New Blog
I'm moving over to
Wordpress. See my latest news, comments, and reviews. Also some of the old ones, actually.
Sorry, Blogger, but those Wordpress themes are snazzy and flexible.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Big changes coming for poultry inspection
After years of hesitation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving ahead with a plan to take inspectors off the evisceration line at chicken and turkey slaughter plants. Since the 1950's, inspectors have stood at
fixed stations on the line and checked every chicken carcass that came along. (About one every two seconds, usually.) They were supposed to touch the carcass in a certain way to check for evidence of bird disease, look for bile or fecal contamination, and otherwise make sure it was wholesome.
Trouble is, most poultry diseases have been practically eliminated. The concern hasn't been for poultry diseases, but for microbial contamination such as Salmonella. And you can't see or feel Salmonella cells no matter how hard you try.
So USDA launched a pilot program way back in 1998 to allow the processing plants to take care of carcass inspection while federal employees make sure the plant is following its sanitation and anti-contamination plans. Made a ton of sense. It also made the union that represents federal inspectors very unhappy. An uneasy status quo has lasted 13 years.
While the meat and poulty industries have made all sorts of technological improvements, federal inspection has remained largley frozen in time.
So, in a "only Nixon could go to China" sort of way, it makes sense that a Democratic administration can buck the union and push forward with the plan. Hundreds of inspection postion will be eliminated by attrition, and 1,500 inspectors will have to qualify for higher-level jobs as quality inspectors, or move on.
There's little doubt that food safety will actually be enhanced, since the data from the pilot plants makes clear they have better records than those with regular inspection. I'm sure the union and a few activist groups will still fight the new program, but Center for Science in the Public Interest is on board and it looks like USDA will finally prevail. 'Bout time.
My news story is on meatingplace. A subscription is required, but it's free!
After years of hesitation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving ahead with a plan to take inspectors off the evisceration line at chicken and turkey slaughter plants. Since the 1950's, inspectors have stood at
fixed stations on the line and checked every chicken carcass that came along. (About one every two seconds, usually.) They were supposed to touch the carcass in a certain way to check for evidence of bird disease, look for bile or fecal contamination, and otherwise make sure it was wholesome.
Trouble is, most poultry diseases have been practically eliminated. The concern hasn't been for poultry diseases, but for microbial contamination such as Salmonella. And you can't see or feel Salmonella cells no matter how hard you try.
So USDA launched a pilot program way back in 1998 to allow the processing plants to take care of carcass inspection while federal employees make sure the plant is following its sanitation and anti-contamination plans. Made a ton of sense. It also made the union that represents federal inspectors very unhappy. An uneasy status quo has lasted 13 years.
While the meat and poulty industries have made all sorts of technological improvements, federal inspection has remained largley frozen in time.
So, in a "only Nixon could go to China" sort of way, it makes sense that a Democratic administration can buck the union and push forward with the plan. Hundreds of inspection postion will be eliminated by attrition, and 1,500 inspectors will have to qualify for higher-level jobs as quality inspectors, or move on.
There's little doubt that food safety will actually be enhanced, since the data from the pilot plants makes clear they have better records than those with regular inspection. I'm sure the union and a few activist groups will still fight the new program, but Center for Science in the Public Interest is on board and it looks like USDA will finally prevail. 'Bout time.
My news story is on meatingplace. A subscription is required, but it's free!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Bill Would Pave Way for Ethanol Made from Hydrocarbons Instead of Corn
Texas Congressman Pete Olsen (R-Houston) has introduced a bill that would clear the way for the use of natural gas or coal as a source of ethanol under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate, potentially reducing the price of the corn that is now used as the feedstock for nearly all ethanol production.
Celanese Corp., a chemical company based in Dallas with over $6 billion in annual sales, holds an array of patents on a process for turning the
hydrocarbons in natural gas and coal into ethanol. If the bill passes – which seems more than somewhat unlikely – Celanese could clean up and the price of corn could drop significantly.
“Production capacity at a facility using the Celanese technology would surpass by two to three times the production possible at a typical ethanol facility using today’s existing technology and plant-based feedstock,” i.e. corn, the company said.
Nearly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into production of ethanol to satisfy the requirements of the federal RFS, which specifies that most ethanol must be made from cornstarch. Eventually “cellulosic” ethanol is supposed to predominate, but so far it hasn’t proven anywhere near economical.
Olson’s bill -- H.R. 3773 -- opens the sources of ethanol to “domestic fossil fuels other than petroleum” being used to “replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum present in a transportation fuel.” It has five co-sponsors: Reps. Joe R. Pitts, R-Pa., David B. McKinley, R-W.Va, Gene Green, D-Tex., Charles A. Gonzalez, D-Tex., and Jim Costa, D-Calif.
Texas Congressman Pete Olsen (R-Houston) has introduced a bill that would clear the way for the use of natural gas or coal as a source of ethanol under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate, potentially reducing the price of the corn that is now used as the feedstock for nearly all ethanol production.
Celanese Corp., a chemical company based in Dallas with over $6 billion in annual sales, holds an array of patents on a process for turning the
hydrocarbons in natural gas and coal into ethanol. If the bill passes – which seems more than somewhat unlikely – Celanese could clean up and the price of corn could drop significantly.
“Production capacity at a facility using the Celanese technology would surpass by two to three times the production possible at a typical ethanol facility using today’s existing technology and plant-based feedstock,” i.e. corn, the company said.
Nearly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into production of ethanol to satisfy the requirements of the federal RFS, which specifies that most ethanol must be made from cornstarch. Eventually “cellulosic” ethanol is supposed to predominate, but so far it hasn’t proven anywhere near economical.
Olson’s bill -- H.R. 3773 -- opens the sources of ethanol to “domestic fossil fuels other than petroleum” being used to “replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum present in a transportation fuel.” It has five co-sponsors: Reps. Joe R. Pitts, R-Pa., David B. McKinley, R-W.Va, Gene Green, D-Tex., Charles A. Gonzalez, D-Tex., and Jim Costa, D-Calif.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
My busy month in magazines
January is a busy month for me in trade magazines. First out of the box was WATT PoultryUSA with my report on the Chicken Marketing Seminar in California. I attended that event as an NCC staff person and of course had no inkling that I would be called upon to write a story about it. It focuses on the growing role of social media in chicken marketing among other issues. You can see it at "Chicken suppliers and sellers confront new technology, social issues."
After a very tough year in 2011, chicken companies are looking forward to sustained profit in 2012. The turkey industry did pretty well in 2011 and is hoping to stay on an even keel. I wrote this piece for Meat & Poultry, a Sosland publication: "Pecking Orders: The US poultry industry is looking for profit in 2012"
I'm waiting for one more magazine piece to come out. In addition, I write daily news items for www.meatingplace.com. That takes me back to my roots as a wire service reporter!
I am grateful to the editors who have given me these opportunities.
January is a busy month for me in trade magazines. First out of the box was WATT PoultryUSA with my report on the Chicken Marketing Seminar in California. I attended that event as an NCC staff person and of course had no inkling that I would be called upon to write a story about it. It focuses on the growing role of social media in chicken marketing among other issues. You can see it at "Chicken suppliers and sellers confront new technology, social issues."
After a very tough year in 2011, chicken companies are looking forward to sustained profit in 2012. The turkey industry did pretty well in 2011 and is hoping to stay on an even keel. I wrote this piece for Meat & Poultry, a Sosland publication: "Pecking Orders: The US poultry industry is looking for profit in 2012"
I'm waiting for one more magazine piece to come out. In addition, I write daily news items for www.meatingplace.com. That takes me back to my roots as a wire service reporter!
I am grateful to the editors who have given me these opportunities.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
FDA will ban many uses of cephalosporin drugs in food animals
By Richard Lobb on 1/5/2012
reprinted by permission from www.meatingplace.com (free subscription)
The Food and Drug Administration is moving to ban many extra-label uses of cephalosporin drugs in cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys, saying the drugs may cause failure of antibiotic treatment of life-threatening infections in humans. The industry says FDA has little evidence that a problem actually exists.
“Antibiotics are a valuable tool in ensuring animal health and in producing wholesome food for the consuming public,” said Tom Super, vice president communications of the National Chicken Council. “We question any substantive link or scientific basis between veterinary use of cephalosporins and antibiotic resistance in humans.”
FDA announced Wednesday that it will publish a notice in Friday’s Federal Register prohibiting the use of cephalosporin drugs in food animals for disease prevention purposes. The agency said it would also restrict other uses of the drugs to the doses, frequencies, duration, or routes of administration that are already approved, and also to the species and production classes already approved.
"We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals," said Michael R. Taylor, FDA deputy commissioner for foods.
Use
Cephalosporins are used to treat bacterial pneumonia in pigs and cattle and to control early mortality in chicks and turkey poults. Ceftiofur is a widely used cephalosporin sold under the brand named Naxcel.
FDA singled out the use of ceftiofur in dairy cattle as a concern, saying dairy farmers often fail to keep required records. The agency also noted that ceftiofur is supposed to be given to chicks and poults after they hatch, but in fact is usually administered while the animal is still in the egg with the Inovoject system. Injection is not an approved “route of administration,” the agency said.
The agency said the new restrictions would, among other things, ban “Biobullets.” The agency said this is a pellet of ceftiofur sodium encased in a biodegradable bullet that is fired by an air rifle into the muscle of cattle.
The new restrictions do not apply to the drug cephapirin, the agency said, because it has a limited market.
Comments
The notice signed by Bernadette Dunham, director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said the agency would accept comments on its final rule until March 6 and consider them before the rule goes into effect on April 5. FDA first proposed the restrictions in 2008 but withdrew them after a storm of criticism from veterinarians and members of the industry. The new rule is more limited than the one proposed in 2008, the notice said.
FDA said it acted because of an upsurge of bacterial resistance to cephalosporins in samples taken from food animals in the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
“In 1997, no Salmonella isolates from cattle or swine were resistant to ceftiofur, while ceftiofur resistance among isolates from chickens and turkeys was 0.5 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively,” the notice said. “By 2009, the prevalence of ceftiofur resistance among Salmonella slaughter isolates increased to 14.5 percent for cattle, 4.2 percent for swine, 12.7 percent for chickens, and 12.4 percent for turkeys,” it added.
“It is likely that the extra label use of cephalosporins in certain food-producing animal species is contributing to the emergence of cephalosporin-resistant zoonotic foodborne bacteria,” FDA said.
Worried
FDA said it was particularly worried because resistance to ceftiofur compromises the effectiveness of a related drug called ceftriaxone, which is said is a “first-line therapy for treating salmonellosis in humans.” Drugs in cephalosporin class are also used to treat pneumonia and staph infections of the skin in humans, the agency said.
“The Agency considers the most significant risk to the public health associated with antimicrobial resistance to be human exposure to food containing antimicrobial-resistant bacteria resulting from the exposure of food-producing animals to antimicrobials, including cephalosporins,” FDA said.
Ron Phillips, vice president for public and legislative affairs at Animal Health Institute, said NARMS data are not representative of all food-producing animals.
“The evidence is thin,” he said. “The rule on cephalosporins is the latest in a series of steps by FDA that have greatly tightened the use of antibiotics in animals,” he added.
By Richard Lobb on 1/5/2012
reprinted by permission from www.meatingplace.com (free subscription)
The Food and Drug Administration is moving to ban many extra-label uses of cephalosporin drugs in cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys, saying the drugs may cause failure of antibiotic treatment of life-threatening infections in humans. The industry says FDA has little evidence that a problem actually exists.
“Antibiotics are a valuable tool in ensuring animal health and in producing wholesome food for the consuming public,” said Tom Super, vice president communications of the National Chicken Council. “We question any substantive link or scientific basis between veterinary use of cephalosporins and antibiotic resistance in humans.”
FDA announced Wednesday that it will publish a notice in Friday’s Federal Register prohibiting the use of cephalosporin drugs in food animals for disease prevention purposes. The agency said it would also restrict other uses of the drugs to the doses, frequencies, duration, or routes of administration that are already approved, and also to the species and production classes already approved.
"We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals," said Michael R. Taylor, FDA deputy commissioner for foods.
Use
Cephalosporins are used to treat bacterial pneumonia in pigs and cattle and to control early mortality in chicks and turkey poults. Ceftiofur is a widely used cephalosporin sold under the brand named Naxcel.
FDA singled out the use of ceftiofur in dairy cattle as a concern, saying dairy farmers often fail to keep required records. The agency also noted that ceftiofur is supposed to be given to chicks and poults after they hatch, but in fact is usually administered while the animal is still in the egg with the Inovoject system. Injection is not an approved “route of administration,” the agency said.
The agency said the new restrictions would, among other things, ban “Biobullets.” The agency said this is a pellet of ceftiofur sodium encased in a biodegradable bullet that is fired by an air rifle into the muscle of cattle.
The new restrictions do not apply to the drug cephapirin, the agency said, because it has a limited market.
Comments
The notice signed by Bernadette Dunham, director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said the agency would accept comments on its final rule until March 6 and consider them before the rule goes into effect on April 5. FDA first proposed the restrictions in 2008 but withdrew them after a storm of criticism from veterinarians and members of the industry. The new rule is more limited than the one proposed in 2008, the notice said.
FDA said it acted because of an upsurge of bacterial resistance to cephalosporins in samples taken from food animals in the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
“In 1997, no Salmonella isolates from cattle or swine were resistant to ceftiofur, while ceftiofur resistance among isolates from chickens and turkeys was 0.5 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively,” the notice said. “By 2009, the prevalence of ceftiofur resistance among Salmonella slaughter isolates increased to 14.5 percent for cattle, 4.2 percent for swine, 12.7 percent for chickens, and 12.4 percent for turkeys,” it added.
“It is likely that the extra label use of cephalosporins in certain food-producing animal species is contributing to the emergence of cephalosporin-resistant zoonotic foodborne bacteria,” FDA said.
Worried
FDA said it was particularly worried because resistance to ceftiofur compromises the effectiveness of a related drug called ceftriaxone, which is said is a “first-line therapy for treating salmonellosis in humans.” Drugs in cephalosporin class are also used to treat pneumonia and staph infections of the skin in humans, the agency said.
“The Agency considers the most significant risk to the public health associated with antimicrobial resistance to be human exposure to food containing antimicrobial-resistant bacteria resulting from the exposure of food-producing animals to antimicrobials, including cephalosporins,” FDA said.
Ron Phillips, vice president for public and legislative affairs at Animal Health Institute, said NARMS data are not representative of all food-producing animals.
“The evidence is thin,” he said. “The rule on cephalosporins is the latest in a series of steps by FDA that have greatly tightened the use of antibiotics in animals,” he added.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)