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

Russia Better at Food Safety than USDA

Tex

Well-known member
Russia halting chicken imports from 3 plants
USDA: Russia halting imports from 3 chicken plants in La, Miss, Ga; claims drug residue

* Friday March 20, 2009, 6:32 pm EDT

*
Buzz up!
* Print

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Russia says it found drug residue in chicken from processing plants in Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, and will stop taking imports from them next Friday.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Russia says it found antibiotics and anti-parasitic drugs in chicken from Sanderson Farms in Hammond, La., Peco Foods in Canton, Miss., and Tyson Foods in Cumming, Ga.

Spokesman Gary Mickelson, in Springdale, Ark., says the Tyson plant is producing safe, high-quality products.

Spokesmen for the other companies could not be reached Friday evening.

USDA spokeswoman Bryn Burkard says the agency has asked Russia for more information. She says once that arrives, the agency will find out whether the drugs were used and then take appropriate action.


"Appropriate action" by USDA: Deny, cover up, and try to change the subject of their own absent testing.

Our regulatory agencies need to be roto rootered from the top down.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Russia has halted U.S. Chicken imports on several occasions for years.

It's simply a trade war because Russia's chicken growing can't get off the ground and compete with U.S. production prices.

They have harped about anti-biotics, hormones, Salmonella, among others but have never provided evidence.

Just one example. Check the date.
Sunday, 10 March, 2002, 06:19 GMT
Russia's US chicken ban in force




A Russian ban on poultry from the United States which Moscow has imposed because of safety fears is to take effect on Sunday.
The Russian Government says the US uses too many antibiotics in chicken-rearing, and also cited cases of salmonella found in recent imports.



It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming

State Duma official Dmitry Rogozin
The US says the fears are groundless, and a delegation from Washington has gone to Moscow to try to resolve the row.

Russia is the world's largest importer of American chickens, buying as much as $800m worth every year.

Correspondents say there is speculation that the ban could be connected to Washington's decision last week to impose 30% tariffs on all steel imports, though both governments have denied this.

Russia, one of the main suppliers for steel to the US, could lose up to $1.5bn over the next two years under the new measures.

'Bush legs'

The Russian Agriculture Ministry said last week it was not satisfied with Washington's answer to an inquiry about the use of disinfectants and stimulators in poultry processing.


Russians buy more than a million tons of US poultry yearly

The ministry said US importers had been repeatedly bringing in poultry meat without a proper licence, with incorrect package markings or without safety certificates.

US Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick replied in a joint statement that they knew of no reason that could justify such a ban, which was "extremely damaging".

Russia is a valuable market for the US, with 1.1 million tons of poultry worth $600m exported to the country last year alone.

In fact poultry constitutes 20% of all US exports to Russia.


Cheap US imports, named "Bush legs" after then-President George Bush Senior, flooded the market in the early 1990s and have remained popular.

'Chicken war'

But some Russian politicians are critical of the imports' impact on the domestic market
.

"It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming," Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma foreign affairs committee, told AFP news agency.

Russia, now in talks on possible membership of the World Trade Organisation, said recently it planned to restrict import by introducing higher tariffs and by setting quotas.

Washington expressed "strong concern" over the move and arranged to send a group of experts to Moscow to stop what has been already dubbed a "chicken war".

But Russian Deputy Agriculture Minister Sergey Dankvert said it was "premature" to say the problem would be solved in one or two days.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Russia has halted U.S. Chicken imports on several occasions for years.

It's simply a trade war because Russia's chicken growing can't get off the ground and compete with U.S. production prices.

They have harped about anti-biotics, hormones, Salmonella, among others but have never provided evidence.

Just one example. Check the date.
Sunday, 10 March, 2002, 06:19 GMT
Russia's US chicken ban in force




A Russian ban on poultry from the United States which Moscow has imposed because of safety fears is to take effect on Sunday.
The Russian Government says the US uses too many antibiotics in chicken-rearing, and also cited cases of salmonella found in recent imports.



It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming

State Duma official Dmitry Rogozin
The US says the fears are groundless, and a delegation from Washington has gone to Moscow to try to resolve the row.

Russia is the world's largest importer of American chickens, buying as much as $800m worth every year.

Correspondents say there is speculation that the ban could be connected to Washington's decision last week to impose 30% tariffs on all steel imports, though both governments have denied this.

Russia, one of the main suppliers for steel to the US, could lose up to $1.5bn over the next two years under the new measures.

'Bush legs'

The Russian Agriculture Ministry said last week it was not satisfied with Washington's answer to an inquiry about the use of disinfectants and stimulators in poultry processing.


Russians buy more than a million tons of US poultry yearly

The ministry said US importers had been repeatedly bringing in poultry meat without a proper licence, with incorrect package markings or without safety certificates.

US Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick replied in a joint statement that they knew of no reason that could justify such a ban, which was "extremely damaging".

Russia is a valuable market for the US, with 1.1 million tons of poultry worth $600m exported to the country last year alone.

In fact poultry constitutes 20% of all US exports to Russia.


Cheap US imports, named "Bush legs" after then-President George Bush Senior, flooded the market in the early 1990s and have remained popular.

'Chicken war'

But some Russian politicians are critical of the imports' impact on the domestic market
.

"It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming," Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma foreign affairs committee, told AFP news agency.

Russia, now in talks on possible membership of the World Trade Organisation, said recently it planned to restrict import by introducing higher tariffs and by setting quotas.

Washington expressed "strong concern" over the move and arranged to send a group of experts to Moscow to stop what has been already dubbed a "chicken war".

But Russian Deputy Agriculture Minister Sergey Dankvert said it was "premature" to say the problem would be solved in one or two days.

If its just a trade war--Wouldn't you expect them to stop all chicken imports then- instead of just from 3 certain plants... :???:

Russia says it found drug residue in chicken from processing plants in Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, and will stop taking imports from them next Friday.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Russia says it found antibiotics and anti-parasitic drugs in chicken from Sanderson Farms in Hammond, La., Peco Foods in Canton, Miss., and Tyson Foods in Cumming, Ga.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
Russia has halted U.S. Chicken imports on several occasions for years.

It's simply a trade war because Russia's chicken growing can't get off the ground and compete with U.S. production prices.

They have harped about anti-biotics, hormones, Salmonella, among others but have never provided evidence.

Just one example. Check the date.
Sunday, 10 March, 2002, 06:19 GMT
Russia's US chicken ban in force




A Russian ban on poultry from the United States which Moscow has imposed because of safety fears is to take effect on Sunday.
The Russian Government says the US uses too many antibiotics in chicken-rearing, and also cited cases of salmonella found in recent imports.



It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming

State Duma official Dmitry Rogozin
The US says the fears are groundless, and a delegation from Washington has gone to Moscow to try to resolve the row.

Russia is the world's largest importer of American chickens, buying as much as $800m worth every year.

Correspondents say there is speculation that the ban could be connected to Washington's decision last week to impose 30% tariffs on all steel imports, though both governments have denied this.

Russia, one of the main suppliers for steel to the US, could lose up to $1.5bn over the next two years under the new measures.

'Bush legs'

The Russian Agriculture Ministry said last week it was not satisfied with Washington's answer to an inquiry about the use of disinfectants and stimulators in poultry processing.


Russians buy more than a million tons of US poultry yearly

The ministry said US importers had been repeatedly bringing in poultry meat without a proper licence, with incorrect package markings or without safety certificates.

US Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick replied in a joint statement that they knew of no reason that could justify such a ban, which was "extremely damaging".

Russia is a valuable market for the US, with 1.1 million tons of poultry worth $600m exported to the country last year alone.

In fact poultry constitutes 20% of all US exports to Russia.


Cheap US imports, named "Bush legs" after then-President George Bush Senior, flooded the market in the early 1990s and have remained popular.

'Chicken war'

But some Russian politicians are critical of the imports' impact on the domestic market
.

"It is well known that the massive import of US chicken meat which has been farmed using who knows what has killed off Russian poultry farming," Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma foreign affairs committee, told AFP news agency.

Russia, now in talks on possible membership of the World Trade Organisation, said recently it planned to restrict import by introducing higher tariffs and by setting quotas.

Washington expressed "strong concern" over the move and arranged to send a group of experts to Moscow to stop what has been already dubbed a "chicken war".

But Russian Deputy Agriculture Minister Sergey Dankvert said it was "premature" to say the problem would be solved in one or two days.

....and some of those allegations on the antibiotics were proven correct by independent research here in the USA, but not the USDA:


McDonald's Says No More Playing Chicken with Antibiotics

Posted: 17-Jun-2003; Updated: 16-May-2007

* Print
* Send to friend
* + ShareThis

Long used to McDonald's ubiquitous golden arches in the U.S., Americans can now count on getting a Big Mac or Chicken McNuggets just about anywhere in the world, from Bangkok and Buenos Aires, to Bahrain and beyond. So it was no small potatoes when this week the world's largest restaurant chain announced a new purchasing policy that will impact the way its meat suppliers use antibiotics to raise animals worldwide.



Spurred by Environmental Defense and mounting public concern over the dangers of antibiotic overuse, the food giant laid out a new set of standards that build on its past steps to curb drug use in animals raised for food. Our Alliance and Health staff played a key role in helping McDonald's shape its new policy, working with a diverse coalition of organizations that had a considerable stake in the process (including drug manufacturers, academic scientists and members of the medical community). "We are delighted that McDonald's isn't chicken about reducing antibiotic use," says Environmental Defense senior scientist Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, an expert on antibiotic resistance.

A major prong of the new policy restricts the use of antibiotics important in human medicine as growth promoters for animals. An outright ban on this type of antibiotic use applies to all the restaurant chain's direct meat suppliers (largely poultry producers like Tyson Foods). They have until 2004 to comply. Administering antibiotics to promote growth generally involves adding low dosages of antibiotics to the feed or water of healthy animals to speed weight gain (as opposed to treating sick animals or animals at risk of disease in a sick flock or herd). "These antibiotics are often used to compensate for the crowded, stressful conditions that are found on many large animal-production facilities," says Goldburg.

Although McDonald's is aiming its policy particularly at direct suppliers, it holds out a carrot to its indirect suppliers (mainly beef and pork producers), giving them a purchasing preference if they comply with the new rules and cut back their use of antibiotics in cattle and pig production. The policy is bound to have a ripple effect among other restaurants and meat buyers, given the sizable chunk of the food and restaurant market that McDonald's holds globally.

"One of the reasons we are excited about McDonald's new policy," says Gwen Ruta, Director of Environmental Alliances at Environmental Defense, "is that McDonald's, as the largest meat purchaser in the fast-food industry, wields enormous influence within the supply chain." The new rules will affect the meat produced for the company's 30,000 restaurants in 118 countries.

"Antibiotics are very heavily used in many developing countries where they are loosely regulated," comments Goldburg. "The new policy could have a significant impact on the production of meat for McDonald's in developing countries because suppliers for McDonald's in those countries will have to reduce their use of antibiotics."

Last year, McDonald's announced that they had stopped buying poultry treated with fluoroquinolones (click here to read the story), a class of antibiotics (including Cipro) that are critical for treating infections in humans. The European Union is already in the process of phasing out the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animals.

"We would like other chain restaurants, grocery stores and food service companies to adopt similar policies to reduce antibiotic use," says Ruta. "McDonald's has opened the door for other buyers - especially those who are buying meat from the same suppliers - and has shown that reducing antibiotics is both feasible and affordable. We call on other meat purchasers to adopt similar policies."

The Growing Menace of Antibiotic Resistance

So what exactly is the problem with antibiotics in our meat supply? For years, Environmental Defense has echoed many doctors and scientists in the health field who have called attention to the dangers of overusing and misusing antibiotics in human medicine and in animal agriculture.

By one estimate, some 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are fed to healthy pigs, poultry and beef cattle. The American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization all have taken positions opposing the use of antibiotics in healthy farm animals and have taken steps to address the problem in human medicine.

In 2001, we released a report [PDF] warning that many of the "wonder drugs" doctors use to treat such life-threatening infections as staph (Staphylococcus) and Salmonella food poisoning are increasingly losing their effectiveness to quell these bacteria.

The Golden Overarching Principle

Other fast food companies have said that their poultry suppliers have cut down on antibiotic use, but while that is welcome news, McDonald's policy goes further. "McDonald's policy imposes mandatory reductions on their suppliers by requiring written certification, record-keeping and regular audits, and by addressing for the first time antibiotic usage in pork and beef production," says Ruta. The hope is that McDonald's new policy will cut antibiotic use in animal agriculture and lead to more responsible antibiotic use across the board.


and Tyson gets sued for not knowing what antibiotics are and truth in advertising:

Court Orders Tyson to Suspend Ads For Antibiotic-Free Chicken

After competitors posed a legal challenge to Tyson Foods' claims, a judge halted a national, multimillion-dollar ad campaign.
After competitors posed a legal challenge to Tyson Foods' claims, a judge halted a national, multimillion-dollar ad campaign. (By April L. Brown -- Associated Press)
Enlarge Photo
TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Yahoo! Buzz
Save/Share +
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
myspace
NewsTrust
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 27 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

Comments are closed for this item.
Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008; Page D01

Poultry giant Tyson Foods has 14 days to dismantle a national multimillion dollar ad campaign centered on the claim that its chickens are raised without antibiotics, a federal appeals court in Richmond ruled yesterday.

Tyson, based in Springdale, Ark., will have to remove posters and brochures from 8,500 grocery stores nationwide.

"We're disappointed the motion for a stay has been denied and are evaluating our legal options," said Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson Foods. "We continue to believe we have acted responsibly in the way we have labeled and marketed our products and intend to stand our ground."

The ruling is a setback for Tyson in its ongoing battle with two of its competitors Sanderson Farms, based in Laurel, Miss., and Perdue Farms, based in Salisbury, Md. The two companies jointly sought an injunction to stop Tyson's ad campaign, arguing the "raised without antibiotics" claim misleads consumers by making it appear Tyson's chicken is safer or more healthful.

Sanderson and Perdue initially based their legal challenge on Tyson's practice of feeding chickens ionophores, an antibiotic used only in animals raised for food. Sanderson and Perdue also use ionophores.

Then during trial in federal court in Baltimore, Tyson officials acknowledged they also inject eggs several days before they hatch with antibiotics that are approved for use in humans. Dave Hogberg, Tyson's senior vice president for consumer products, said it is a common industry practice.

Hogberg said injecting eggs with antibiotics did not undermine the "raised without antibiotic" label because the term "raised" is understood to cover the period that begins with hatching.
ad_icon

More consumers are becoming concerned about the use of antibiotics in poultry, swine and cattle because they and many public health experts think that it contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant viruses in humans.

The dispute between Tyson and its competitors began last year, when Tyson announced it would raise its chickens without antibiotics, as part of a larger effort to relaunch its brand. It sought approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the use of the label "raised without antibiotics." USDA initially approved the language, then last fall reversed itself, saying it had made a mistake.

Tyson came up with a new label that said, "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" that the USDA greenlighted.

The resulting advertising campaign proved a huge success. In a February conference call, Tyson chief executive Richard Bond told analysts the company has had double-digit increases in sales of fresh chicken raised without antibiotics, totaling an additional 70 million pounds of chicken a year.

But Tyson's success came at a high cost for its competitors, said Randall K. Miller, a partner at Arnold and Porter and lead counsel for Sanderson and Perdue. The companies sued in January seeking to force Tyson to stop making claims that its products were antibiotic free.

Sanderson blamed Tyson's ad campaign for the loss of a $4 million account, and Perdue blamed it for a $10 million loss in revenue. Greater damage, however, was done to the companies' reputations, Miller said. In seeking an injunction against Tyson's ad campaign, Sanderson and Perdue argued that Tyson's "raised without antibiotics" claim caused irreparable harm by implying its competitors' products contained antibiotics or dangerous additives and were therefore less safe.

Separately, Sanderson and Perdue also petitioned USDA to rescind its approval of Tyson's "raised without the use of antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" label, citing both the use of antibiotics in unhatched eggs and in chicken feed.

In an April 30 letter to Miller regarding the companies' petition, the USDA said the egg injecting practice was "of serious concern."

"Rather than discuss any specifics to this particular case, [the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA] has requested additional information to help us determine what the facts are in this situation," FSIS spokeswoman Amanda Eamich said.

Hogberg said Tyson has been forthright with regulators. He said he hopes Tyson and USDA can resolve the matter quickly.

"As we did in working with them on the qualified claim last fall . . . we would hope the process would be similar so we can preserve this benefit for the mainstream consumer," he said.
 

Mike

Well-known member
It has not been proven that the food animal use of antibiotics is causing antibiotic resistance in humans.

Human resistance has mostly been attributed to overuse and abuse and the evolutionary characteristics of bacteria from the studies I have seen.

Do you have contradictory evidence?

To say that Russia is better at food inspection than the USA is quite a stretch.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Quite a stretch, Mike?

It is outright paranoia!!!!

We have young University friend planning to spend some time in Russia in the summer. It will be interesting to hear what she says about conditions there. I know she's an advernturous eater, and loves wild game, so she should have some good stories when she returns.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
It has not been proven that the food animal use of antibiotics is causing antibiotic resistance in humans.

Human resistance has mostly been attributed to overuse and abuse and the evolutionary characteristics of bacteria from the studies I have seen.

Do you have contradictory evidence?

To say that Russia is better at food inspection than the USA is quite a stretch.

Once they are in the gene pool, the genes can cross bacteria types and transfer those genes of antibiotic resistance. The use of non theraputic drugs allow for the antibiotic resistant bacteria to become the dominant type in an environment and then the gen transfer for anti biotic resistance can travel to different bacteria.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/18/7118.full
 

Mike

Well-known member
I see.
"Thus, we do not know the actual size of the resistance gene pool, their locations in the environment, or how rapidly they move among hosts and ecosystems. Lack of this information limits design of effective measures for control of resistant bacteria."
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:
I see.
"Thus, we do not know the actual size of the resistance gene pool, their locations in the environment, or how rapidly they move among hosts and ecosystems. Lack of this information limits design of effective measures for control of resistant bacteria."

....except to not make the environment for them to get the resistant gene pool in the first place. It is introduced artificially by administering antibiotics.

Unfortunately, once out, these genes are out. The antibiotic resistance doesn't just end when you take the antibiotics out of the system---they are already in the genes.

I will give you that over use of antibiotics by doctors on humans has the same effect.
 

mrj

Well-known member
And what is the comparison between the incidences/amount of over-use of antibiotics in animals and in humans? Is the plethora of over the counter antibiotics, such as in soaps, included anyplace?

Does anyone test wastewater from cities for antibiotic content? People do often flush unused pills directly down the toilet, you know.

There has to be consideration of the fact that much of the antibiotics for people is paid for by third parties, insurance or government, while that for animals is paid out of the farmers' pocket, making it less likely that animal antibiotics are tossed down the drain.

I'm not saying there can't be a problem with animal antibiotics, but that so many of these issues are driven more by those who want more and more regulation of industry, and of the waterways to promote enviro-agenda's than by actual evidence of wrong done by agriculture practitioners.

mrj

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
And what is the comparison between the incidences/amount of over-use of antibiotics in animals and in humans? Is the plethora of over the counter antibiotics, such as in soaps, included anyplace?

Does anyone test wastewater from cities for antibiotic content? People do often flush unused pills directly down the toilet, you know.

There has to be consideration of the fact that much of the antibiotics for people is paid for by third parties, insurance or government, while that for animals is paid out of the farmers' pocket, making it less likely that animal antibiotics are tossed down the drain.

I'm not saying there can't be a problem with animal antibiotics, but that so many of these issues are driven more by those who want more and more regulation of industry, and of the waterways to promote enviro-agenda's than by actual evidence of wrong done by agriculture practitioners.

mrj

mrj

mrj, there has been a big push in the medical community to limit antibiotics because of previous over uses were thought to have caused some of the drug resistant "superbugs".

Russia is far behind the U.S. in the drug development so antibiotic resistance to some of the flouroquinilones may be more of a problem for them than for us but there is definitely a concern that we are losing our lines of defenses against drug resistant bacteria.

As I understand it, just washing hands with soap or the alcohol dry hand disinfectants will not allow for resistance by bacteria because of how it kills the bacterial cells. You are right that there has been some concern for the antibiotic soaps that use actual antibiotics.

I don't know who tests waste waters for antibiotics but it sounds like a study you might want to fund for the public good.

The argument over antibiotics is not that they are used, but that they are used as a growth promoter instead of theraputic use which puts them in many more confined livestock operations where superbugs have a bigger chance of evolving and spreading. When you use drugs because they are needed (theraputic) it is different than using them all the time for better feed conversion.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Investigators say food tracing system full of gaps
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Government investigators testing the nation's food tracing system were able to follow only five out of 40 foods all the way through the supply chain, according to a report to be released Thursday.

The ability to trace food is a critical part of investigations into outbreaks of food-borne illness and would be crucial in a bioterrorism attack. Food companies are required by federal law to keep records that would allow investigators to follow suspect foods one step back and one step forward in the supply chain.

But an investigation by the Health and Human Services inspector general's office found that the records many companies keep are not detailed enough. And one-quarter of the company managers were totally unaware of the record keeping requirements.

"The food safety regulatory structure lacks an adequate traceability system," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who requested the investigation. "Traceability is a critical tool in our ability to identify the source of a food-borne illness outbreak. Trace-back will be a critical part of food safety reform in this Congress."

In the test, government investigators bought 40 food items, including bottled water, eggs, oatmeal, tomatoes, fruit juice and yogurt. They then attempted to trace the items back from the retailer to the source.

They were only able to fully trace 12.5 percent of the items.

For 31 of the 40, investigators said they were able to identify the facilities that most likely handled the products.

And in the case of four items — 10 percent of the total — investigators were unable to identify the facilities than handled them.

Problems with tracing foods drew attention last summer after investigators from the Food and Drug Administration struggled for weeks to identify the cause of a salmonella outbreak initially blamed on tomatoes. No contaminated tomatoes were found, but the outbreak strain eventually was discovered in hot peppers from Mexico.

The inspector general's report said most facilities do not keep records with specific lot numbers that would facilitate the tracing of foods.

"For example, for one product — a bag of flour — the storage facility did not know the exact farms that contributed to the product and, therefore, had to give us information about every farm that provided wheat during the previous harvest season."

The report said 70 out 118 food facilities in the traceback test did not meet the FDA's record keeping requirements for information about suppliers, shippers and customers.

"In some cases, managers had to look through large numbers of records — some of them paper based — for contact information," the report said.

The inspector general recommended that the FDA consider seeking stronger legal powers to improve the tracing of food.

The FDA said it was reviewing the recommendations.
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Investigators say food tracing system full of gaps
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Government investigators testing the nation's food tracing system were able to follow only five out of 40 foods all the way through the supply chain, according to a report to be released Thursday.

The ability to trace food is a critical part of investigations into outbreaks of food-borne illness and would be crucial in a bioterrorism attack. Food companies are required by federal law to keep records that would allow investigators to follow suspect foods one step back and one step forward in the supply chain.

But an investigation by the Health and Human Services inspector general's office found that the records many companies keep are not detailed enough. And one-quarter of the company managers were totally unaware of the record keeping requirements.

"The food safety regulatory structure lacks an adequate traceability system," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who requested the investigation. "Traceability is a critical tool in our ability to identify the source of a food-borne illness outbreak. Trace-back will be a critical part of food safety reform in this Congress."

In the test, government investigators bought 40 food items, including bottled water, eggs, oatmeal, tomatoes, fruit juice and yogurt. They then attempted to trace the items back from the retailer to the source.

They were only able to fully trace 12.5 percent of the items.

For 31 of the 40, investigators said they were able to identify the facilities that most likely handled the products.

And in the case of four items — 10 percent of the total — investigators were unable to identify the facilities than handled them.

Problems with tracing foods drew attention last summer after investigators from the Food and Drug Administration struggled for weeks to identify the cause of a salmonella outbreak initially blamed on tomatoes. No contaminated tomatoes were found, but the outbreak strain eventually was discovered in hot peppers from Mexico.

The inspector general's report said most facilities do not keep records with specific lot numbers that would facilitate the tracing of foods.

"For example, for one product — a bag of flour — the storage facility did not know the exact farms that contributed to the product and, therefore, had to give us information about every farm that provided wheat during the previous harvest season."

The report said 70 out 118 food facilities in the traceback test did not meet the FDA's record keeping requirements for information about suppliers, shippers and customers.

"In some cases, managers had to look through large numbers of records — some of them paper based — for contact information," the report said.

The inspector general recommended that the FDA consider seeking stronger legal powers to improve the tracing of food.

The FDA said it was reviewing the recommendations.


These food companies better get their stuff straight. If they don't know who they are buying from and then selling to, they don't need to be in the food business or in any business.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The inspector general's report said most facilities do not keep records with specific lot numbers that would facilitate the tracing of foods.

"For example, for one product — a bag of flour the storage facility did not know the exact farms that contributed to the product and, therefore, had to give us information about every farm that provided wheat during the previous harvest season."
The report said 70 out 118 food facilities in the traceback test did not meet the FDA's record keeping requirements for information about suppliers, shippers and customers.

Where's the Records ??????
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Tex said:
mrj said:
And what is the comparison between the incidences/amount of over-use of antibiotics in animals and in humans? Is the plethora of over the counter antibiotics, such as in soaps, included anyplace?

Does anyone test wastewater from cities for antibiotic content? People do often flush unused pills directly down the toilet, you know.

There has to be consideration of the fact that much of the antibiotics for people is paid for by third parties, insurance or government, while that for animals is paid out of the farmers' pocket, making it less likely that animal antibiotics are tossed down the drain.

I'm not saying there can't be a problem with animal antibiotics, but that so many of these issues are driven more by those who want more and more regulation of industry, and of the waterways to promote enviro-agenda's than by actual evidence of wrong done by agriculture practitioners.

mrj

mrj

mrj, there has been a big push in the medical community to limit antibiotics because of previous over uses were thought to have caused some of the drug resistant "superbugs".

Russia is far behind the U.S. in the drug development so antibiotic resistance to some of the flouroquinilones may be more of a problem for them than for us but there is definitely a concern that we are losing our lines of defenses against drug resistant bacteria.

As I understand it, just washing hands with soap or the alcohol dry hand disinfectants will not allow for resistance by bacteria because of how it kills the bacterial cells. You are right that there has been some concern for the antibiotic soaps that use actual antibiotics.

I don't know who tests waste waters for antibiotics but it sounds like a study you might want to fund for the public good.

The argument over antibiotics is not that they are used, but that they are used as a growth promoter instead of theraputic use which puts them in many more confined livestock operations where superbugs have a bigger chance of evolving and spreading. When you use drugs because they are needed (theraputic) it is different than using them all the time for better feed conversion.

The link below is from a 3/24/09 press release which was distributed by Farm Bureau. http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.newsfocus&year=2009&file=nr0324.html

The release voices stong oppostion to proposed legislation which restricts the use of antibiotics in livestock production. In the unlikely event this proposed legislation gains any traction at all, the creditable veterinary and scientific community will show up in droves to squash it.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Beefman said:
Tex said:
mrj said:
And what is the comparison between the incidences/amount of over-use of antibiotics in animals and in humans? Is the plethora of over the counter antibiotics, such as in soaps, included anyplace?

Does anyone test wastewater from cities for antibiotic content? People do often flush unused pills directly down the toilet, you know.

There has to be consideration of the fact that much of the antibiotics for people is paid for by third parties, insurance or government, while that for animals is paid out of the farmers' pocket, making it less likely that animal antibiotics are tossed down the drain.

I'm not saying there can't be a problem with animal antibiotics, but that so many of these issues are driven more by those who want more and more regulation of industry, and of the waterways to promote enviro-agenda's than by actual evidence of wrong done by agriculture practitioners.

mrj

mrj

mrj, there has been a big push in the medical community to limit antibiotics because of previous over uses were thought to have caused some of the drug resistant "superbugs".

Russia is far behind the U.S. in the drug development so antibiotic resistance to some of the flouroquinilones may be more of a problem for them than for us but there is definitely a concern that we are losing our lines of defenses against drug resistant bacteria.

As I understand it, just washing hands with soap or the alcohol dry hand disinfectants will not allow for resistance by bacteria because of how it kills the bacterial cells. You are right that there has been some concern for the antibiotic soaps that use actual antibiotics.

I don't know who tests waste waters for antibiotics but it sounds like a study you might want to fund for the public good.

The argument over antibiotics is not that they are used, but that they are used as a growth promoter instead of theraputic use which puts them in many more confined livestock operations where superbugs have a bigger chance of evolving and spreading. When you use drugs because they are needed (theraputic) it is different than using them all the time for better feed conversion.

The link below is from a 3/24/09 press release which was distributed by Farm Bureau. http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.newsfocus&year=2009&file=nr0324.html

The release voices stong oppostion to proposed legislation which restricts the use of antibiotics in livestock production. In the unlikely event this proposed legislation gains any traction at all, the creditable veterinary and scientific community will show up in droves to squash it.

Perhaps, beefman, but the public will have to realize that the non theraputic use of antibiotics puts them at risk. The costs of this policy should be levied against all who support the non theraputic use of antibiotics including the Farm Bureau and all of the veterinary and scientific community that are bought by big pharma to push off externalities of their trade off to others in society.

It is argued that we need to allow big pharma excess profits to cook up new antibiotics. This is in part because we are overusing the ones we have. It is an economic circle of greed that perpetuates this problem.

The big problem is that big pharma is not coming up with the number of antibiotics needed to replace the ones we have now at a sustainable rate. That is why this whole discussion is coming to the forefront. Growth promotion use of antibiotics has also kept us out of some European markets and may be the problem behind Russia's refusal to take meat products from major meat plants here in the U.S. Who is going to pay for those lost profits? Externalities can be costly and should be placed on those who are creating them.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Beefman, thanks for that link. Though I'm a member, I don't remember often enough to check their website when looking for information.

Tex, it does defy common sense that you believe it is "greed" to assure that our food animals are as healthy as possible!

Please share with us the official source of your claim that "we are overusing the ones (antibiotics) we have".

mrj
 
Top