presence of 0.28 parts per million (ppm) of penicillin residue was found.
The tolerance level is 0.05 ppm.
"Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply," wrote FDA's Seattle District Director Charles M. Breen.
Food is deemed adulterated if it contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under the law.
Millenkamp Cattle is finishing 2009 in the rough.
In late November Millenkamp Cattle lost a civil trial when it sued the Jerome Cheese Company, claiming a condensed cheese byproduct the company sold caused the deaths of hundreds of calves and stunted the weight gain of thousands of others.
A six-person jury in Idaho's Magic Valley, however, did not buy it. They found for the cheese company, which is a unit of Davisco Foods International.
While waiting for the dispute to go to trial, Millenkamp Cattle grew to its present size from an 8,000 head operation.
Losing the jury verdict also meant Millenkamp was ordered to pay all of the legal bills incurred by the defense of Jerome Cheese.
The cattleman now has 15 working days to respond to FDA about the violations alleged in its "Warning Letter." Like several other calf operations recently, Millenkamp is being accused of using a new animal drug without following "the indications, dosing instructions, and duration of treatment as stated in the drug's approved labeling."
Idaho Cattleman Abusing Animal Drugs
by Dan Flynn | Dec 30, 2009
With 75,000 head, Millenkamp Cattle located northwest of Jerome, ID is not finishing out 2009 on a positive note. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators early last September visited Millenkamp's calf-raising operation and found evidence of animal drug abuse.
In a recently released Dec. 14th "Warning Letter" to owner William J. Millenkamp, FDA presented evidence from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service that showed analysis of the kidney tissue of a calf Millenkamp Cattle had sold and shipped. The presence of 0.28 parts per million (ppm) of penicillin residue was found.
The tolerance level is 0.05 ppm.
"Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply," wrote FDA's Seattle District Director Charles M. Breen.
Food is deemed adulterated if it contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under the law.
Millenkamp Cattle is finishing 2009 in the rough.
In late November Millenkamp Cattle lost a civil trial when it sued the Jerome Cheese Company, claiming a condensed cheese byproduct the company sold caused the deaths of hundreds of calves and stunted the weight gain of thousands of others.
A six-person jury in Idaho's Magic Valley, however, did not buy it. They found for the cheese company, which is a unit of Davisco Foods International.
While waiting for the dispute to go to trial, Millenkamp Cattle grew to its present size from an 8,000 head operation.
Losing the jury verdict also meant Millenkamp was ordered to pay all of the legal bills incurred by the defense of Jerome Cheese.
The cattleman now has 15 working days to respond to FDA about the violations alleged in its "Warning Letter." Like several other calf operations recently, Millenkamp is being accused of using a new animal drug without following "the indications, dosing instructions, and duration of treatment as stated in the drug's approved labeling."
