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.
Is China's Food Production Poisoning Us?
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
PORKER
Well-known member
The CHI-COMs have been shipping These falsified products, which contained a mixture of grain by-products, mainly wheat, in which large amounts of urea and other poisons were found. They have secertly added these poisons to the worlds feed and food supply.
PORKER said:The CHI-COMs have been shipping These falsified products, which contained a mixture of grain by-products, mainly wheat, in which large amounts of urea and other poisons were found. They have secertly added these poisons to the worlds feed and food supply.
...and our regulatory agencies have failed in their jobs to make sure we were not cheated. They bowed to the lowest price without checking to make sure the quality/safety was there.
It seems to me that it is hard to argue that we have the "safest" food in the world when these type of things have been allowed to happen. The USDA needs to be totally revamped and the upper management needs to be held accountable for their incompetence.
RESIGN, JOHANNS!!!!!
We need someone who can run the USDA, not sell it's regulatory duties out!
PORKER
Well-known member
CHI_COM imported Corn gluten, Tires, Ingredents, Whatever is Unfortunately, the way a system falls apart when environmental and health standards of industrialized nations are misused by its own importers. This is increasingly the case.
Free trade becomes a race to the bottom, as far as standards are concerned. At that point, the idea of having a better living standard through free trade becomes ridiculous. How can a person have a higher standard of living when they are brushing their teeth with anti-freeze everyday?
Canadians And Americans must do what the Europeans are starting to do: question whether getting the most "efficiently made" products from countries with lower standards is really the way to a better life.
Free trade becomes a race to the bottom, as far as standards are concerned. At that point, the idea of having a better living standard through free trade becomes ridiculous. How can a person have a higher standard of living when they are brushing their teeth with anti-freeze everyday?
Canadians And Americans must do what the Europeans are starting to do: question whether getting the most "efficiently made" products from countries with lower standards is really the way to a better life.
PORKER said:CHI_COM imported Corn gluten, Tires, Ingredents, Whatever is Unfortunately, the way a system falls apart when environmental and health standards of industrialized nations are misused by its own importers. This is increasingly the case.
Free trade becomes a race to the bottom, as far as standards are concerned. At that point, the idea of having a better living standard through free trade becomes ridiculous. How can a person have a higher standard of living when they are brushing their teeth with anti-freeze everyday?
Canadians And Americans must do what the Europeans are starting to do: question whether getting the most "efficiently made" products from countries with lower standards is really the way to a better life.
i was wondering last night if it might be possible for any American company's to be involved in all this ??? we know some corporations send there business overseas to get around everything from taxes, rules, and regulations. we know that in some cases where we ban this fertilizer here, or that fertilizer there, so we do not have it on our home grown products, but yet we export these fertilizers to other countries, that then use them on there products, that are eventually imported into the USA, along with the fertilizer that was banned here, but used there ??? just pondering out loud here, but does anyone know ???
terry
PORKER
Well-known member
We made DDT, Unfortunately, the way a system falls apart when environmental and health standards of industrialized nations are misused by its own importers.
THIS CHEMICAL WARFARE CHINA is now waging against the USA now seems to be coming together TWO FOLD. FACT is, this cr@p has been coming to the USA for years and years. Old Johanns is just playing the trade card $ trying to force CHINA to consume USA mad cow beef i.e. force feeding China USA biological TSE agents, just like were doing to Korea and Japan just to name a few. ITS a trade off of sorts, you take our poison, and well take yours. you watch, months from now old Johanns will come forth and say that everything is o.k. with China imports, about the time we force China to accept our mad cow beef. ITs all about money folks, and that will be our greatest downfall. ...TSS
U.S. tries to sell beef to China amid food disputes
REUTERS
1:02 a.m. June 29, 2007
BEIJING – The United States has again requested access to the Chinese market for American beef, the quarantine administration said, despite a spate of safety and trade disputes over Chinese seafood and pet food and U.S. fruit.
China has banned American beef since 2003, after an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States that year.
The U.S. ambassador to China, Clark Randt, met quarantine chief Li Changjiang and forwarded him a letter concerning U.S beef exports to China on Thursday, China's quarantine administration said in a brief notice on its Website on Friday.
Officials from both sides declined further comment.
Earlier this month, a senior U.S agriculture official said the United States had seen no sign China would soon drop the ban on U.S. beef. U.S. officials pushed for concessions on the issue when Chinese vice premier Wu Yi visited Washington in May.
The U.S. beef industry had been hoping to resume trade by June 2006, after what it called a commitment from China. But the two governments still disagree about import rules.
South Korea and Japan also stopped importing U.S. beef in 2003, and U.S. negotiators have been trying to restore trade.
Seoul, once the No. 3 customer for U.S. beef, resumed imports of boneless beef from U.S. cattle less than 30 months of age in April. It briefly suspended trade this month after finding bone-in beef among the U.S. shipments.
The safety of food and goods from China has come under intense global scrutiny, spurred by a series of scandals over lead paint used on toys and dangerous chemicals in pet food and medicines.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday it would not allow imports of Chinese farm-raised seafood unless suppliers could prove the shipments were free from harmful residue, while Japanese companies supplying toothpaste in kits to hotels launched a recall.
China said it seized two shipments from the United States of preserved apricots and orange pulp earlier this week, citing health concerns.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070629-0102-china-food-beef.html
TSS
U.S. tries to sell beef to China amid food disputes
REUTERS
1:02 a.m. June 29, 2007
BEIJING – The United States has again requested access to the Chinese market for American beef, the quarantine administration said, despite a spate of safety and trade disputes over Chinese seafood and pet food and U.S. fruit.
China has banned American beef since 2003, after an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States that year.
The U.S. ambassador to China, Clark Randt, met quarantine chief Li Changjiang and forwarded him a letter concerning U.S beef exports to China on Thursday, China's quarantine administration said in a brief notice on its Website on Friday.
Officials from both sides declined further comment.
Earlier this month, a senior U.S agriculture official said the United States had seen no sign China would soon drop the ban on U.S. beef. U.S. officials pushed for concessions on the issue when Chinese vice premier Wu Yi visited Washington in May.
The U.S. beef industry had been hoping to resume trade by June 2006, after what it called a commitment from China. But the two governments still disagree about import rules.
South Korea and Japan also stopped importing U.S. beef in 2003, and U.S. negotiators have been trying to restore trade.
Seoul, once the No. 3 customer for U.S. beef, resumed imports of boneless beef from U.S. cattle less than 30 months of age in April. It briefly suspended trade this month after finding bone-in beef among the U.S. shipments.
The safety of food and goods from China has come under intense global scrutiny, spurred by a series of scandals over lead paint used on toys and dangerous chemicals in pet food and medicines.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday it would not allow imports of Chinese farm-raised seafood unless suppliers could prove the shipments were free from harmful residue, while Japanese companies supplying toothpaste in kits to hotels launched a recall.
China said it seized two shipments from the United States of preserved apricots and orange pulp earlier this week, citing health concerns.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070629-0102-china-food-beef.html
TSS
ALSO, blaming CHINA for over use of antibiotics is like the pot calling the kettle black ;
Subject: ANTIBIOTICS IN MEAT GONE WILD
Date: March 16, 2007 at 9:01 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Minneapolis District Office
Central Region
212 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (812) 758-7132
FAX: (812) 334-4142
February 28, 2007
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Refer to MIN 07-14
Roger A. Lanners
Julie A. Lanners
Owners
18576 83rd Street
Royalton, Minnesota 56373
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lanners:
An investigation of your dairy operation located in Royalton, Minnesota, was conducted by investigators from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the U.S. Good and Drug Administration (FDA), on October 26, 2006. This investigation confirmed that you offered animals for sale for slaughter as food that were adulterated under sections 402(a)(2){C)(u) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] and 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (the Act). The inspection also revealed that you caused the new animal drugs sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride; penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate to be unsafe under section 512 [21 U.S.C. 360b] of the Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a){S) [21 U.S.C. 351{a)(5)] of the Act. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on the FDA web page at www.fda.gov.
On or about August 18, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #905 and cross-referenced to back tag #4747 for slaughter as food. On or about August 18, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted].The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service,(USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of 27 parts per million (ppm) oxytetracycline in kidney tissue, 0.30 ppm sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue, and. 0.82 ppm sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue.
On or about August. 28, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #488 and cross-referenced to back tag #5327 for slaughter as food. On or about August 29, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted].The USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 0.11 ppm ampicillin in kidney tissue.
On or about September 7, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #881 and cross-referenced to back tag #5828 for slaughter as food. On or about September 7, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted]. The USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 20.98 ppm oxytetracycline in kidney tissue, 6.97 ppm sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue, and 3.88 ppm sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue.
A tolerance of 12 ppm has been established for residues of oxytetracycline in kidney tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 556.500 {21 CFR 556.500). A tolerance of 0.01 ppm has been established for residues of ampicillin in uncooked edible tissues of cattle as codified in 21 CFR 556.40. A tolerance of 0.1 ppm has been established for residues of sulfadimethoxine in uncooked edible tissue of cattle as codified in 21 CFR 556.640. The presence of these drugs in excess of these amounts in these tissues from these animals causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] of the 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. You lack an adequate system to ensure that animals medicated by you have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous residues of drugs from edible tissues. For example, you failed to maintain in your treatment records a reliable system to ensure that treated cattle are not culled before labeled meat and milk withhold times are met. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 342(a){4)] of the Act.
In addition, you adulterated sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)]. of the Act when you failed to use these drugs in conformance with their approved labeling. "Extralabel use," i:e., the actual or intended use of a drug in an animal in a manner that is not in accordance with the approved labeling, is only permitted if the use is by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship. The extralabel use of approved veterinary or human drugs must comply with sections 512(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)] and 512(a)(5) [21 U.S.C.360b(a)(5)] of the Act and 21 CFR Part 530. Our investigation found that your extralabel use of sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate failed to comply with these requirements.
For example, you administered the sulfadimethoxine to treat an indication (mastitis} not set forth in the approved labeling, and you failed to follow the labeled slaughter withdrawal time. Sulfadimethoxine is prohibited from extralabel use in food producing animals by 21 CFR 530.41(a)(9). In addition, you administered oxytetracycline hydrochloride without following the animal class set forth in the approved labeling, you administered penicillin G procaine without following the dosage amount per injection site and for an indication (metritis) that is not set, forth in the approved labeling, and you failed to observe the slaughter withdrawal time for animals treated with amoxicillin. Furthermore, you failed to follow the extralabel use directions for the route of administration of isoflupredone acetate prescribed by your veterinarian.
Your use of sulfadimethoxine in an extralabel manner, when such use is prohibited by 21 CFR 530.41(a)(9), caused the drug to be unsafe under section 512(a) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] of the Act. In addition, your extralabel use of oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate was without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(a). Furthermore, your extralabel use of sulfadimethoxine; oxytetracycline, and ampicillin resulted in drug residues above an established safe level, safe concentration, or tolerance, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(d). Because your extralabel use of these drugs was not in compliance with 21 CFR Part 530, your use caused the drugs to be unsafe under section 512(a) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] of the Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] of the Act.
The above is not intended to be an all inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute are in compliance with the law.
You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.
You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
Your response should be sent to, Brian D. Garthwaite, Ph.D., Compliance Officer, at the address located on the letterhead. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Dr. Garthwaite at (612) 758-7132.
Sincerely,
/S/
W. Charles Becoat
Director
Minneapolis District
BDG/ccl
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/b6274d.htm
CHIMPANZEES, ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE - UGANDA
*******************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: Sat 10 March 2007
From: Mary Marshall
Source: The News-Gazette.com (Champaign-Urbana, Il) [edited]
Proximity between chimpanzees and people in a protected wildlife area
in Uganda may be leaving them with more in common than an ancestor in
the distant past. The animals also are apparently picking up human
bacteria -- some of them with antibiotic resistance, according to a
University of Illinois (UI) study.
The study in Uganda's Kibale National Park is the 1st to show such a
transmission in a protected wildlife area and without direct contact
between the animals and people, UI Professor Tony Goldberg said
recently. "I think the bottom line is maybe we should be more
concerned than we have been," said Goldberg, a veterinary
pathobiology professor in the UI College of Veterinary Medicine and
principal investigator of the study. "We should be aware of the risk
of infectious disease transmission, probably both ways."
Indeed, some of the most prominent infectious diseases to emerge
recently are believed to have jumped from animals to humans, HIV,
Ebola, and bird flu among them. Chimpanzees in some areas have
likewise exhibited signs of polio-like disease, and gorillas of
measles and mumps.
Diseases spread to humans can travel fast today as well, as fast as
an airliner can fly from Africa to Chicago, for instance.
"Diseases like SARS show how quickly a global epidemic can spread,"
said Goldberg, a leader in tracking the spread of pathogens by
studying their genetic makeup. Goldberg said the new study also
raises concern about the ease with which antibiotic resistance may be
transmitted, to wildlife in particular. The burgeoning of resistant
pathogens already is a human health threat, rendering commonly used
antibiotics ineffective in some cases.
But the spread of resistance has been thought to be largely a result
of such developed-nation problems as over-prescription of antibiotics
by doctors and widespread use of antibiotics in domestic animal feed.
To do the study, the UI researchers, working with colleagues from
Makerere University in Uganda and McGill University in Canada,
examined 2 of the communities of chimpanzees living in the Kibale
park. One of them has been under study by scientists for more than 2
decades. The other is visited regularly by ranger guides who shepherd
tourists in the park. The researchers collected samples of _E. coli_
bacteria from the chimpanzees and from the human scientists and
guides. They also collected samples of _E. coli_ from villagers who
live about 3 and 15 miles (5-24 km.) from the park and have little if
any contact with the chimps.
Goldberg said the researchers looked at _E. coli_ because the
bacterium is a good model system for such a study. It's common in
animals and humans and it can be a serious health threat in some
forms. Scientists also know much about _E. coli_ on a molecular,
genetic level -- more than any other bacterium -- and about
antibiotic resistance in _E. coli_. That's important because the UI
researchers and their colleagues basically compared the genetic
fingerprints of the various samples to see if there were
similarities. They found that _E. coli_ from people who worked in
proximity to the chimpanzees was more like the _E. coli_ from the
chimps than bacteria from the villagers who have little or no contact
with the animals.
Goldberg said you might expect some limited "background level" of
antibiotic resistance in the chimps from natural factors. But in this
case, specific strains of resistance proved to be significantly
similar among the animals and the people who work with them. While
antibiotics are used frequently among humans in the area, they've
never been used in the local wildlife, indicating that the resistance
found in the chimpanzees jumped from people, he said. And that's
without the 2 actually touching. Goldberg said the transmission
probably occurred environmentally, through contact by each with water
sources and the like. He said the findings have prompted the
researchers, who already took precautions to avoid contact, to be
even more careful. Another goal of the study is to provide the
Ugandans who manage Kibale with information they can use to minimize
the human impact on the wildlife there, through measures such as
limiting the number of people in the park and the time they spend in it.
The researchers are now looking for similarities in bacteria and
antibiotic resistance in people from farms around the park whose
crops are raided by Kibale chimpanzees and other monkeys.
The study was funded by the Morris Animal Foundation, which aims to
improve the health and well being of companion animals and wildlife
by funding humane health studies and disseminating information about
the results. Goldberg said it is the 1st in a series of studies
looking at health, disease transmission, and conservation involving
humans, primates, and domestic animals under the Kibale EcoHealth Project.
The project, headed by Goldberg and UI Professor Thomas Gillespie, is
associated with the UI Earth and Society Initiative, an
interdisciplinary program to address compelling environmental
questions, particularly as they relate to human health and societal well being.
[Byline: Greg Kline]
--
ProMED-mail
[A map of Uganda indicating the location of Kibale National Park is
available at
. - CopyEd.MJ]
******
[2]
Date: Sat 10 Mar 2007
From: William B. Karesh
The newspaper article does not make it clear if the direction of
transmission of the infectious organisms was conclusively proven in
this study, but we have long known about anthropozoonootic
infections. Human tuberculosis, measles, and polio being 3 notable
human diseases which have been found to kill apes and other pathogens
such as _Salmonella_ ssp, _Cryptosporidium parvum_, _Sarcoptes
scabiei_, and _Giardia duodenalis_ have been described as being found
in animals with humans implicated as the source species. Thaddeus
Graczyk has done some interesting work over the years in this subject
and also described the ability of a myriad of fly species able to
facilitate the long-distance spread of organisms shed in human feces.
As the authors note, one must be careful when interpreting antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. Antibiotics exist (and were originally
discovered) in nature, providing protection to the molds, fungi, and
plants that produce them. In turn, bacteria have developed antibiotic
resistance long before the advent of pharmaceuticals.
--
William B. Karesh, D.V.M.
Co-chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission - Veterinary Specialist Group
Director, Field Veterinary Program
Wildlife Conservation Society
2300 Southern Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10460
USA
[Humans studying chimp bands may find themselves far from base when
they need to defecate, so they do it in the bush. Flies can become
contaminated with fecal bacteria from there and spread them to
chimps. - Mod.MHJ, JW]
[Generally, a zoonosis is defined as a disease of animals that is
transmissible to humans. Some authors, however, have split the
concept into zooanthroponosis, infections humans can acquire from
animals, and anthropozoonosis, a disease of humans transmissible to
other animals -- also called a "reverse zoonosis".
The closeness of humans and animals in the wild, in a zoological
garden, or in a home can facilitate such reverse zoonoses. An example
of a classical infection of man that can be such a disease is
tuberculosis. _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_ has been spread to
primates (1), elephants (2), and dogs (3).
References:
1. Michel AL, Huchzermeyer HF: The zoonotic importance of
_Mycobacterium tuberculosis_: transmission from human to monkey. J S
Afr Vet Assoc 1998;69: 64-5.
2. Mickalak K, Austin C, Diesel S, et al: _Mycobacterium
tuberculosis_ infection as a zoonotic disease: transmission between
human and elephants. Emerg Infect Dis 1998;4: 283-7.
3. Erwin PC, Benis DA, Mawby DJ, et al: _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_
transmission from human to canine. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10: 2258-60. - Mod.LL]
This topic is an important discussion and I am glad we have assembled
several comments. I am very grateful for Billy Karesh's comments
above and his consistent contributions to ProMED-mail. I also want to
point out a very interesting paper by Mark Woolhouse and Sonya
Gowtage-Sequeria published in the EID (Emerging Infectious Diseases)
journal in December 2005 and referenced below.
The paper is titled "Host range and emerging and reemerging
pathogens". The authors surveyed the literature, including
ProMED-mail archives, and determined that there are 1407 species of
human pathogens, 58 percent of which are zoonotic. They also
identified 177 emerging and re-emerging diseases, of which 73 percent
are known to be zoonotic. The pattern differed somewhat across the
various pathogen groups of viruses and prions, bacteria and fungi,
protozoa and helminths. Bacteria and fungi are most likely to be
zoonotic, which is somewhat surprising given the attention viruses
receive in the world of emerging diseases.
Since 1959, WHO (World Health Organization) has defined zoonoses as
the "those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted
between vertebrate animals and man". However, a major PAHO (Pan
American Health Organization) publication on zoonotic diseases by
Acha and Szyfres, "Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to man
and animals" differs slightly on the subject indicating that the book
"considers 2 groups of communicable diseases: those transmitted from
vertebrate animals to man, which are "strictly speaking" zoonoses;
and those common to man and animals". Jim Steele who has, for the
past 75 years, been steeped in the study and prevention of zoonotic
disease, both cites the WHO definition and utilizes the notion of
diseases that are common to man and animals in his CRC Handbook of
the Zoonoses series. Schwabe, in Veterinary Medicine and Human
Health, discuses the multiple definitions in detail and proposes the
notion that zoonoses are those infections that are shared in nature.
These multiple definitions of zoonoses, and their directional
subcategories, correctly given by Mod.LL above, result in a certain
amount of obfuscation concerning the essential nature of zoonotic
diseases. The emphasis should not be placed on directionality of
infection but on the natural pattern of occurrence and potential
manipulable risk factors, regardless of in which direction the
disease travels. Whether it goes from animals to humans or, as in
this case of antibiotic resistance in chimpanzees, the other way
around, key epidemiologic factors such as close proximity,
commonality of food and water, or other risk factors must be
uncovered. It is critical that appropriate behavior and/or management
of the transmitting and receiving species be ensured to prevent the
occurrence of disease transmission.
Certainly, work by people like Professor Goldberg, Billy Karesh, and
Gladys Kalema-Zikukosa, (whose non-profit Conservation through Public
Health works in Uganda on these issues) provides us with a view from
the other side of the zoonotic equation or more properly put, another
angle to look from when viewing the zoonotic disease web. This is
extremely valuable because the more we know about how chimpanzees get
sick, the more we know about transmission of disease between host
species in its entirety, the better we can both protect public health
and conserve animal health and well being. Obviously, it is important
to do both to the best of our abilities, yet the study of diseases
flowing from humans to animals is undertaken infrequently.
References:
1. Woolhouse MEJ, Gowtage-Sequeria S: Host range and emerging and
reemerging pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2005
Dec [13 March 2007], available at
.
2. Veterinary Medicine and Human Health. CW Schwabe (Williams &
Wilkins, Baltimore, 1984).
3. Acha PN, Szyfres B: Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to
man and animals. 3rd edition, (Pan American Health Organization,
Washington, DC, 2001, 2003), available from PAHO at .
4. CRC Handbook of Zoonoses. JH Steele and G Beran Eds. CRC Press,
ISBN 9780849332067.
- Mod.PC]
[see also:
2005
----
Respiratory infections, fatal, gorillas - Africa 20050715.2019
1997
----
Scabies, chimpanzees - Tanzania (Gombe Nat. Park) (02) 19971224.2542
Scabies, chimpanzees - Tanzania (Gombe National Park) 19971219.2509]
.......................................pc/mj/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material. ...END
Subject: FSIS TO HOLD INTERNATIONAL MEAT AND POULTRY FOOD SAFETY MEETING
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:41:55 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: [email protected].
CC: [email protected]., [email protected]., [email protected]., [email protected].
Greetings FSIS,
in response to public meeting on March 27 on
food safety;
My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and i wish to make
submission to this meeting. i am disabled from neck
injury and cannot come to meeting. i wish my submission
to be made public at the meeting please.
> Topics will include global perspectives on multi-drug
> resistant pathogens, assisting small plants in meeting
> food safety requirements and biosecurity.
i wish to comment on all topics.
SNIP...FULL TEXT ;
http://www.microbes.info/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t155.html
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed
considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production
methods have become the
predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to
include ingredients
ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and
organoarsenicals. In this
article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents
that have been detected in
animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse
human health impacts is also
evaluated.
DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature
regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and
human health
effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books
identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Drug
Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can
result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions,
arsenicals, and dioxins
in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human
health impacts that could
ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive
assessments of human health risks
associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or
state level concerning the
amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are
insufficient surveillance systems to
monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health
surveillance systems and increased collaboration among feed professionals,
animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials is necessary to effectively address
these issues.
KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding
operations, fats, human health
effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses.
Environ Health Perspect
115:663–670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/
[Online 8 February 2007]
snip...
U.S. Animal Feed Production
The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest
producer of animal feed in the world (Gill
2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary
animal feed, including mixes of feed
grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and
microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins,
minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in
the United States (Gill 2004). In the same
year, the United States exported nearly
$4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients
(International Trade Centre 2004).
snip...
Rendered animal products. In 2003, the
U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million
metric tons of rendered animal products,
including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct
meal, blood meal, and feather meal
(National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b).
Most of these products were incorporated into
animal feed. However, data concerning the
specific amounts of rendered animal protein
that are used in animal feed are difficult to
obtain because the information is neither routinely
collected at the federal or state level nor
reported by the rendering industry. The latest
available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,
estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered
animal products were used as animal
feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes
these ingredients are listed on animal feed
labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is
difficult to discern precisely which animal protein
products are included in a particular animal
feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).
Animal waste. ...snip
Conclusions
Food-animal production in the United States
has changed markedly in the past century,
and these changes have paralleled major
changes in animal feed formulations. While
this industrialized system of food-animal production
may result in increased production
efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended
adverse health consequences for consumers of
animal-based food products.
Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal
waste, antibiotics, metals, and fats, could
result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike
compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for
human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include
increases in bacterial infections (antibioticresistant
and nonresistant) and increases in the
risk of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD.
Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of
potential human health impacts that could
result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level
concerning the amounts of specific ingredients
that are intentionally included in U.S.
animal feed. In addition, almost no biological
or chemical testing is conducted on complete
U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed
on retail meat products; and human
health effects data are not appropriately
linked to this information. These surveillance
inadequacies make it difficult to conduct rigorous
epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which
specific human health risks are ultimately
associated with animal feeding practices. For
example, as noted above, there are insufficient
data to determine whether other human foodborne
bacterial illnesses besides those caused
by S. enterica serotype Agona are associated
with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there
are insufficient data to determine the percentage
of antibiotic-resistant human bacterial
infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic
use of antibiotics in animal feed.
Moreover, little research has been conducted
to determine whether the use of organoarsenicals
in animal feed, which can lead to
elevated levels of arsenic in meat products
(Lasky et al. 2004), contributes to increases in
cancer risk.
In order to address these research gaps,
the following principal actions are necessary
within the United States: a) implementation
of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of
concern to public health that are incorporated
into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals,
rendered animal products, fats, and animal
waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological,
chemical, and other etiologic agents
throughout the animal-based food-production
chain "from farm to fork" to human
health outcomes; and c) increased communication
and collaboration among feed professionals,
food-animal producers, and veterinary
and public health officials.
REFERENCES
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
please see full list of deadly and disgusting products we feed our
food-production animals at full text study below ;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf
on a weekly basis you can go and read something like ;
On or about October 26, 2006, you sold a dairy cow, identified with Back Tag #[redacted] (possibly [redacted]), lot tag #[redacted], for slaughter as food at [redacted] in [redacted] slaughtered this cow on or about October 26. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of gentamicin in the liver and kidney tissues. The level of gentarnicin was not quantified. No tolerance has been established for residues of gentamicin in the edible tissues of cows as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR), Part 556.300. The presence of gentamicin in edible tissues from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)].
On or about October 13, 2006, you sold a dairy cow, identified with Back Tag #[redacted], Lot Tag #[redacted], for slaughter as food at [redacted] slaughtered this cow on or about October 13. USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of penicillin at 18 ppm (parts per million) in the kidney tissue and at .12 ppm in the liver tissue. A tolerance of .05 ppm has been established for residues of penicillin in the edible tissues of cows as codified in 21 CFR 556.510. The presence of this drug in edible tissues from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)].
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6389c.htm
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19493
TSS
Subject: ANTIBIOTICS IN MEAT GONE WILD
Date: March 16, 2007 at 9:01 am PST
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Minneapolis District Office
Central Region
212 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (812) 758-7132
FAX: (812) 334-4142
February 28, 2007
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Refer to MIN 07-14
Roger A. Lanners
Julie A. Lanners
Owners
18576 83rd Street
Royalton, Minnesota 56373
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lanners:
An investigation of your dairy operation located in Royalton, Minnesota, was conducted by investigators from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the U.S. Good and Drug Administration (FDA), on October 26, 2006. This investigation confirmed that you offered animals for sale for slaughter as food that were adulterated under sections 402(a)(2){C)(u) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] and 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (the Act). The inspection also revealed that you caused the new animal drugs sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride; penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate to be unsafe under section 512 [21 U.S.C. 360b] of the Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a){S) [21 U.S.C. 351{a)(5)] of the Act. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on the FDA web page at www.fda.gov.
On or about August 18, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #905 and cross-referenced to back tag #4747 for slaughter as food. On or about August 18, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted].The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service,(USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of 27 parts per million (ppm) oxytetracycline in kidney tissue, 0.30 ppm sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue, and. 0.82 ppm sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue.
On or about August. 28, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #488 and cross-referenced to back tag #5327 for slaughter as food. On or about August 29, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted].The USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 0.11 ppm ampicillin in kidney tissue.
On or about September 7, 2006, you sold to [redacted] a dairy cow identified with your ear tag #881 and cross-referenced to back tag #5828 for slaughter as food. On or about September 7, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted]. The USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 20.98 ppm oxytetracycline in kidney tissue, 6.97 ppm sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue, and 3.88 ppm sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue.
A tolerance of 12 ppm has been established for residues of oxytetracycline in kidney tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 556.500 {21 CFR 556.500). A tolerance of 0.01 ppm has been established for residues of ampicillin in uncooked edible tissues of cattle as codified in 21 CFR 556.40. A tolerance of 0.1 ppm has been established for residues of sulfadimethoxine in uncooked edible tissue of cattle as codified in 21 CFR 556.640. The presence of these drugs in excess of these amounts in these tissues from these animals causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] of the 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. You lack an adequate system to ensure that animals medicated by you have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous residues of drugs from edible tissues. For example, you failed to maintain in your treatment records a reliable system to ensure that treated cattle are not culled before labeled meat and milk withhold times are met. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 342(a){4)] of the Act.
In addition, you adulterated sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)]. of the Act when you failed to use these drugs in conformance with their approved labeling. "Extralabel use," i:e., the actual or intended use of a drug in an animal in a manner that is not in accordance with the approved labeling, is only permitted if the use is by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship. The extralabel use of approved veterinary or human drugs must comply with sections 512(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)] and 512(a)(5) [21 U.S.C.360b(a)(5)] of the Act and 21 CFR Part 530. Our investigation found that your extralabel use of sulfadimethoxine, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate failed to comply with these requirements.
For example, you administered the sulfadimethoxine to treat an indication (mastitis} not set forth in the approved labeling, and you failed to follow the labeled slaughter withdrawal time. Sulfadimethoxine is prohibited from extralabel use in food producing animals by 21 CFR 530.41(a)(9). In addition, you administered oxytetracycline hydrochloride without following the animal class set forth in the approved labeling, you administered penicillin G procaine without following the dosage amount per injection site and for an indication (metritis) that is not set, forth in the approved labeling, and you failed to observe the slaughter withdrawal time for animals treated with amoxicillin. Furthermore, you failed to follow the extralabel use directions for the route of administration of isoflupredone acetate prescribed by your veterinarian.
Your use of sulfadimethoxine in an extralabel manner, when such use is prohibited by 21 CFR 530.41(a)(9), caused the drug to be unsafe under section 512(a) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] of the Act. In addition, your extralabel use of oxytetracycline hydrochloride, penicillin G procaine, amoxicillin, and isoflupredone acetate was without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(a). Furthermore, your extralabel use of sulfadimethoxine; oxytetracycline, and ampicillin resulted in drug residues above an established safe level, safe concentration, or tolerance, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(d). Because your extralabel use of these drugs was not in compliance with 21 CFR Part 530, your use caused the drugs to be unsafe under section 512(a) [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] of the Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] of the Act.
The above is not intended to be an all inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute are in compliance with the law.
You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.
You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
Your response should be sent to, Brian D. Garthwaite, Ph.D., Compliance Officer, at the address located on the letterhead. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Dr. Garthwaite at (612) 758-7132.
Sincerely,
/S/
W. Charles Becoat
Director
Minneapolis District
BDG/ccl
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/b6274d.htm
CHIMPANZEES, ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE - UGANDA
*******************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: Sat 10 March 2007
From: Mary Marshall
Source: The News-Gazette.com (Champaign-Urbana, Il) [edited]
Proximity between chimpanzees and people in a protected wildlife area
in Uganda may be leaving them with more in common than an ancestor in
the distant past. The animals also are apparently picking up human
bacteria -- some of them with antibiotic resistance, according to a
University of Illinois (UI) study.
The study in Uganda's Kibale National Park is the 1st to show such a
transmission in a protected wildlife area and without direct contact
between the animals and people, UI Professor Tony Goldberg said
recently. "I think the bottom line is maybe we should be more
concerned than we have been," said Goldberg, a veterinary
pathobiology professor in the UI College of Veterinary Medicine and
principal investigator of the study. "We should be aware of the risk
of infectious disease transmission, probably both ways."
Indeed, some of the most prominent infectious diseases to emerge
recently are believed to have jumped from animals to humans, HIV,
Ebola, and bird flu among them. Chimpanzees in some areas have
likewise exhibited signs of polio-like disease, and gorillas of
measles and mumps.
Diseases spread to humans can travel fast today as well, as fast as
an airliner can fly from Africa to Chicago, for instance.
"Diseases like SARS show how quickly a global epidemic can spread,"
said Goldberg, a leader in tracking the spread of pathogens by
studying their genetic makeup. Goldberg said the new study also
raises concern about the ease with which antibiotic resistance may be
transmitted, to wildlife in particular. The burgeoning of resistant
pathogens already is a human health threat, rendering commonly used
antibiotics ineffective in some cases.
But the spread of resistance has been thought to be largely a result
of such developed-nation problems as over-prescription of antibiotics
by doctors and widespread use of antibiotics in domestic animal feed.
To do the study, the UI researchers, working with colleagues from
Makerere University in Uganda and McGill University in Canada,
examined 2 of the communities of chimpanzees living in the Kibale
park. One of them has been under study by scientists for more than 2
decades. The other is visited regularly by ranger guides who shepherd
tourists in the park. The researchers collected samples of _E. coli_
bacteria from the chimpanzees and from the human scientists and
guides. They also collected samples of _E. coli_ from villagers who
live about 3 and 15 miles (5-24 km.) from the park and have little if
any contact with the chimps.
Goldberg said the researchers looked at _E. coli_ because the
bacterium is a good model system for such a study. It's common in
animals and humans and it can be a serious health threat in some
forms. Scientists also know much about _E. coli_ on a molecular,
genetic level -- more than any other bacterium -- and about
antibiotic resistance in _E. coli_. That's important because the UI
researchers and their colleagues basically compared the genetic
fingerprints of the various samples to see if there were
similarities. They found that _E. coli_ from people who worked in
proximity to the chimpanzees was more like the _E. coli_ from the
chimps than bacteria from the villagers who have little or no contact
with the animals.
Goldberg said you might expect some limited "background level" of
antibiotic resistance in the chimps from natural factors. But in this
case, specific strains of resistance proved to be significantly
similar among the animals and the people who work with them. While
antibiotics are used frequently among humans in the area, they've
never been used in the local wildlife, indicating that the resistance
found in the chimpanzees jumped from people, he said. And that's
without the 2 actually touching. Goldberg said the transmission
probably occurred environmentally, through contact by each with water
sources and the like. He said the findings have prompted the
researchers, who already took precautions to avoid contact, to be
even more careful. Another goal of the study is to provide the
Ugandans who manage Kibale with information they can use to minimize
the human impact on the wildlife there, through measures such as
limiting the number of people in the park and the time they spend in it.
The researchers are now looking for similarities in bacteria and
antibiotic resistance in people from farms around the park whose
crops are raided by Kibale chimpanzees and other monkeys.
The study was funded by the Morris Animal Foundation, which aims to
improve the health and well being of companion animals and wildlife
by funding humane health studies and disseminating information about
the results. Goldberg said it is the 1st in a series of studies
looking at health, disease transmission, and conservation involving
humans, primates, and domestic animals under the Kibale EcoHealth Project.
The project, headed by Goldberg and UI Professor Thomas Gillespie, is
associated with the UI Earth and Society Initiative, an
interdisciplinary program to address compelling environmental
questions, particularly as they relate to human health and societal well being.
[Byline: Greg Kline]
--
ProMED-mail
[A map of Uganda indicating the location of Kibale National Park is
available at
. - CopyEd.MJ]
******
[2]
Date: Sat 10 Mar 2007
From: William B. Karesh
The newspaper article does not make it clear if the direction of
transmission of the infectious organisms was conclusively proven in
this study, but we have long known about anthropozoonootic
infections. Human tuberculosis, measles, and polio being 3 notable
human diseases which have been found to kill apes and other pathogens
such as _Salmonella_ ssp, _Cryptosporidium parvum_, _Sarcoptes
scabiei_, and _Giardia duodenalis_ have been described as being found
in animals with humans implicated as the source species. Thaddeus
Graczyk has done some interesting work over the years in this subject
and also described the ability of a myriad of fly species able to
facilitate the long-distance spread of organisms shed in human feces.
As the authors note, one must be careful when interpreting antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. Antibiotics exist (and were originally
discovered) in nature, providing protection to the molds, fungi, and
plants that produce them. In turn, bacteria have developed antibiotic
resistance long before the advent of pharmaceuticals.
--
William B. Karesh, D.V.M.
Co-chair, IUCN Species Survival Commission - Veterinary Specialist Group
Director, Field Veterinary Program
Wildlife Conservation Society
2300 Southern Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10460
USA
[Humans studying chimp bands may find themselves far from base when
they need to defecate, so they do it in the bush. Flies can become
contaminated with fecal bacteria from there and spread them to
chimps. - Mod.MHJ, JW]
[Generally, a zoonosis is defined as a disease of animals that is
transmissible to humans. Some authors, however, have split the
concept into zooanthroponosis, infections humans can acquire from
animals, and anthropozoonosis, a disease of humans transmissible to
other animals -- also called a "reverse zoonosis".
The closeness of humans and animals in the wild, in a zoological
garden, or in a home can facilitate such reverse zoonoses. An example
of a classical infection of man that can be such a disease is
tuberculosis. _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_ has been spread to
primates (1), elephants (2), and dogs (3).
References:
1. Michel AL, Huchzermeyer HF: The zoonotic importance of
_Mycobacterium tuberculosis_: transmission from human to monkey. J S
Afr Vet Assoc 1998;69: 64-5.
2. Mickalak K, Austin C, Diesel S, et al: _Mycobacterium
tuberculosis_ infection as a zoonotic disease: transmission between
human and elephants. Emerg Infect Dis 1998;4: 283-7.
3. Erwin PC, Benis DA, Mawby DJ, et al: _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_
transmission from human to canine. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10: 2258-60. - Mod.LL]
This topic is an important discussion and I am glad we have assembled
several comments. I am very grateful for Billy Karesh's comments
above and his consistent contributions to ProMED-mail. I also want to
point out a very interesting paper by Mark Woolhouse and Sonya
Gowtage-Sequeria published in the EID (Emerging Infectious Diseases)
journal in December 2005 and referenced below.
The paper is titled "Host range and emerging and reemerging
pathogens". The authors surveyed the literature, including
ProMED-mail archives, and determined that there are 1407 species of
human pathogens, 58 percent of which are zoonotic. They also
identified 177 emerging and re-emerging diseases, of which 73 percent
are known to be zoonotic. The pattern differed somewhat across the
various pathogen groups of viruses and prions, bacteria and fungi,
protozoa and helminths. Bacteria and fungi are most likely to be
zoonotic, which is somewhat surprising given the attention viruses
receive in the world of emerging diseases.
Since 1959, WHO (World Health Organization) has defined zoonoses as
the "those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted
between vertebrate animals and man". However, a major PAHO (Pan
American Health Organization) publication on zoonotic diseases by
Acha and Szyfres, "Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to man
and animals" differs slightly on the subject indicating that the book
"considers 2 groups of communicable diseases: those transmitted from
vertebrate animals to man, which are "strictly speaking" zoonoses;
and those common to man and animals". Jim Steele who has, for the
past 75 years, been steeped in the study and prevention of zoonotic
disease, both cites the WHO definition and utilizes the notion of
diseases that are common to man and animals in his CRC Handbook of
the Zoonoses series. Schwabe, in Veterinary Medicine and Human
Health, discuses the multiple definitions in detail and proposes the
notion that zoonoses are those infections that are shared in nature.
These multiple definitions of zoonoses, and their directional
subcategories, correctly given by Mod.LL above, result in a certain
amount of obfuscation concerning the essential nature of zoonotic
diseases. The emphasis should not be placed on directionality of
infection but on the natural pattern of occurrence and potential
manipulable risk factors, regardless of in which direction the
disease travels. Whether it goes from animals to humans or, as in
this case of antibiotic resistance in chimpanzees, the other way
around, key epidemiologic factors such as close proximity,
commonality of food and water, or other risk factors must be
uncovered. It is critical that appropriate behavior and/or management
of the transmitting and receiving species be ensured to prevent the
occurrence of disease transmission.
Certainly, work by people like Professor Goldberg, Billy Karesh, and
Gladys Kalema-Zikukosa, (whose non-profit Conservation through Public
Health works in Uganda on these issues) provides us with a view from
the other side of the zoonotic equation or more properly put, another
angle to look from when viewing the zoonotic disease web. This is
extremely valuable because the more we know about how chimpanzees get
sick, the more we know about transmission of disease between host
species in its entirety, the better we can both protect public health
and conserve animal health and well being. Obviously, it is important
to do both to the best of our abilities, yet the study of diseases
flowing from humans to animals is undertaken infrequently.
References:
1. Woolhouse MEJ, Gowtage-Sequeria S: Host range and emerging and
reemerging pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2005
Dec [13 March 2007], available at
.
2. Veterinary Medicine and Human Health. CW Schwabe (Williams &
Wilkins, Baltimore, 1984).
3. Acha PN, Szyfres B: Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to
man and animals. 3rd edition, (Pan American Health Organization,
Washington, DC, 2001, 2003), available from PAHO at .
4. CRC Handbook of Zoonoses. JH Steele and G Beran Eds. CRC Press,
ISBN 9780849332067.
- Mod.PC]
[see also:
2005
----
Respiratory infections, fatal, gorillas - Africa 20050715.2019
1997
----
Scabies, chimpanzees - Tanzania (Gombe Nat. Park) (02) 19971224.2542
Scabies, chimpanzees - Tanzania (Gombe National Park) 19971219.2509]
.......................................pc/mj/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material. ...END
Subject: FSIS TO HOLD INTERNATIONAL MEAT AND POULTRY FOOD SAFETY MEETING
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:41:55 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: [email protected].
CC: [email protected]., [email protected]., [email protected]., [email protected].
Greetings FSIS,
in response to public meeting on March 27 on
food safety;
My name is Terry S. Singeltary Sr. and i wish to make
submission to this meeting. i am disabled from neck
injury and cannot come to meeting. i wish my submission
to be made public at the meeting please.
> Topics will include global perspectives on multi-drug
> resistant pathogens, assisting small plants in meeting
> food safety requirements and biosecurity.
i wish to comment on all topics.
SNIP...FULL TEXT ;
http://www.microbes.info/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t155.html
What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed
considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production
methods have become the
predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to
include ingredients
ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and
organoarsenicals. In this
article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents
that have been detected in
animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse
human health impacts is also
evaluated.
DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature
regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and
human health
effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books
identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Drug
Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can
result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions,
arsenicals, and dioxins
in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human
health impacts that could
ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive
assessments of human health risks
associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or
state level concerning the
amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are
insufficient surveillance systems to
monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health
surveillance systems and increased collaboration among feed professionals,
animal producers, and
veterinary and public health officials is necessary to effectively address
these issues.
KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal feeding
operations, fats, human health
effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics, rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses.
Environ Health Perspect
115:663–670 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/
[Online 8 February 2007]
snip...
U.S. Animal Feed Production
The U.S. animal feed industry is the largest
producer of animal feed in the world (Gill
2004). In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary
animal feed, including mixes of feed
grains, mill by-products, animal proteins, and
microingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins,
minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in
the United States (Gill 2004). In the same
year, the United States exported nearly
$4 billion worth of animal feed ingredients
(International Trade Centre 2004).
snip...
Rendered animal products. In 2003, the
U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million
metric tons of rendered animal products,
including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct
meal, blood meal, and feather meal
(National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b).
Most of these products were incorporated into
animal feed. However, data concerning the
specific amounts of rendered animal protein
that are used in animal feed are difficult to
obtain because the information is neither routinely
collected at the federal or state level nor
reported by the rendering industry. The latest
available data, collected by the USDA in 1984,
estimated that > 4 million metric tons of rendered
animal products were used as animal
feed ingredients (USDA 1988). Oftentimes
these ingredients are listed on animal feed
labels as "animal protein products." Thus, it is
difficult to discern precisely which animal protein
products are included in a particular animal
feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006).
Animal waste. ...snip
Conclusions
Food-animal production in the United States
has changed markedly in the past century,
and these changes have paralleled major
changes in animal feed formulations. While
this industrialized system of food-animal production
may result in increased production
efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
feeding practices may result in unintended
adverse health consequences for consumers of
animal-based food products.
Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients,
including rendered animal products, animal
waste, antibiotics, metals, and fats, could
result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike
compounds in animals and resulting
animal-based food products intended for
human consumption. Subsequent human
health effects among consumers could include
increases in bacterial infections (antibioticresistant
and nonresistant) and increases in the
risk of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
such as vCJD.
Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of
potential human health impacts that could
result from animal feeding practices, there are
little data collected at the federal or state level
concerning the amounts of specific ingredients
that are intentionally included in U.S.
animal feed. In addition, almost no biological
or chemical testing is conducted on complete
U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed
on retail meat products; and human
health effects data are not appropriately
linked to this information. These surveillance
inadequacies make it difficult to conduct rigorous
epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
that could identify the extent to which
specific human health risks are ultimately
associated with animal feeding practices. For
example, as noted above, there are insufficient
data to determine whether other human foodborne
bacterial illnesses besides those caused
by S. enterica serotype Agona are associated
with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there
are insufficient data to determine the percentage
of antibiotic-resistant human bacterial
infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic
use of antibiotics in animal feed.
Moreover, little research has been conducted
to determine whether the use of organoarsenicals
in animal feed, which can lead to
elevated levels of arsenic in meat products
(Lasky et al. 2004), contributes to increases in
cancer risk.
In order to address these research gaps,
the following principal actions are necessary
within the United States: a) implementation
of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
amounts and types of feed ingredients of
concern to public health that are incorporated
into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals,
rendered animal products, fats, and animal
waste; b) funding and development of
robust surveillance systems that monitor biological,
chemical, and other etiologic agents
throughout the animal-based food-production
chain "from farm to fork" to human
health outcomes; and c) increased communication
and collaboration among feed professionals,
food-animal producers, and veterinary
and public health officials.
REFERENCES
Sapkota et al.
668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives
please see full list of deadly and disgusting products we feed our
food-production animals at full text study below ;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf
on a weekly basis you can go and read something like ;
On or about October 26, 2006, you sold a dairy cow, identified with Back Tag #[redacted] (possibly [redacted]), lot tag #[redacted], for slaughter as food at [redacted] in [redacted] slaughtered this cow on or about October 26. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of gentamicin in the liver and kidney tissues. The level of gentarnicin was not quantified. No tolerance has been established for residues of gentamicin in the edible tissues of cows as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR), Part 556.300. The presence of gentamicin in edible tissues from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)].
On or about October 13, 2006, you sold a dairy cow, identified with Back Tag #[redacted], Lot Tag #[redacted], for slaughter as food at [redacted] slaughtered this cow on or about October 13. USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of penicillin at 18 ppm (parts per million) in the kidney tissue and at .12 ppm in the liver tissue. A tolerance of .05 ppm has been established for residues of penicillin in the edible tissues of cows as codified in 21 CFR 556.510. The presence of this drug in edible tissues from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)].
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6389c.htm
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19493
TSS
PORKER
Well-known member
Good Article in the NYtimes on the CHI COM Crap
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/01imports.html?ei=5065&en=fd1b699fcdae6446&ex=1183867200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/01imports.html?ei=5065&en=fd1b699fcdae6446&ex=1183867200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
PORKER
Well-known member
Policing Chinese food exports proves a daunting task
Gary Leong, one of Canada's top health supplement experts, had a graphic demonstration of lax Chinese oversight of its food business on a factory inspection.
The plant made chondroitin - a supplement used to relieve arthritis pain - from the trachea of slaughtered cattle. He was horrified to see piles of bovine body parts awaiting processing left in an open courtyard to be attacked by marauding dogs and wild animals. "You sit there and think that product is going to be manufactured into an ingredient that is going to be ingested by people," he said.
Mr. Leong's company, Jamieson Laboratories, a major Canadian vitamin and natural supplement distributor, made a gutsy call. To safeguard its customers, it won't source materials from China, although it makes an exception for big, multinational corporations that may have operations there, but have too much at stake in their brands to risk sloppy manufacturing practices.
He frets that many Chinese companies have "a total disregard" for safety standards and view customers "as someone you make money off, not someone with whom you have a long-term relationship."As new revelations abound about loose standards in China, the safety of food and other nutritional products from the country is looming large. Just this week, the Chinese government said it closed 180 food manufacturers after a crackdown on those using industrial chemicals and additives. New worries also emerged over poisonous chemicals in Chinese-made toothpaste.
This follows the death sentence handed down in May on Zheng Xiaoyu, head of China's food and drug administration for approving untested medicines. Fake products sold during the official's watch killed dozens. Around 100 people died in Panama last year after taking cough syrup contaminated with diethylene glycol, a sweet-tasting poison used in antifreeze and brake fluid, from China. Then there was the scare in the spring over melamine-contaminated pet food that killed or sickened thousands of cats and dogs in the United States.
Following on the heels of China's emergence as the world's low-cost producer for many manufacturing goods, the country is becoming an export powerhouse for a wide variety of foods, supplements and food additives, raising questions over whether Canada has adequate safeguards in place to protect consumers.
While Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency insist that they're vigilant watchdogs when it comes to policing Chinese imports, some questions have emerged from a recent series of e-mails and interviews with officials. The Globe and Mail has learned that:
Food inspectors conducted no tests on Chinese vegetable proteins last year. They only began inspections after the scare over contaminated Chinese wheat gluten in pet food. It now checks all Chinese and other imports. The agency has discovered several contaminated shipments.
CFIA found that 4 per cent of randomly selected Chinese fruit and vegetables failed pesticide residue tests last year, a rate three to four times higher than usually found on fresh Canadian produce.
But Paul Mayers, a CFIA spokesman, said the Chinese figure was "not so far out of whack with others that it would be an automatic alarm bell."
Health Canada conducts no spot checks on the quality of vitamins from China, one of its major exports. It requires Canadian importers of vitamins and other natural health products to fill out forms vouching that offshore suppliers follow good manufacturing procedures, but it is a trust-based system. Health Canada doesn't verify that Chinese companies adhere to accepted manufacturing standards either through site inspections or queries to Chinese regulators.
With few exceptions, neither CFIA nor Health Canada check Chinese imports to pro-actively stop unsafe products. They test when other international regulators, individuals, or companies tip them off that something may be amiss.
"We would only do testing if there was something that flagged a concern," said Philip Waddington, who follows natural health products for Health Canada.
The reason for this reactive approach is that the risks don't warrant the costs of taking pre-emptive steps.
"At this point in time we're not applying an across-the-board, every commodity from China will be subject to the same level of scrutiny, because frankly, that in our view at present wouldn't be consistent with the risked-based inspection approach that we're applying," said Mr. Mayers, who is CFIA executive director of animal products.
All meat products from abroad are inspected, regardless of country of origin, so foreign suppliers know in advance that problem shipments will be turned back. In 2006, all Chinese meat imports, mainly pork and sausage casings, passed inspections.
That there needs to be oversight of Chinese imports is highlighted by the rising likelihood that what Canadians find on their dinner plate, see as an ingredient on the fine print of a food label, or in their medicine cabinet, may be from China.
Canadians gobbled up $430-million in food from China last year, everything from garlic, shrimps and ginger, to canned mushrooms. Imports were up 38 per cent from 2003, one of the quickest growth rates of any country.
Earlier this year, Canada even began buying organic vegetables, one of the trendiest items in grocery stores, from China for the first time, according to Statistics Canada figures.
Chinese vitamin sales to Canada have risen dramatically, from a negligible $2.8-million in 1997, to $20.2-million last year for direct shipments. There may be additional amounts originating in China but routed through other countries.
Regulators, for their part, defend their oversight system.
Mr. Waddington says Health Canada co-operates closely with authorities in other countries, and is able to respond quickly if any problems emerge.
He says natural health products, such as vitamins and supplements, have a detailed tracking system, making it easy to recall products if anything untoward is discovered. He said the government is currently reviewing whether Canadian regulations need to be strengthened through such steps as requiring inspections.
However, he said even this step may not catch everything. "If somebody chooses to undertake a fraud and actually adulterate a product, that's a decision to go outside of the law, so even if you go and inspect, it's still difficult to catch something like that," Mr. Waddington said.
In tomorrow's Globe
China's obsession with economic growth leaves its citizens vulnerable to dangerous food and shoddy medicine, Geoffrey York reports.
Source: theglobeandmail.com
Gary Leong, one of Canada's top health supplement experts, had a graphic demonstration of lax Chinese oversight of its food business on a factory inspection.
The plant made chondroitin - a supplement used to relieve arthritis pain - from the trachea of slaughtered cattle. He was horrified to see piles of bovine body parts awaiting processing left in an open courtyard to be attacked by marauding dogs and wild animals. "You sit there and think that product is going to be manufactured into an ingredient that is going to be ingested by people," he said.
Mr. Leong's company, Jamieson Laboratories, a major Canadian vitamin and natural supplement distributor, made a gutsy call. To safeguard its customers, it won't source materials from China, although it makes an exception for big, multinational corporations that may have operations there, but have too much at stake in their brands to risk sloppy manufacturing practices.
He frets that many Chinese companies have "a total disregard" for safety standards and view customers "as someone you make money off, not someone with whom you have a long-term relationship."As new revelations abound about loose standards in China, the safety of food and other nutritional products from the country is looming large. Just this week, the Chinese government said it closed 180 food manufacturers after a crackdown on those using industrial chemicals and additives. New worries also emerged over poisonous chemicals in Chinese-made toothpaste.
This follows the death sentence handed down in May on Zheng Xiaoyu, head of China's food and drug administration for approving untested medicines. Fake products sold during the official's watch killed dozens. Around 100 people died in Panama last year after taking cough syrup contaminated with diethylene glycol, a sweet-tasting poison used in antifreeze and brake fluid, from China. Then there was the scare in the spring over melamine-contaminated pet food that killed or sickened thousands of cats and dogs in the United States.
Following on the heels of China's emergence as the world's low-cost producer for many manufacturing goods, the country is becoming an export powerhouse for a wide variety of foods, supplements and food additives, raising questions over whether Canada has adequate safeguards in place to protect consumers.
While Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency insist that they're vigilant watchdogs when it comes to policing Chinese imports, some questions have emerged from a recent series of e-mails and interviews with officials. The Globe and Mail has learned that:
Food inspectors conducted no tests on Chinese vegetable proteins last year. They only began inspections after the scare over contaminated Chinese wheat gluten in pet food. It now checks all Chinese and other imports. The agency has discovered several contaminated shipments.
CFIA found that 4 per cent of randomly selected Chinese fruit and vegetables failed pesticide residue tests last year, a rate three to four times higher than usually found on fresh Canadian produce.
But Paul Mayers, a CFIA spokesman, said the Chinese figure was "not so far out of whack with others that it would be an automatic alarm bell."
Health Canada conducts no spot checks on the quality of vitamins from China, one of its major exports. It requires Canadian importers of vitamins and other natural health products to fill out forms vouching that offshore suppliers follow good manufacturing procedures, but it is a trust-based system. Health Canada doesn't verify that Chinese companies adhere to accepted manufacturing standards either through site inspections or queries to Chinese regulators.
With few exceptions, neither CFIA nor Health Canada check Chinese imports to pro-actively stop unsafe products. They test when other international regulators, individuals, or companies tip them off that something may be amiss.
"We would only do testing if there was something that flagged a concern," said Philip Waddington, who follows natural health products for Health Canada.
The reason for this reactive approach is that the risks don't warrant the costs of taking pre-emptive steps.
"At this point in time we're not applying an across-the-board, every commodity from China will be subject to the same level of scrutiny, because frankly, that in our view at present wouldn't be consistent with the risked-based inspection approach that we're applying," said Mr. Mayers, who is CFIA executive director of animal products.
All meat products from abroad are inspected, regardless of country of origin, so foreign suppliers know in advance that problem shipments will be turned back. In 2006, all Chinese meat imports, mainly pork and sausage casings, passed inspections.
That there needs to be oversight of Chinese imports is highlighted by the rising likelihood that what Canadians find on their dinner plate, see as an ingredient on the fine print of a food label, or in their medicine cabinet, may be from China.
Canadians gobbled up $430-million in food from China last year, everything from garlic, shrimps and ginger, to canned mushrooms. Imports were up 38 per cent from 2003, one of the quickest growth rates of any country.
Earlier this year, Canada even began buying organic vegetables, one of the trendiest items in grocery stores, from China for the first time, according to Statistics Canada figures.
Chinese vitamin sales to Canada have risen dramatically, from a negligible $2.8-million in 1997, to $20.2-million last year for direct shipments. There may be additional amounts originating in China but routed through other countries.
Regulators, for their part, defend their oversight system.
Mr. Waddington says Health Canada co-operates closely with authorities in other countries, and is able to respond quickly if any problems emerge.
He says natural health products, such as vitamins and supplements, have a detailed tracking system, making it easy to recall products if anything untoward is discovered. He said the government is currently reviewing whether Canadian regulations need to be strengthened through such steps as requiring inspections.
However, he said even this step may not catch everything. "If somebody chooses to undertake a fraud and actually adulterate a product, that's a decision to go outside of the law, so even if you go and inspect, it's still difficult to catch something like that," Mr. Waddington said.
In tomorrow's Globe
China's obsession with economic growth leaves its citizens vulnerable to dangerous food and shoddy medicine, Geoffrey York reports.
Source: theglobeandmail.com
PORKER
Well-known member
CFIA tests when other international regulators, individuals, or companies tip them off that something may be amiss. HA HA HA Ha Ha ! Paul Mayers Give me a Break!
Mike
Well-known member
Report: China admits quality control issues
Quality-control agency said to admit 20% of the nation's domestic goods have safety issues.
July 4 2007: 2:55 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As concerns about the safety of Chinese goods mount, the Chinese government has acknowledged that there are widespread quality-control issues, according to a report published Wednesday.
In fact, nearly one-fifth of the sold-in-China products that were studied failed to meet the country's quality standards, the Wall Street Journal's online edition said citing a report by a quality-control agency.
The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, reviewed 114 types of products made by more than 6,300 companies and found that 19.1 percent of them were substandard, the paper said, citing a statement on the group's Web site.
The report identified several categories of low-quality products, including bottled water, canned fruit, dried fish, linens and grass-cutting equipment, the Journal said.
But, the quality of beer, fruit and vegetable drinks, electric fans and wooden floorboards, had improved, the paper said citing the agency.
Scrutiny of the safety of Chinese exports has intensified with the recent discovery of contaminated food, dangerous chemicals in pet food and medicines and lead paint on toys.
Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it would not allow imports of Chinese farm-raised seafood unless suppliers could prove the shipments contained no harmful residue.
China slams U.S. over seafood ban
Quality-control agency said to admit 20% of the nation's domestic goods have safety issues.
July 4 2007: 2:55 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As concerns about the safety of Chinese goods mount, the Chinese government has acknowledged that there are widespread quality-control issues, according to a report published Wednesday.
In fact, nearly one-fifth of the sold-in-China products that were studied failed to meet the country's quality standards, the Wall Street Journal's online edition said citing a report by a quality-control agency.
The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, reviewed 114 types of products made by more than 6,300 companies and found that 19.1 percent of them were substandard, the paper said, citing a statement on the group's Web site.
The report identified several categories of low-quality products, including bottled water, canned fruit, dried fish, linens and grass-cutting equipment, the Journal said.
But, the quality of beer, fruit and vegetable drinks, electric fans and wooden floorboards, had improved, the paper said citing the agency.
Scrutiny of the safety of Chinese exports has intensified with the recent discovery of contaminated food, dangerous chemicals in pet food and medicines and lead paint on toys.
Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it would not allow imports of Chinese farm-raised seafood unless suppliers could prove the shipments contained no harmful residue.
China slams U.S. over seafood ban
PORKER
Well-known member
Health Canada issued a warning not to use Chinese-made toothpaste because a number have been found to contain unacceptable levels of diethylene glycol, which is commonly found in solvents and antifreeze.
"We had over 60 samples of toothpaste from China. Of 52 that have been analyzed, 21 have been found to contain diethylene glycol," Mr. Duchesne said.
"It is a poisonous chemical found in antifreeze," Mr. Duchesne said. "It can cause nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, urinary problems and kidney failure, convulsions and death," among other side effects.
He added that the Chinese-made toothpaste is "widely sold at Canadian retail stores."
"We had over 60 samples of toothpaste from China. Of 52 that have been analyzed, 21 have been found to contain diethylene glycol," Mr. Duchesne said.
"It is a poisonous chemical found in antifreeze," Mr. Duchesne said. "It can cause nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, urinary problems and kidney failure, convulsions and death," among other side effects.
He added that the Chinese-made toothpaste is "widely sold at Canadian retail stores."
CHICKEN AND CARDBOARD DUMPLINGS OR BOGUS RABIES SHOTS
BEIJING (Reuters) - Dumplings stuffed with cardboard and bogus rabies vaccines are the focus of the latest health scares in China, where the government has banned an industrial solvent used in toothpaste after a spate of global recalls.
China has stepped up its battle against substandard and fake food and drugs, new examples of which are reported on an almost daily basis around the world, and this week executed a former drug and food safety chief for corruption.
The Beijing Industry and Commerce Bureau had uncovered an unlicensed snack vendor selling steamed dumplings with traditional pork filling padded out with cardboard husks, the Beijing News said on Thursday, citing an investigative report by state-owned China Central Television.
The bureau had announced a city-wide crackdown of small snack vendors and warned people to eat in "legal" establishments.
Beijing was also investigating bogus rabies vaccines, the Beijing Times said, after a woman bitten by a neighbor's dog injected vaccine she bought from a local hospital.
Authorities found the hospital had been selling phials of vaccine taken off shelves two years earlier for quality problems, the paper said.
Tales of shoddy or unsafe goods have grabbed international attention and called into doubt the made-in-China label but China has insisted the problems are limited to a few wayward manufacturers and has accused foreign media of hype.
Wei Chuanzhong, deputy head of the quality supervision watchdog, added his voice to the accusations in a meeting with the American Chamber of Commerce in China, according to a statement posted on the administration's Web site (www.aqsiq.gov.cn).
"As for the malicious stirring up of some foreign media about quality and safety issues of Chinese exports, both sides think the problems of some companies and products do not mean there is a general problem with Chinese product quality," it said.
"Individual trade cases will not affect the healthy development of Sino-U.S. trade."
The latest reports come after China's quality watchdog banned the use of diethylene glycol -- an industrial solvent used in paint and antifreeze -- in toothpaste after a series of recalls.
China's quality and inspection watchdog stressed, however, that there was no proof long-term use of toothpaste containing the chemical was hazardous.
"Almost all of our toothpaste manufacturers no longer use diethylene glycol as an ingredient," it said in a statement posted on its Web site late on Wednesday.
The move was to "guarantee consumers' scientific use of toothpaste and also to avoid exporters suffering unnecessary losses," it added.
The ban takes effect immediately.
The chemical is similar to but much cheaper than glycerine, which is widely used as a syrup in medicines and toothpaste.
This week Spain took Chinese-made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol off its shelves.
The United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Panama and other Latin American and Caribbean countries have taken similar action.
Dumplings, rabies shots latest China health scare Ben Blanchard, Reuters
Published: Thursday, July 12, 2007 Article tools
Font: * * * * Panama says at least 100 people died after taking cough syrup which contained diethylene glycol rather than the glycerine which was supposed to have been used.
© Reuters 2007
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=85a1fe72-86f8-43ba-ab1a-ec1628e565f1&k=47221&p=2
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=85a1fe72-86f8-43ba-ab1a-ec1628e565f1&k=47221
July 12, 2007, 11:33PM
Chinese drug czar went from reform to graft
Friend says he could not resist the lure of bribes
By DAVID BARBOZA
New York Times
BEIJING — Zheng Xiaoyu once ranked as one of the most powerful regulators in China. He rose from modest beginnings to help create and lead Beijing's version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But last March, locked up in the Qincheng Prison here, he wrote a short confession. "Why are the friends who gave me money all the bosses of pharmaceutical companies?" he wrote in his letter. "Obviously because I was in charge of drug administration."
In his confession, Zheng acknowledged that during his eight-year tenure he had accepted gifts and bribes from eight drug companies that sought special favors: a car, a villa, furniture, cash. And corporate stock. All told, he and his family accepted gifts valued at more than $850,000.
For his crimes, the 62-year-old was executed on Tuesday, making him one of the highest-ranking Chinese officials ever to be put to death.
The rise and fall of Zheng offers a rare glimpse inside China's flawed regulatory system. He started out as an idealistic reformer.
Concerned about China's unsafe drug supply, he lobbied for the creation of the State Food and Drug Administration. But in the end, according to friends and associates, he was corrupted by the very system he sought to change — even enlisting his wife and son to solicit bribes.
"There were so many companies going to him, and he simply couldn't resist the temptation," said one drug company executive who befriended Zheng in the 1980s.
While China's tainted exports have attracted international attention, China's own citizens suffer most from the shortcomings of its drug regulators. Tens of thousands of crates of unsafe pharmaceuticals have reached the local market — from antibiotics to vaccines, from drugs to treat erectile dysfunction to ones to strengthen the immune system. The government does not know how many deaths and serious illnesses have resulted from faulty drugs.
Corruption is not the only problem, say industry insiders. Agencies battled over who had the authority to fine companies and who was responsible when things went wrong. The rapid growth of the drug industry has also made it hard for regulators and their staffs to keep up.
During Zheng's tenure, for instance, his agency approved more than 150,000 applications for new drugs, an approval rate that dwarfs the FDA, which approves only about 140 new drugs each year.
And when regulators do discover counterfeit pharmaceutical operations, powerful local officials often seek to shield companies in their area from punishment.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4964745.html
TSS
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/070707dnbuschinarecall.6308bf.html
>>>BEIJING – A former department head at China's drug regulation agency was sentenced to death Friday on bribery charges, as U.S. regulators ordered a recall of three more Chinese-made products deemed dangerous to children. <<<
now that's justice...
however, in the USA, it's a much different story $$$
Top Alzheimer's researcher charged with felony criminal conduct for secret financial ties to Pfizer
A top researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was charged Monday with criminal violation of federal conflict-of-interest laws by failing to disclose financial links with drug giant Pfizer, prosecutors said.
Pearson "Trey" Sunderland III, former chief of the Geriatric Psychiatry Branch of the NIH, was charged with one misdemeanor count for accepting $285,000 in undisclosed consulting fees from Pfizer. Sunderland -- who faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine -- has waived the grand jury indictment process, indicating he may consent to a plea agreement.
snip...
http://www.newstarget.com/021255.html
NIH Lax on Moonlighting by Scientists, Report Finds
By David Willman
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, August 6, 2005; Page
Ethics officials at the National Institutes of Health often approved senior scientists' requests to moonlight for drug companies and other outside organizations without gathering adequate documentation to help judge whether the arrangements posed conflicts of interest, federal inspectors have found.
In 81 percent of the recent outside arrangements reviewed by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, ethics officials were found to have approved the deals on the basis of "limited" information. This and other findings are included in a report by the inspector general that was made public yesterday.
"In no instance was the documentation we reviewed adequate for us to make a definitive determination regarding whether an activity was appropriate," the report said. "Inadequate documentation for outside activities can, intentionally or unintentionally, hide potential violations."
The report found that information submitted by the scientists to NIH ethics officials "included insufficient detail regarding the nature of the outside activities, the nature of employees' official job duties, the differences between the outside activities and their official job duties, the outside organizations, and any NIH funding or partnerships with the outside organizations."
The advance descriptions of the outside positions to be entered into by NIH scientists "were too general to demonstrate that employees' official duties would not overlap," the report said.
The inspector general's reviewers "could not determine the appropriateness of eight activities, and they also determined that two of the activities appeared to violate regulations."
The report also said "it is quite possible that, due to the approach taken in this review, we have underestimated the number of activities that should not have been approved."
The review marks another condemnation of NIH's recent policies governing moonlighting by agency scientists. In July 2004, the chief of the Office of Government Ethics concluded that NIH was beset with a "permissive culture" toward conflicts of interest.
NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni announced broad restrictions in February, citing payments by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of millions of dollars in consulting fees and stock to NIH scientists.
Zerhouni agreed to prohibit NIH employees from accepting any further payments from such companies.
A group of NIH scientists is resisting the tougher ethics rules, which include a provision that would force employees to divest their stock in biomedical companies. The scientists have called for Zerhouni to relax the ban on consulting for drug companies and to rescind the stock-divestiture provision, which has yet to be implemented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501472.html
TSS
BEIJING (Reuters) - Dumplings stuffed with cardboard and bogus rabies vaccines are the focus of the latest health scares in China, where the government has banned an industrial solvent used in toothpaste after a spate of global recalls.
China has stepped up its battle against substandard and fake food and drugs, new examples of which are reported on an almost daily basis around the world, and this week executed a former drug and food safety chief for corruption.
The Beijing Industry and Commerce Bureau had uncovered an unlicensed snack vendor selling steamed dumplings with traditional pork filling padded out with cardboard husks, the Beijing News said on Thursday, citing an investigative report by state-owned China Central Television.
The bureau had announced a city-wide crackdown of small snack vendors and warned people to eat in "legal" establishments.
Beijing was also investigating bogus rabies vaccines, the Beijing Times said, after a woman bitten by a neighbor's dog injected vaccine she bought from a local hospital.
Authorities found the hospital had been selling phials of vaccine taken off shelves two years earlier for quality problems, the paper said.
Tales of shoddy or unsafe goods have grabbed international attention and called into doubt the made-in-China label but China has insisted the problems are limited to a few wayward manufacturers and has accused foreign media of hype.
Wei Chuanzhong, deputy head of the quality supervision watchdog, added his voice to the accusations in a meeting with the American Chamber of Commerce in China, according to a statement posted on the administration's Web site (www.aqsiq.gov.cn).
"As for the malicious stirring up of some foreign media about quality and safety issues of Chinese exports, both sides think the problems of some companies and products do not mean there is a general problem with Chinese product quality," it said.
"Individual trade cases will not affect the healthy development of Sino-U.S. trade."
The latest reports come after China's quality watchdog banned the use of diethylene glycol -- an industrial solvent used in paint and antifreeze -- in toothpaste after a series of recalls.
China's quality and inspection watchdog stressed, however, that there was no proof long-term use of toothpaste containing the chemical was hazardous.
"Almost all of our toothpaste manufacturers no longer use diethylene glycol as an ingredient," it said in a statement posted on its Web site late on Wednesday.
The move was to "guarantee consumers' scientific use of toothpaste and also to avoid exporters suffering unnecessary losses," it added.
The ban takes effect immediately.
The chemical is similar to but much cheaper than glycerine, which is widely used as a syrup in medicines and toothpaste.
This week Spain took Chinese-made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol off its shelves.
The United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Panama and other Latin American and Caribbean countries have taken similar action.
Dumplings, rabies shots latest China health scare Ben Blanchard, Reuters
Published: Thursday, July 12, 2007 Article tools
Font: * * * * Panama says at least 100 people died after taking cough syrup which contained diethylene glycol rather than the glycerine which was supposed to have been used.
© Reuters 2007
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=85a1fe72-86f8-43ba-ab1a-ec1628e565f1&k=47221&p=2
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=85a1fe72-86f8-43ba-ab1a-ec1628e565f1&k=47221
July 12, 2007, 11:33PM
Chinese drug czar went from reform to graft
Friend says he could not resist the lure of bribes
By DAVID BARBOZA
New York Times
BEIJING — Zheng Xiaoyu once ranked as one of the most powerful regulators in China. He rose from modest beginnings to help create and lead Beijing's version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But last March, locked up in the Qincheng Prison here, he wrote a short confession. "Why are the friends who gave me money all the bosses of pharmaceutical companies?" he wrote in his letter. "Obviously because I was in charge of drug administration."
In his confession, Zheng acknowledged that during his eight-year tenure he had accepted gifts and bribes from eight drug companies that sought special favors: a car, a villa, furniture, cash. And corporate stock. All told, he and his family accepted gifts valued at more than $850,000.
For his crimes, the 62-year-old was executed on Tuesday, making him one of the highest-ranking Chinese officials ever to be put to death.
The rise and fall of Zheng offers a rare glimpse inside China's flawed regulatory system. He started out as an idealistic reformer.
Concerned about China's unsafe drug supply, he lobbied for the creation of the State Food and Drug Administration. But in the end, according to friends and associates, he was corrupted by the very system he sought to change — even enlisting his wife and son to solicit bribes.
"There were so many companies going to him, and he simply couldn't resist the temptation," said one drug company executive who befriended Zheng in the 1980s.
While China's tainted exports have attracted international attention, China's own citizens suffer most from the shortcomings of its drug regulators. Tens of thousands of crates of unsafe pharmaceuticals have reached the local market — from antibiotics to vaccines, from drugs to treat erectile dysfunction to ones to strengthen the immune system. The government does not know how many deaths and serious illnesses have resulted from faulty drugs.
Corruption is not the only problem, say industry insiders. Agencies battled over who had the authority to fine companies and who was responsible when things went wrong. The rapid growth of the drug industry has also made it hard for regulators and their staffs to keep up.
During Zheng's tenure, for instance, his agency approved more than 150,000 applications for new drugs, an approval rate that dwarfs the FDA, which approves only about 140 new drugs each year.
And when regulators do discover counterfeit pharmaceutical operations, powerful local officials often seek to shield companies in their area from punishment.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4964745.html
TSS
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/070707dnbuschinarecall.6308bf.html
>>>BEIJING – A former department head at China's drug regulation agency was sentenced to death Friday on bribery charges, as U.S. regulators ordered a recall of three more Chinese-made products deemed dangerous to children. <<<
now that's justice...
however, in the USA, it's a much different story $$$
Top Alzheimer's researcher charged with felony criminal conduct for secret financial ties to Pfizer
A top researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was charged Monday with criminal violation of federal conflict-of-interest laws by failing to disclose financial links with drug giant Pfizer, prosecutors said.
Pearson "Trey" Sunderland III, former chief of the Geriatric Psychiatry Branch of the NIH, was charged with one misdemeanor count for accepting $285,000 in undisclosed consulting fees from Pfizer. Sunderland -- who faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine -- has waived the grand jury indictment process, indicating he may consent to a plea agreement.
snip...
http://www.newstarget.com/021255.html
NIH Lax on Moonlighting by Scientists, Report Finds
By David Willman
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, August 6, 2005; Page
Ethics officials at the National Institutes of Health often approved senior scientists' requests to moonlight for drug companies and other outside organizations without gathering adequate documentation to help judge whether the arrangements posed conflicts of interest, federal inspectors have found.
In 81 percent of the recent outside arrangements reviewed by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, ethics officials were found to have approved the deals on the basis of "limited" information. This and other findings are included in a report by the inspector general that was made public yesterday.
"In no instance was the documentation we reviewed adequate for us to make a definitive determination regarding whether an activity was appropriate," the report said. "Inadequate documentation for outside activities can, intentionally or unintentionally, hide potential violations."
The report found that information submitted by the scientists to NIH ethics officials "included insufficient detail regarding the nature of the outside activities, the nature of employees' official job duties, the differences between the outside activities and their official job duties, the outside organizations, and any NIH funding or partnerships with the outside organizations."
The advance descriptions of the outside positions to be entered into by NIH scientists "were too general to demonstrate that employees' official duties would not overlap," the report said.
The inspector general's reviewers "could not determine the appropriateness of eight activities, and they also determined that two of the activities appeared to violate regulations."
The report also said "it is quite possible that, due to the approach taken in this review, we have underestimated the number of activities that should not have been approved."
The review marks another condemnation of NIH's recent policies governing moonlighting by agency scientists. In July 2004, the chief of the Office of Government Ethics concluded that NIH was beset with a "permissive culture" toward conflicts of interest.
NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni announced broad restrictions in February, citing payments by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of millions of dollars in consulting fees and stock to NIH scientists.
Zerhouni agreed to prohibit NIH employees from accepting any further payments from such companies.
A group of NIH scientists is resisting the tougher ethics rules, which include a provision that would force employees to divest their stock in biomedical companies. The scientists have called for Zerhouni to relax the ban on consulting for drug companies and to rescind the stock-divestiture provision, which has yet to be implemented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501472.html
TSS
PORKER
Well-known member
'Made in Canada' - via China
Trying to avoid contaminated imports? Don't rely on food labels, Rebecca Dube writes. A host of unsourced ingredients may lie in what's being sold under homemade banners
REBECCA DUBE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
July 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM EDT
Florence Wood threw out all of her dog's made-in-China biscuits during this spring's melamine scare.
Last week, after hearing warnings about unsafe fish and tainted toothpaste imported from China, she decided to purge her own pantry.
Goodbye, tinned salmon. So long, mandarin oranges. Farewell, frozen fish.
"Anything at all that comes from China that's edible we are not going to eat now," said Ms. Wood, a retired secretary in Lac-des-Îles, Que. She's even nervous about putting leftovers in made-in-China plastic containers.
She's not alone. More consumers are taking a hard look at "Made in China" labels after a string of recalls and publicity over deplorable safety standards in China. But it's nearly impossible to get out of the supermarket without food from China in your cart.
The good news is that avoiding products labelled "Made in China" won't crimp your grocery list, unless you really like frozen seafood - including shrimp, pollock, sole, haddock and salmon.
The bad news is that food labels don't tell the whole story. A host of Chinese imports are hiding behind "Made in Canada" labels, from the freeze-dried strawberries in your cereal to the wheat gluten in your hamburger buns.
"Made in Canada" simply means that 51 per cent of the production cost was incurred in Canada; the ingredients could come from anywhere, and increasingly they come from China. For example, manufacturers can import apple juice concentrate from China - for about one-fifth the cost of Canadian concentrate - add water to it in Canada, and mark it "Made in Canada."
"We eat food from China every day, we just don't know about it," says Dr. Keith Warriner, an assistant professor of food science at the University of Guelph.
Canadians ate $430-million worth of food from China last year, and as China's economic power grows so does its reach into our supermarkets, our kitchens - even our churches. Canada imported $9.5-million worth of communion wafers from China last year, along with $113-million worth of frozen fish fillets and $28-million worth of apple juice.
"A Canadian producer can source its supplies for cents [in China] rather than for dollars here," Dr. Warriner explains.
But North American consumers have recently become aware that inexpensive Chinese imports sometimes bear a hidden cost.
This spring, thousands of dogs and cats fell ill or died after eating pet food containing wheat gluten from China that was contaminated with melamine.
Since then, consumers have been warned about seafood, including shrimp and catfish, that doesn't meet safety standards; contaminated toothpaste and juices, and "Veggie Booty" snack food tainted by salmonella - all from China.
Meanwhile, Chinese officials have insisted their exported food is safe.
But this week, Beijing acknowledged that one-fifth of the goods made and sold in China are substandard, and the former head of China's food and drug administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently sentenced to death for accepting bribes.
Canadian officials stand by their policy of testing Chinese food imports on a case-by-case basis when concerns are raised about specific products.
Dr. Warriner believes greater scrutiny of imports from China will ultimately come not from governments, but from food companies with valuable brand reputations at stake.
"If we started labelling all the individual ingredients, the label would be a book," he says.
Dr. Warriner says that he avoids some made-in-China products, such as frozen fish, but that there's "no cause for alarm" about the myriad ingredients from China that fill our bellies daily.
Not everyone is so sanguine.
Canada's growing gluttony for Chinese imports is a disaster waiting to happen, says Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers Association of Canada. Other than writing to their MPs or buying only locally grown food, Mr. Cran says, there's not much Canadian consumers can do about it.
"Consumers are handicapped because we don't have the information we need on the labels," says Mr. Cran, whose family has sworn off all apple juice, regardless of its country-of-origin label, because so much of it comes from China.
Ms. Wood feels similarly skeptical. "We just don't think it's safe," she says. She wishes food labels were more specific. For instance, she has a jar of olives that says "Product of Canada" on it.
"Now, we know we don't have olive trees in Canada," Ms. Wood says. "So where does it come from?"
Made in China
The top 10 foods in volume Canada imported from China in 2006 (in millions of kilograms).
Mandarins, clementines and similar citrus hybrids, fresh/dried 33.9
Frozen fish fillets 24.4
Apple juice 21.7 (millions of litres)
Pears and quinces, fresh 13.6
Raw peanuts 10.6
Frozen shrimps and prawns 10.4
Pasta 10.3
Mushrooms 8.9
Other citrus fruits 8.8
Shrimps and prawns, prepared or preserved 7.3
SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA
Trying to avoid contaminated imports? Don't rely on food labels, Rebecca Dube writes. A host of unsourced ingredients may lie in what's being sold under homemade banners
REBECCA DUBE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
July 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM EDT
Florence Wood threw out all of her dog's made-in-China biscuits during this spring's melamine scare.
Last week, after hearing warnings about unsafe fish and tainted toothpaste imported from China, she decided to purge her own pantry.
Goodbye, tinned salmon. So long, mandarin oranges. Farewell, frozen fish.
"Anything at all that comes from China that's edible we are not going to eat now," said Ms. Wood, a retired secretary in Lac-des-Îles, Que. She's even nervous about putting leftovers in made-in-China plastic containers.
She's not alone. More consumers are taking a hard look at "Made in China" labels after a string of recalls and publicity over deplorable safety standards in China. But it's nearly impossible to get out of the supermarket without food from China in your cart.
The good news is that avoiding products labelled "Made in China" won't crimp your grocery list, unless you really like frozen seafood - including shrimp, pollock, sole, haddock and salmon.
The bad news is that food labels don't tell the whole story. A host of Chinese imports are hiding behind "Made in Canada" labels, from the freeze-dried strawberries in your cereal to the wheat gluten in your hamburger buns.
"Made in Canada" simply means that 51 per cent of the production cost was incurred in Canada; the ingredients could come from anywhere, and increasingly they come from China. For example, manufacturers can import apple juice concentrate from China - for about one-fifth the cost of Canadian concentrate - add water to it in Canada, and mark it "Made in Canada."
"We eat food from China every day, we just don't know about it," says Dr. Keith Warriner, an assistant professor of food science at the University of Guelph.
Canadians ate $430-million worth of food from China last year, and as China's economic power grows so does its reach into our supermarkets, our kitchens - even our churches. Canada imported $9.5-million worth of communion wafers from China last year, along with $113-million worth of frozen fish fillets and $28-million worth of apple juice.
"A Canadian producer can source its supplies for cents [in China] rather than for dollars here," Dr. Warriner explains.
But North American consumers have recently become aware that inexpensive Chinese imports sometimes bear a hidden cost.
This spring, thousands of dogs and cats fell ill or died after eating pet food containing wheat gluten from China that was contaminated with melamine.
Since then, consumers have been warned about seafood, including shrimp and catfish, that doesn't meet safety standards; contaminated toothpaste and juices, and "Veggie Booty" snack food tainted by salmonella - all from China.
Meanwhile, Chinese officials have insisted their exported food is safe.
But this week, Beijing acknowledged that one-fifth of the goods made and sold in China are substandard, and the former head of China's food and drug administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently sentenced to death for accepting bribes.
Canadian officials stand by their policy of testing Chinese food imports on a case-by-case basis when concerns are raised about specific products.
Dr. Warriner believes greater scrutiny of imports from China will ultimately come not from governments, but from food companies with valuable brand reputations at stake.
"If we started labelling all the individual ingredients, the label would be a book," he says.
Dr. Warriner says that he avoids some made-in-China products, such as frozen fish, but that there's "no cause for alarm" about the myriad ingredients from China that fill our bellies daily.
Not everyone is so sanguine.
Canada's growing gluttony for Chinese imports is a disaster waiting to happen, says Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers Association of Canada. Other than writing to their MPs or buying only locally grown food, Mr. Cran says, there's not much Canadian consumers can do about it.
"Consumers are handicapped because we don't have the information we need on the labels," says Mr. Cran, whose family has sworn off all apple juice, regardless of its country-of-origin label, because so much of it comes from China.
Ms. Wood feels similarly skeptical. "We just don't think it's safe," she says. She wishes food labels were more specific. For instance, she has a jar of olives that says "Product of Canada" on it.
"Now, we know we don't have olive trees in Canada," Ms. Wood says. "So where does it come from?"
Made in China
The top 10 foods in volume Canada imported from China in 2006 (in millions of kilograms).
Mandarins, clementines and similar citrus hybrids, fresh/dried 33.9
Frozen fish fillets 24.4
Apple juice 21.7 (millions of litres)
Pears and quinces, fresh 13.6
Raw peanuts 10.6
Frozen shrimps and prawns 10.4
Pasta 10.3
Mushrooms 8.9
Other citrus fruits 8.8
Shrimps and prawns, prepared or preserved 7.3
SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA
PORKER
Well-known member
Wonder if Canada can ship beef to China? Anyone know?
PORKER
Well-known member
A report by China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine covering the first half of this year is terrible. The government food inspectors tested a wide range of products and found that nearly a fifth of goods made and sold in China were substandard, with the worst problems found in canned fruit, dried fish and fruit drinks. Many of the food products had been contaminated by toxins or bacteria, or failed to carry the required labelling information, the inspectors said.
In Role Reversal, China Blocks Some U.S. Meat
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Renae Merle
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A01
SHANGHAI, July 15 -- China announced Saturday that it was blocking imports of some U.S. processed meat that showed signs of contamination, turning the tables on critics who in recent months have questioned the safety of Chinese exports and making good on a warning that it would apply greater scrutiny to food shipments entering its borders.
The suspension affected some of the largest U.S. food companies, including Cargill Meat Solutions and Tyson Foods, the world's largest meat processor.
A Chinese woman looks at a wide selection of toothpastes on a shelve at a mall in Beijing, China, Thursday, July 12, 2007. On Thursday, China banned manufacturers from using a thickening agent in antifreeze as an ingredient in toothpaste, one of its most significant concessions yet as it struggles to regain international confidence in the country's beleaguered exports. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) (Ng Han Guan - AP)
In recent weeks, Beijing has rejected a number of other U.S. products at its ports of entry, including health supplements, sugar-free drink mix and dried fruits such as raisins and apricots. The increasingly aggressive moves are raising concern that what started as a seemingly isolated investigation in March over contaminated pet food from China has trigged a broader trade skirmish.
"I think there is a bit of a balancing act," said Doug Powell, head of the International Food Safety Network, which gathers information on food-safety issues. "They are trying to keep their own people happy in light of the food problems they have had at home."
The Chinese government said it had stopped problem shipments from seven U.S. companies. Among them, Tyson's frozen poultry products were contaminated with salmonella and Cargill's frozen pork ribs were laced with a feed additive designed to keep animals lean, the government said. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine also said that frozen chicken feet from Sanderson Farms contained an anti-parasite treatment residue and that frozen pig ears from Van Luin Foods USA also tested positive for the leanness-enhancing additive, called ractopamine.
China's concerns about the safety of U.S. meat have long been a source of tension between the countries. China and several other countries banned imports of U.S. beef in 2003 because of fears of mad cow disease. It partially lifted the ban in April 2006. The United States has been lobbying at the highest levels for China to increase its imports of U.S. beef but so far has been unsuccessful. The topic was discussed in Washington in May during the strategic economic dialogue between U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi.
Over the past month, even as China has moved quickly to make reforms in response to concerns about the safety of the toothpaste, toys, tires and seafood it exports, it has repeatedly pointed out that other countries also have issues with product quality.
"There is no such thing as zero risk. In terms of food safety, it's impossible for any country to make 100 percent of their foodstuff safe," Li Yuanping, director of the quarantine unit's import and export bureau told the state-run New China News Agency.
Saturday's announcement on the Web site of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said China had given Cargill and Van Luin 45 days to fix the problems.
The government did not specify whether the other companies' products would be banned indefinitely. It was unclear, too, whether the suspension applied only to the products found to be contaminated or whether it was a blanket ban on all the companies' products. As a result, the economic impact of the government's order could not immediately be determined.
China has become a significant and growing market for U.S. meat producers, said Janet Riley, spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute. "We never like to see a market that is closed," she said.
Libby Lawson, a Tyson spokeswoman, said the meat producer, based in Springdale, Ark., was "disappointed with the news from China and are investigating these claims as this is the first we have heard of this development. We received no notice from the Chinese government about this matter. We will work with the U.S. and Chinese government to get this matter resolved."
In 2006, Tyson exported $889.9 million worth of chicken, with about 8 percent directed to China.
Mark Klein, a spokesman for Cargill, pointed out that China targeted its frozen pork ribs because of the presence of ractopamine, an additive that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and commonly used in the United States, but not China. "The manufacturer is working on that," he said.
Representatives of the other affected meat processors could not be reached for comment.
The American Meat Institute's Riley said the standards being imposed by the Chinese are inconsistent with those used in the United States and many other countries. Anything exported by U.S. processors passes inspection by the Agriculture Department, she said. "These would be approved for consumption in the U.S., and they are being rejected by the Chinese."
For example, a low level of salmonella in raw food is not considered dangerous because the meat will be cooked, and ractopamine is widely used in raising pork, she said.
"It's fed to a large majority of the pigs in the United States," said Jim Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation. "It simply results in more high-quality, lean pork and less fat."
Powell, of the International Food Safety Network, said he had "watched food safety long enough -- 15 years -- to know that one country's scientific standard is another's non-tariff trade barrier. Science gets used and abused all the time."
Merle reported from Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071400264_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Renae Merle
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A01
SHANGHAI, July 15 -- China announced Saturday that it was blocking imports of some U.S. processed meat that showed signs of contamination, turning the tables on critics who in recent months have questioned the safety of Chinese exports and making good on a warning that it would apply greater scrutiny to food shipments entering its borders.
The suspension affected some of the largest U.S. food companies, including Cargill Meat Solutions and Tyson Foods, the world's largest meat processor.
A Chinese woman looks at a wide selection of toothpastes on a shelve at a mall in Beijing, China, Thursday, July 12, 2007. On Thursday, China banned manufacturers from using a thickening agent in antifreeze as an ingredient in toothpaste, one of its most significant concessions yet as it struggles to regain international confidence in the country's beleaguered exports. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) (Ng Han Guan - AP)
In recent weeks, Beijing has rejected a number of other U.S. products at its ports of entry, including health supplements, sugar-free drink mix and dried fruits such as raisins and apricots. The increasingly aggressive moves are raising concern that what started as a seemingly isolated investigation in March over contaminated pet food from China has trigged a broader trade skirmish.
"I think there is a bit of a balancing act," said Doug Powell, head of the International Food Safety Network, which gathers information on food-safety issues. "They are trying to keep their own people happy in light of the food problems they have had at home."
The Chinese government said it had stopped problem shipments from seven U.S. companies. Among them, Tyson's frozen poultry products were contaminated with salmonella and Cargill's frozen pork ribs were laced with a feed additive designed to keep animals lean, the government said. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine also said that frozen chicken feet from Sanderson Farms contained an anti-parasite treatment residue and that frozen pig ears from Van Luin Foods USA also tested positive for the leanness-enhancing additive, called ractopamine.
China's concerns about the safety of U.S. meat have long been a source of tension between the countries. China and several other countries banned imports of U.S. beef in 2003 because of fears of mad cow disease. It partially lifted the ban in April 2006. The United States has been lobbying at the highest levels for China to increase its imports of U.S. beef but so far has been unsuccessful. The topic was discussed in Washington in May during the strategic economic dialogue between U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi.
Over the past month, even as China has moved quickly to make reforms in response to concerns about the safety of the toothpaste, toys, tires and seafood it exports, it has repeatedly pointed out that other countries also have issues with product quality.
"There is no such thing as zero risk. In terms of food safety, it's impossible for any country to make 100 percent of their foodstuff safe," Li Yuanping, director of the quarantine unit's import and export bureau told the state-run New China News Agency.
Saturday's announcement on the Web site of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said China had given Cargill and Van Luin 45 days to fix the problems.
The government did not specify whether the other companies' products would be banned indefinitely. It was unclear, too, whether the suspension applied only to the products found to be contaminated or whether it was a blanket ban on all the companies' products. As a result, the economic impact of the government's order could not immediately be determined.
China has become a significant and growing market for U.S. meat producers, said Janet Riley, spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute. "We never like to see a market that is closed," she said.
Libby Lawson, a Tyson spokeswoman, said the meat producer, based in Springdale, Ark., was "disappointed with the news from China and are investigating these claims as this is the first we have heard of this development. We received no notice from the Chinese government about this matter. We will work with the U.S. and Chinese government to get this matter resolved."
In 2006, Tyson exported $889.9 million worth of chicken, with about 8 percent directed to China.
Mark Klein, a spokesman for Cargill, pointed out that China targeted its frozen pork ribs because of the presence of ractopamine, an additive that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and commonly used in the United States, but not China. "The manufacturer is working on that," he said.
Representatives of the other affected meat processors could not be reached for comment.
The American Meat Institute's Riley said the standards being imposed by the Chinese are inconsistent with those used in the United States and many other countries. Anything exported by U.S. processors passes inspection by the Agriculture Department, she said. "These would be approved for consumption in the U.S., and they are being rejected by the Chinese."
For example, a low level of salmonella in raw food is not considered dangerous because the meat will be cooked, and ractopamine is widely used in raising pork, she said.
"It's fed to a large majority of the pigs in the United States," said Jim Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation. "It simply results in more high-quality, lean pork and less fat."
Powell, of the International Food Safety Network, said he had "watched food safety long enough -- 15 years -- to know that one country's scientific standard is another's non-tariff trade barrier. Science gets used and abused all the time."
Merle reported from Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071400264_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines
PORKER
Well-known member
Live FDA Hearings in Washington; I hope you can view/hear it either on the Committee's website or this evening on CSPAN if it is replayed. The senior investigator for the majority on the House Committee (i.e. Dems), David Nelson, is sensational. Among other revelations, he tells how Washington tells inspectors what they can inspect—even if local inspectors have specific information about shipments they have cause to inspect. They cannot do so unless Washington lets them. This is incredible testimony.
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-TX, just asked Mr. Nelson if "their side" (i.e. Republican members' staff investigators) were involved in his investigation and wondered why they weren't testifying. Nelson simply stated that they were involved to the extent they wanted to be, were invited to testify…and left it there. They were not present today.
Burgess is now on pet food—great questions based on his being told how much worse the incidents of kidney failure was in pets in his district than what was told…ongoing…This is great.
Whoo-hoo, Stupak! You go, dude! Crank it UP! Give em the Hot Seat !!!
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ENTITLED
"DIMINISHED CAPACITY: CAN THE FDA ASSURE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE NATION'S FOOD SUPPLY? – Part 2"
July 17, 2007
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing could not be timelier. Almost every day brings news of another threat to the public health posed by contaminated food products.
The recent series of tainted food recalls has focused America's attention on the sorry state of Federal oversight of the domestic food supply. Even more disturbing, however, is the virtual abdication by the Food and Drug Administration of oversight or inspection of the ever-increasing flood of imported food.
The reality is that twice the amount of food is imported into the U.S. as 10 years ago.
More than a quarter of all fruit purchased by Americans is imported. More than 80 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. Between 2002 and 2006, FDA-regulated food imports from China rose from approximately 100,000 shipments to nearly 235,000. Experts predict those shipments will reach 300,000 this year.
Yet FDA examines less than 1 percent of these imports and of those imports examined they test only a small fraction. This is unacceptable—especially in light of the horror stories coming out of China such as poisonous melamine in food products, the antifreeze chemical diethylene glycol in toothpaste, and illegal antibiotics and suspected carcinogens in farm-raised shrimp and fish.
Even worse, China recently released a study showing that nearly one-fifth of all food and consumer products sold to its own people are tainted or substandard. Another Chinese Government report describes rivers in China so contaminated with sewage, heavy metals from industrial byproducts, and pesticides that fish farmers have no choice but to use chemicals and antibiotics to keep fish alive.
Since more than 20 percent of U.S. seafood imports come from China, I shudder to think how much of this tainted Chinese seafood has already reached American tables.
How has FDA responded to this increasing threat to American consumers? They want to name a "Food Czar" without giving him any real authority, propose a sweeping reorganization of their field inspection operations, and close some of their most crucial laboratories that expose dangerous imports.
As we will hear from Committee staff, who have interviewed numerous FDA field employees, as well as from a number of witnesses with actual hands-on experience at our Nation's ports, the FDA reorganization proposals will shift critical resources away from ports-of-entry, actions that will in all likelihood worsen our food safety crisis. Further, their proposal will eliminate much of the scarce laboratory expertise currently found at FDA.
The Federal food safety system is in dire need of reform—it is fragmented, understaffed, inefficient, and lagging in state-of-the-art tracking systems. Furthermore, FDA has largely abdicated its regulatory role to the food industry itself, which is expected to police itself.
This must change.
I will soon introduce legislation to address this situation. Among other things, it will provide additional resources and authorities to FDA to ensure that it can effectively monitor and control food and drug imports entering the United States. It will also provide for additional research on effective testing techniques at the border to aid inspectors in identifying adulterated imports.
Let us hope that the senior FDA officials, who comprise our third panel, will today acknowledge the glaring structural deficiencies in the existing food safety regime, stop the dangerous and wasteful reorganization of their field inspection service, and work with us to craft a system truly capable of meeting the challenges of a global food market.
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-TX, just asked Mr. Nelson if "their side" (i.e. Republican members' staff investigators) were involved in his investigation and wondered why they weren't testifying. Nelson simply stated that they were involved to the extent they wanted to be, were invited to testify…and left it there. They were not present today.
Burgess is now on pet food—great questions based on his being told how much worse the incidents of kidney failure was in pets in his district than what was told…ongoing…This is great.
Whoo-hoo, Stupak! You go, dude! Crank it UP! Give em the Hot Seat !!!
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ENTITLED
"DIMINISHED CAPACITY: CAN THE FDA ASSURE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE NATION'S FOOD SUPPLY? – Part 2"
July 17, 2007
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing could not be timelier. Almost every day brings news of another threat to the public health posed by contaminated food products.
The recent series of tainted food recalls has focused America's attention on the sorry state of Federal oversight of the domestic food supply. Even more disturbing, however, is the virtual abdication by the Food and Drug Administration of oversight or inspection of the ever-increasing flood of imported food.
The reality is that twice the amount of food is imported into the U.S. as 10 years ago.
More than a quarter of all fruit purchased by Americans is imported. More than 80 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. Between 2002 and 2006, FDA-regulated food imports from China rose from approximately 100,000 shipments to nearly 235,000. Experts predict those shipments will reach 300,000 this year.
Yet FDA examines less than 1 percent of these imports and of those imports examined they test only a small fraction. This is unacceptable—especially in light of the horror stories coming out of China such as poisonous melamine in food products, the antifreeze chemical diethylene glycol in toothpaste, and illegal antibiotics and suspected carcinogens in farm-raised shrimp and fish.
Even worse, China recently released a study showing that nearly one-fifth of all food and consumer products sold to its own people are tainted or substandard. Another Chinese Government report describes rivers in China so contaminated with sewage, heavy metals from industrial byproducts, and pesticides that fish farmers have no choice but to use chemicals and antibiotics to keep fish alive.
Since more than 20 percent of U.S. seafood imports come from China, I shudder to think how much of this tainted Chinese seafood has already reached American tables.
How has FDA responded to this increasing threat to American consumers? They want to name a "Food Czar" without giving him any real authority, propose a sweeping reorganization of their field inspection operations, and close some of their most crucial laboratories that expose dangerous imports.
As we will hear from Committee staff, who have interviewed numerous FDA field employees, as well as from a number of witnesses with actual hands-on experience at our Nation's ports, the FDA reorganization proposals will shift critical resources away from ports-of-entry, actions that will in all likelihood worsen our food safety crisis. Further, their proposal will eliminate much of the scarce laboratory expertise currently found at FDA.
The Federal food safety system is in dire need of reform—it is fragmented, understaffed, inefficient, and lagging in state-of-the-art tracking systems. Furthermore, FDA has largely abdicated its regulatory role to the food industry itself, which is expected to police itself.
This must change.
I will soon introduce legislation to address this situation. Among other things, it will provide additional resources and authorities to FDA to ensure that it can effectively monitor and control food and drug imports entering the United States. It will also provide for additional research on effective testing techniques at the border to aid inspectors in identifying adulterated imports.
Let us hope that the senior FDA officials, who comprise our third panel, will today acknowledge the glaring structural deficiencies in the existing food safety regime, stop the dangerous and wasteful reorganization of their field inspection service, and work with us to craft a system truly capable of meeting the challenges of a global food market.
PORKER
Well-known member
http://itchmo.com/read/liveblogging-fdas-food-safety-hearing_20070717
Live BLOG of FDA Hearings on above link.
Live BLOG of FDA Hearings on above link.
