Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator, Webster County
February 12, 2010 Edition
Oh man, where do I start? Yesterday morning on CBS Early Show with Harry Smith, I heard Smith say, “Foods that were healthy 50 years ago may not necessarily be healthy in 2010.” He went on to say that “Today, according to Stephen Perrine, author of "New American Diet," we have all sorts of chemicals in our foods, pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, and plastic pollutants, to name a few. He says they aren't good for the environment, they aren't good for our bodies, and they also cause you to be overweight.” I probably wouldn’t have noticed something like that except for the fact that I was still trying to digest another attack on animal agriculture just the two evenings before.
I am referring to the two reports on consecutive evenings (February 9 & 10) compliments once again by CBS News entitled: “Katie Couric Investigates - Feeding Healthy Farm Animals Antibiotics. Is it Creating New Drug-Resistant Bacteria?” In a classic example of one-sided reporting, Katie Couric told her audience that there are no good reasons to use antibiotics in livestock. She said the only reason that it was being done in factory farms in this country was to make more money. If you missed it you can see it via computer. For segment one --http://tinyurl.com/ydluceu; and for segment Two http://tinyurl.com/ydluceu. Oh, by the way, now Katie Couric joins Oprah Winfrey on my list……
I felt that the information presented in the CBS reports about the use of antibiotics in livestock was fraught with misinformation, speculation, and inaccuracies. I thought that the reports were rather short on facts and science and long on speculation, and that is being borne out by a host of livestock industry, veterinary and scientific experts who have been trying to get out the truth to the public. It should have been a dead give-a-way with the fact that she used the term “factory farm” or “factory farming” five times in a three-minute period, as that really showed her bias.
A man cannot even get a break from this continual barrage on the “evils” of animal agriculture. How can one concentrate on things that are more normal to discussion this time of year like calving problems; drying corn; or risk management decisions, instead I fee like we need to defend ourselves. The two CBS reports this week followed last week's "Nightline" report on ABC News that looked at animal-handling and other practices within the dairy industry and a Dec. 29, AP article on antimicrobial use in pork production. Believe me, this is not a coincidence, this activity is likely a push for Congress to implement more controls over antimicrobial use and drive one more nail in the livestock coffin.
You can go back almost a year to my March 22, 2009 column where I wrote about “Legislation starting in California and picked up and pursued by Congressman Slaughter (NY) and Senator Kennedy (Mass) that would require drug manufacturers to go through a new approval process to ensure that antibiotics used in farm animals don't pose a danger to human health and to remove them from use in routine livestock treatment. Slaughter said that mounting evidence showed that routine antibiotic use in “factory farms” was leading to drug resistance in humans. Many medical professionals fear the development of a so-called lethal "superbug" resistant to treatment. Once again - legislation not based on science. To add to this, the New York Times ran articles that same week that tried to establish pigs as a source of MRSA infection (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) for humans. This is of course an attempt to add fuel to the fire of trying to eliminate the use of antibiotics in the care of livestock. We may want to keep an eye on this!”
It looks like my prognosis is proving to be correct. I think this whole thing is being orchestrated to put the “Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (S. 619/H.R. 1549)” on the fast track. There are several entities that are really pushing this, and to no surprise to me is that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS is a big part of it, as is ARI (Animal Rights International) whose founder was Henry Spiri, who was one of the first animal rights extremists. That probably doesn’t mean much to many, except that his wife is a major donor and board member of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which has for many years had an anti-animal agriculture stance and thinks that all animals are raised in------you got it “factory farms” and that they are the root of all human ills!
Part of Couric’s proof was the study supposedly done by this group in conjunction with the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production's report "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America." Industrial Farms is just another word for Factory Farms. I have to tell you that term really ticks me off! Anyway, it very evident that this Pew Commission is just another pawn in the Vegan and Anti-Animal agriculture movement as their studies are very biased and full of misinformation. The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Assn) has pointed out that “The process for gaining scientific expertise in the technical reports was biased and did not incorporate the findings and suggestions of a significant number of participating scientists. This represents a fundamental problem in the way the report was constructed, and in addition to procedural deficiencies, there are substantive problems with many of the recommendations in the report.”
I could write a book on this subject as there are so many things that need to be addressed. I will have to continue on this next week. In the mean time read the point-by-point response that Dr. Hurd from Iowa State, who takes on CBS, who used an Iowa State study as fact. Find it at http://www.vetmed.iastate.edu/. It tells you a lot about the bias of the report.
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Straight From the Horse's Mouth
Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator, Webster County
February 12, 2010 Edition
Oh man, where do I start? Yesterday morning on CBS Early Show with Harry Smith, I heard Smith say, “Foods that were healthy 50 years ago may not necessarily be healthy in 2010.” He went on to say that “Today, according to Stephen Perrine, author of "New American Diet," we have all sorts of chemicals in our foods, pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, and plastic pollutants, to name a few. He says they aren't good for the environment, they aren't good for our bodies, and they also cause you to be overweight.” I probably wouldn’t have noticed something like that except for the fact that I was still trying to digest another attack on animal agriculture just the two evenings before.
I am referring to the two reports on consecutive evenings (February 9 & 10) compliments once again by CBS News entitled: “Katie Couric Investigates - Feeding Healthy Farm Animals Antibiotics. Is it Creating New Drug-Resistant Bacteria?” In a classic example of one-sided reporting, Katie Couric told her audience that there are no good reasons to use antibiotics in livestock. She said the only reason that it was being done in factory farms in this country was to make more money. If you missed it you can see it via computer. For segment one --http://tinyurl.com/ydluceu; and for segment Two http://tinyurl.com/ydluceu. Oh, by the way, now Katie Couric joins Oprah Winfrey on my list……
I felt that the information presented in the CBS reports about the use of antibiotics in livestock was fraught with misinformation, speculation, and inaccuracies. I thought that the reports were rather short on facts and science and long on speculation, and that is being borne out by a host of livestock industry, veterinary and scientific experts who have been trying to get out the truth to the public. It should have been a dead give-a-way with the fact that she used the term “factory farm” or “factory farming” five times in a three-minute period, as that really showed her bias.
A man cannot even get a break from this continual barrage on the “evils” of animal agriculture. How can one concentrate on things that are more normal to discussion this time of year like calving problems; drying corn; or risk management decisions, instead I fee like we need to defend ourselves. The two CBS reports this week followed last week's "Nightline" report on ABC News that looked at animal-handling and other practices within the dairy industry and a Dec. 29, AP article on antimicrobial use in pork production. Believe me, this is not a coincidence, this activity is likely a push for Congress to implement more controls over antimicrobial use and drive one more nail in the livestock coffin.
You can go back almost a year to my March 22, 2009 column where I wrote about “Legislation starting in California and picked up and pursued by Congressman Slaughter (NY) and Senator Kennedy (Mass) that would require drug manufacturers to go through a new approval process to ensure that antibiotics used in farm animals don't pose a danger to human health and to remove them from use in routine livestock treatment. Slaughter said that mounting evidence showed that routine antibiotic use in “factory farms” was leading to drug resistance in humans. Many medical professionals fear the development of a so-called lethal "superbug" resistant to treatment. Once again - legislation not based on science. To add to this, the New York Times ran articles that same week that tried to establish pigs as a source of MRSA infection (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) for humans. This is of course an attempt to add fuel to the fire of trying to eliminate the use of antibiotics in the care of livestock. We may want to keep an eye on this!”
It looks like my prognosis is proving to be correct. I think this whole thing is being orchestrated to put the “Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (S. 619/H.R. 1549)” on the fast track. There are several entities that are really pushing this, and to no surprise to me is that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS is a big part of it, as is ARI (Animal Rights International) whose founder was Henry Spiri, who was one of the first animal rights extremists. That probably doesn’t mean much to many, except that his wife is a major donor and board member of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which has for many years had an anti-animal agriculture stance and thinks that all animals are raised in------you got it “factory farms” and that they are the root of all human ills!
Part of Couric’s proof was the study supposedly done by this group in conjunction with the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production's report "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America." Industrial Farms is just another word for Factory Farms. I have to tell you that term really ticks me off! Anyway, it very evident that this Pew Commission is just another pawn in the Vegan and Anti-Animal agriculture movement as their studies are very biased and full of misinformation. The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Assn) has pointed out that “The process for gaining scientific expertise in the technical reports was biased and did not incorporate the findings and suggestions of a significant number of participating scientists. This represents a fundamental problem in the way the report was constructed, and in addition to procedural deficiencies, there are substantive problems with many of the recommendations in the report.”
I could write a book on this subject as there are so many things that need to be addressed. I will have to continue on this next week. In the mean time read the point-by-point response that Dr. Hurd from Iowa State, who takes on CBS, who used an Iowa State study as fact. Find it at http://www.vetmed.iastate.edu/. It tells you a lot about the bias of the report.
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would not even try to discuss in depth, this issue in opposition to Dewey. Dewey has much more knowledge of the inner-workings of the agricultural world than I. What I can say is that after watching a portion of Katie Courics story during a news broadcast last week, I drew from the story a parallel that I encounter in the area of human health. I believe the story has evolved from the real issue to create a 'shock' value to draw concern from the public in an attempt to change industry standards at a much lower level, akin to charging $XXX for something when in actuality, you are only wanting $XX for it. I believe that the real issue here is the lack of proper application of the medicines and the lack of knowledge of what the medicine will and will not work on. I believe one concern here is that there is no oversight of those that use these drugs within their animal production areas and they liberally 'throw' these treatments to their stock. Overuse of these drugs leads to multi-resistant superbugs in several ways. To be completely effective, these medications must be used to completion which means to the end of the life cycle of the bacteria in that particular animal. Incomplete dosing leads to resistance to that drug, creating a 'super-bug'. Another way these drugs are ineffective is the fact that viruses can indeed 'infect' a bacteria that has not been completely destroyed by medication. This can occur in a 'healthy' bacteria as well but to introduce a virus into a bacteria allows that virus to be 'protected' from an effective dosing of other medications by using the 'super-bug' as a fortress of sorts. I think that the creation of this scenario is the concern by many, a scenario being created by the misuse and improper use of the feed additives in animal production. I don't think that it can be argued that there is an existance of super-bugs. I see this everyday. What I think is argumentative is whether or not there is interspecies transmissions of these bugs and that they are the source for human super-bugs. As in the human setting, I believe there must be an ever-present oversight of the use of these drugs, not in an attempt to lay blame, but in an attempt to fix that particular problem. Fundamentally, I know that in the human world, and now I suspect the animal world, we have gone completely overboard in the manners in which we use medication. We respond to every call to treat by a patient, even when that call should go unheeded, every nagging complaint; every symptom that they tell us they have; each time they have a runny nose or sore ear. If this is a source of concern in the human world where there is so much more governing, we cannot blame those that question the workings within the animal production world. We can blame their methodology but I don't believe we can blame their impetus to raise concern.
Brad Hargis
This is in response to Brad Hargis' comments on antibiotics and livestock. I do appreciate Brad’s comments and for the most part agree with several comments, and I certainly do understand the concept of the Superbug and the dangers it brings. However, I do respectfully disagree with part of what Brad says. First, I think that the common thought process by many is to find a scapegoat, and unfortunately family farms and especially "factory farms" (as these people label them), are the target and a lot of the attacks are being perpetuated by various animal rights and Vegan groups whose stated end goals are to end the animal agriculture industry. It is a travesty in my mind that the "shock value” as Brad refers to, is being perpetrated on the very people that make a living in this industry, (the business of producing the food that ends up on your table) that have had red ink ledgers the last couple of years. Unfortunately it is a small group without much voice. I would venture to say that the MRSA infection problem is more people to people, or facility to people problem than with dragging our food supply and the people who produce that food into the mix, especially without scientific proof. I also agree with Brad on the unrestricted use of meds for every sniffle, sneeze or cough, or people just not knowing that it does no good to treat a virus with an antibacterial antibiotic. We do need to educate all people. I do however question his statement ("I believe one concern here is that there is no oversight of those that use these drugs within their animal production areas and they liberally 'throw' these treatments to their stock.") from both the perspective of the large livestock operations and small farm operations. I don’t feel that any of these operations will “liberally throw these treatments” at their stock. First of all they are expensive, and everyone I know are very cost conscious. They try, like any business, to have as few auxiliary costs as possible as input costs of feeds, overhead, etc are challenging enough. I know that producers and concentrated animal businesses use meds and antibiotics conservatively and only when necessary, not only for the cost but because of potential for resistance. Believe me farmers understand that resistance --as an example... glyphosate resistant weeds-- that came about because of low rate or cut rate use of Round-up. That is not lost on producers. Next point - there most certainly is oversight with livestock drugs-- with the USDA, FDA, FSIS and local veterinarians with most meds. Many need a prescription from the vet, and several have to be administered by the vet. There are also penalties at the processing plants if any drugs are found, many of which have lengthy withdrawal time (even feed-based antibiotics are in this rule). Thanks to BQA and YLQA we have made huge strides in handling & management of all animals and especially in treatment, proper use and application of medicines. Another point I would make is that the use of the drugs helps heal the animal and make the animal safe to eat. Without the drugs we would see death loss climb considerably and high number of chronically ill livestock that would potentially cause the spread of the diseases that we try to prevent increasing the potential-if there was a chance of something getting into the food chain. That would certainly drive up the price of food and drive the producers out of business - leaving it to whom to produce that protein source? - Perhaps Third World countries where we have no control? Last is the claim that farmer's use of antibiotics will have an effect on transferring drug resistance from animal to human. I feel that is a real stretch and the odds against it are huge. I have arguments that scientifically challenge that claim. I will have more on this in my next column. Thank you Brad for commenting as debate and dialogue are good and healthy, regardless of your stance or position on issues. Education from all angles is the key!
Perhaps I left some of my content ill-defined. I did not mean to infer that I personally think that there is interspecies pathogen transfer in this particular case, just that there are those that do in fact believe this and in knowing so, we then cannot dismiss their thought process, we must answer it. Again, Dewey is much more versed than I in this subject and I'm offering a perspective of a human healthcare provider. The oversight that I am referring is oversight of each individual producer and not the industry as a whole. I do realize that governmental oversight occurs at organizational levels such as FDA, USDA, and others, but there stills remains a perception of a lack of evaluation with each individual producer. If a process does exist then I apologize for my lack of knowledge on that subject but I think documentation of drug usage, even with individual animals, must be maintained when using these medications just as it is at a human level. I realize that creates just that much more paperwork, but if the public and/or the industry demands it, then it must be provided. I don't think the question is whether or not animals are tested for certain drug levels upon inspection, althought very important, I think the more appropriate question should be, 'Is the pathogen being treated still present?'. I think that a documented history of drug usage for each larger animal is appropriate. Is it possible or practical to do so within a bird production? I think this is the source of concern for many. If a producer is unwilling or unable to monitor these particular animals undergoing treatment, what is to keep them from 'blanket' treating their stock, even animals that do not require treatment? As for the possibility of interspecies transfer, this is not unheard of. CWD in captive and wild deer, elk, and moose population has been found to cause a type of spongiform encephalopathy in humans, if the meat of the infected animal is eaten. The bovine form of spongiform encephalopathy is believed to cause Creutzfeldt-Jakub disease in humans. In all species, this spongiform process is untreatable and inevitably fatal. Another example is H1N1. Although not a food borne disease, it is respiratory. It is a genetic anomaly of several other flu viruses, including Influenza A or avian flu, that have been proven to infect both humans and the swine population. With the multiple pandemics that we have seen worldwide recently, I can understand what causes the upheaval that accompanies the thought process of the general public, which fuels reports such as Courics. Are we transferring these 'superbugs' from animals to humans at the rate portrayed in Courics report? I cannot say. Does it occur? I believe it does but to what degree....that I cannot answer definitively. Is it going to occur more frequently and with more resistant organisms? In my opinion, yes. We are a world that relies on the relationship between humans and the animals that supply us a food source. Just as humans have been affected by chemical transfer from plant sources, we are affected by transfer of material from animals to humans. How can we not be? To what degree are we affected? I don't know that answer either. But if we can be taken down from ingestion of undercooked meat, then it is not unreasonable to assume that we can be affected by other factors. I see many people in our pulmonary rehab department that have had irreversible lung damage due to inhalation of the air found in many of the bird farms here in southern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas. Can this be associated with the use of medicine? Perhaps not. Can it be excluded? No. But reiterating what Dewey said, these questions have to have answers and the only way to answer them is through education. I look forward to reading Dewey's next column!
Brad Hargis
I know that I cannot cover all aspects of this issue in a column, as it would take hundreds of pages. I think however that I need to address the records portion of what Brad refers to since I probably won't talk about that in my next news issue. So I have decided to visit about it here on this forum. Although I am sure you can find people who don't keep very good records. As an old ag teacher-- always pushing record keeping, as Brad probably remembers, I know you have both sides of the spectrum. However most producers, and certainly veterinarians, do keep records on medications. In fact they need to - from a standpoint of knowing which drug was used, to which animal they gave drugs to, and when it was given. Why? Because they have to abide by the drug withdrawal regimen demanded by the industry --or chance the loss of the ability to sell to packers or other buyers and to see to the safety of the consumers of the meat they produce. That is one reason you see tags in ears and other ID methods. You may remember that I mentioned Quality Assurance programs in my first response. Producers have been following QA guidelines for over 20 years now. I would ask that Brad, or anyone else that is interested, go to the PQA+ (Pork Quality Assurance) manual which can be found at: http://www.pork.org/Producers/PQA/PQAPlusEdBook.pdf and/or the BQA (Beef Quality Assurance) manual that can be found at http://www.nebraskacattlemen.org/home/Portals/0/newsletter/NE-BQABook.pdf You will see what is included in training of both adults and youth, especially if producers wish to be certified. Be sure to look at the sample records. We also do similar training with our youth. Many buyers, salebarns, and even county fairs, etc. call for QA certification and verification of vaccination protocol/drug affidavits. I am not sure where CJD and CDW or H1N1 have to do with antibiotic use in animals other than Brad was trying to show that we can have interspecies transfer of disease. Something we have known for many decades. But that is another complete issue and a whole other discussion opportunity. Brad brings up some very good points and they are well taken -- we all should be concerned about the things around us. And of course educate ourselves on issues from all points of view, be careful of one-sided views as portrayed in many media venues such as the Couric report, and use unbiased, science based information to make our conclusions - not innuendos. I for one am very confident of the safety and wholesomeness of the food that the American Farmer/Rancher puts on the table. We have the most affordable, dependable and safest food supply in the world. Let's not let special interest groups ruin that for us!
Post a Comment