ANTIBIOTICS IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS-IS IT ALARMING?

"Antibiotic resistance" is a subject matter of intense debate with many medical experts taking the stand, it really poses a threat to the future of humanity. Logically such resistance is evolved over a period of time by the extra ordinary versatility of some of the disease causing microbes to develop the necessary metabolizing ability to make antibiotics incapable of disrupting their biological system. To day there are a few microbes which are not amenable to most known antibiotics and development of new antibiotics is not keeping pace with the onset of resistance with increasing number of species of pathogens. One of the reasons for antibiotic resistance is their indiscriminate use whether really needed or not enabling some of the cells of the microbes able to withstand the mode of action of the antibiotics. Another more important reason is the detestable practice among poultry farms to use antibiotics to accelerate the growth of the birds with minimum feed intake in order to increase their profit margins. Naturally residual microorganisms surviving after exposure to sub-lethal doses of antibiotics used in the feed become immune to the action of these life saving drugs. It is apprehended that such massive use of antibiotics can pose serious threat in the event of epidemics involving resistant strains of some of the deadly pathogens. Here is a critic's view about the gravity of the situation, 

Concern has intensified in recent years over the use of antibiotics in agriculture, which world health authorities agree contributes to the development of drug-resistant bacteria. These so-called superbugs infect hundreds of thousands and kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Legislation before Congress would rein in the use of medically important antibiotics on healthy livestock through mandatory restrictions as well as public disclosure of how antibiotics are used on animals and in what quantities. But such efforts face resistance from the meat industry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the issue is better handled through voluntary guidelines it hopes to finalize this year. Critics doubt that a voluntary approach would decrease use and say the current lack of transparency would prevent anyone from knowing whether it did — an issue also noted by the Government Accountability Office. Health authorities say antibiotics should be used sparingly because any bacteria that can survive the drugs will multiply, increasing the strain's overall resistance. Dr. Jean Patel, deputy director of the Office of Antimicrobial Resistance at the CDC, calls antibiotic resistance one of the nation's most serious health threats. "Resistance often emerges in the health care setting where antimicrobial are commonly used," Patel said, "but these drugs are also used on the farm, and a number of foodborne pathogens, like salmonella, are becoming increasingly resistant to antimicrobial that are important for human health." The Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group, analyzed government data and reported last month that 69 percent of pork chops and 81 percent of ground turkey sampled in 2011 were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Turkey raised without antibiotics — including organic turkey — carries fewer such pathogens, according to recent research by Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. About 80 percent of all antibiotics sold by weight in the U.S. in 2011 were used on livestock, according to FDA figures. That year, 7.3 million pounds of antibiotics were used to treat humans, compared with 29.9 million pounds sold for meat and poultry production. All parties in the antibiotics debate agree that it makes sense to treat sick animals with appropriate antibiotics. And almost all say that using antibiotics just to make animals grow faster — a practice long banned in the European Union — is, as the FDA puts it, "injudicious."

There are two aspects of this issue that defies logic. First the antibiotics, intended to save lives by destroying the causative bugs, are misused for a purpose other than protecting lives. Second, the reluctance on the part of safety regulators to ban such misuse through law. While in Europe such a ban is strictly enforced, in the US, the regulatory authorities under the influence of the poultry industry lobbies, refuse to frown upon the patently undesirable and dangerous practices of the industry for reasons not very clear. Imagine how crazy is the situation where 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for weight increasing purpose! If this is not travesty of justice what else it is? It poses health dangers to not only US consumers but also to others importing poultry meat from this country. The current stance of the authorities to make it voluntary to declare use of antibiotics in poultry meat y the industry is shocking, being totally insensitive to the consequences that await in not too distant a future because of misuse of antibiotics! May be only a national calamity involving one of the antibiotic resistant bugs will wake the authorities for putting in place a strict regulatory/mandatory regime that will curtail the despicable practice of using antibiotics for non-medical purpose.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MAKING ANTIBIOTICS WORK BETTER-NEW DEVELOPMENTS

How serious is the oft repeated assertion by medical pundits that mankind is running out of option as far as antibiotics' effectiveness is concerned? If the increasing antibiotic resistance exhibited by some of the deadliest of pathogens reported all over the world is any indication there could be many diseases that will not respond to traditional antibiotic therapy and a disaster of Himalayan magnitude is waiting to happen!. Though there could be many reasons for such a situation developing during the last three decades, the single most critical cause is the indiscriminate use of broad spectrum antibiotics whether they are needed or not. Many physicians consider antibiotics as a magic bullet that is a "cure for all" without diagnosing the real culprit agent that has caused the fever or other symptoms of their patients. Added to this is the wide scale reported use of antibiotics by the livestock and poultry industries for accelerated growth of animals, a use not originally attributed to these savior of humans and naturally the products of this industry will have antibiotics that gain access to human body day in and day out! Pathogens thus exposed to tiny doses of antibiotics evolve into super bugs that can over come the effect of the antibiotics over a period of time. Those which survive, as per the theory of evolution will be the fittest capable of withstanding the action of antibiotics. Since development of new antibiotics lag behind, the pace of resistance development by many pathogens to existing array of antibiotics is growing pretty fast. Recent reports that silver ion can boost the effectiveness of existing antibiotics are truly significant with far reaching implications for the future of mankind. Here is a take on this new development.  

"Silver has been used as an antimicrobial for centuries, but little has been known about how it works. The new research suggests adding it to existing antibiotics could counteract the rise of drug-resistant microbes. Experiments in mice showed the metal disrupts the biological processes of bacteria, making them more permeable to antibiotics, a US team reports. Bacteria are adapting and finding ways to survive the effects of antibiotics. According to England's chief medical officer, Prof Dame Sally Davies, antibiotics are losing their effectiveness at a rate that is both alarming and irreversible. Silver acts against Gram-negative bacteria - one of the two main types of bacteria - which are particularly difficult pathogens to treat".

Silver has been known since long as a protective agent in sterilizing water as it exerts a deleterious effect on most bacteria. No wonder silverware is increasingly being used for storing and consuming foods as small traces leached into the food are supposed to keep many dangerous bacteria out. Though it is empirically known that silver does have antibacterial properties, the exact mechanism of action is not yet clearly understood. But the above study gives a glimpse into the same and it is suggested that silver ion somehow makes the cell membranes more permeable to antibiotics to enter into the cell and disrupt the biological processes going on inside. What is amazing is that a small addition of silver amplifies the action of antibiotics several fold and this can result in the use of lesser concentrations of antibiotics in future formulations. Some of the most serious bacteria come from the gram negative group which include Helicobacter, E.coli, Shigella, Salmonella, Enterobacteriaceae, Psuedomonas, Moraxella, bacteria causing Gonorrhea, meningitis and Pneumonia. The discovery of the complimentary effect of silver is all the more significant because  as per the claim of the authors the bacteria can never develop resistance to silver though only time will tell whether it is so. Nonetheless the above development is as significant as the discovery of Penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HONEY "LAUNDERING"-THE CHINESE EXPERTISE!

United States import honey from many countries and every imported consignment is supposed to be tested for safety and quality. In trade terms under WTO regime, anti-dumping duties can be imposed if the imports are valued low affecting adversely the domestic industry. As Chinese are known to indulge in dumping many of their products in many countries at unbelievably low prices, recourse is taken to impose import duty to make them almost on par with prices of domestic products. Honey is one such item which attracts anti-dumping duty if it originates from China. Naturally to circumvent such fiscal impositions, China often routes its honey through other countries as technically it is difficult to trace the origin of the product through existing testing protocols. While economic aspect is one thing, what is bothering the US is that Chinese honey farmers are known to be unscrupulous in using banned antibiotics to deal with infections affecting the bees in its production centers. Here is a take on this on going "honey war" between the two super powers and its consequences.  

The government is alleging that Chinese honey — which can be laced with illegal and unsafe antibiotics — was misdeclared when it was imported to the United States and routed through other countries to evade more than $180 million in anti-dumping duties. HSI and Customs and Border Protection said late last week they have stepped up efforts to combat commercial fraud that directly impacts the economy and public health. The charges come more than a year after an investigation by Food Safety News found that laboratory tests could not detect the origin of more than three quarters of honey purchased at retail locations because ultra-filtration methods remove naturally occurring pollen and make honey impossible to trace. Many in the industry say this practice contributes to honey laundering. As one honey producer put it: "It's no secret to anyone in the business that the only reason all the pollen is filtered out is to hide where it initially came from and the fact is that in almost all cases, that is China."

While one has heard about "money laundering" that refers to converting ill gotten money by individuals who do not pay appropriate taxes in their countries resorting to routing the same to tax havens where no question is asked or no explanation is given. Honey laundering refers more or less to the same technique where Chinese honey is shipped to a third country with which the US has good relations and from there it finds easy entry into the US with relatively less cumbersome inspection and surveillance.  Raw honey if not processed through ultra filtration equipment, will contain pollen and probably critical tests can pin point the source of honey through pollen testing. Chinese send almost all their honey after ultra filtration making it difficult for easy detection. Now that the US as well as the EU have been able to crack this racket, Chinese should not be allowed to go scot-free for this heinous and devious action.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT PRODUCTS-THE ANTIBIOTIC USE REALLY HURTS THE CONSUMER?

Use of antibiotics in raising food yielding animals is a subject courting intense controversy and no one knows the real situation at the ground level. Two important arguments one hears against wide scale use of a number of antibiotics by the animal food industry are that it makes many pathogens that cause disease in humans become more resistant to use of antibiotics when used against diseases and more than 80% of the US production of antibiotics goes for incorporation in animal feed stock. Both the above claims are sought to be debunked by a report which recently appeared in the media which makes some sense. Here is a take on this critique on antibiotics and animal food industry.  

From what I have been reading lately, it appears to me that the next big fight over agriculture's ability to provide consumers with plentiful, safe and affordable meat and poultry products will focus on the use of antibiotics in animals raised for food. And it also appears to me that the information being provided through media outlets is not designed to inform, but to misinform and play on the public's lack of detailed knowledge about the use of antibiotics in animals raised for food. And it also appears to me that the main thrust of the attack will be eliminating the use of antibiotics needed to maintain healthy animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. Eliminating antibiotics to control or prevent infections in our herds and flocks will eliminate many CAFOs and drive up the cost of protein to the point where many will have to look elsewhere for this portion of their diets. And many opponents of the use of antibiotics in animals say: "And that would be a good thing." So is the agenda to protect me from multi drug resistant bacteria or is it to reduce the amount of animal products we consume? To try and answer that question I want to supply the readers with some facts, facts that I will provide links for and can be repeated time after time as the truth, if anyone cares to listen to you. First of all, a statistic often repeated by the crowd calling for change is that 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in animals. The 80 percent number is meant to be a distraction from the real truth. In truth, the numbers posted on the FDA's website, titled 2010  SUMMARY REPORT on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, are in total kilograms of drugs sold. The listing is not indicative of what the antibiotics were used for, nor is it an accurate reflection of illnesses treated vs. prevented, etc.
For instance, a 2,500 pound prize bull with pneumonia is going to be treated with a much larger dosage of an antibiotic than an 8 pound newborn with the same bacterial infection. But the numbers are the best we have for animal antibiotic use, so I will be using them today. For human use of antibiotics, the same caveat about weight applies. The antibiotic numbers sold for human use that I will use for this discussion come from a letter to Congresswoman Slaughter from the FDA dated April 19, 2011, citing the IMS Health, IMS National Sales Perspectives data Year 2009.
According to the FDA report, 28 percent of all antibiotics sold for animal use in 2010 were Ionophores.  Ionophores have never been approved for use in human medicine. Several other drugs sold for use in animals are also not approved for use in human medicine. When they are combined with the Ionophore total, the percentage of antibiotics sold for use in animals but having no place in human disease treatment reaches 45 percent.
The largest class overall of antibiotics sold or distributed for use in animals in 2010 was the tetracycline class.  This class accounted for nearly 42 percent of total sales. Tetracycline use in human medicine comprises about 1 percent of the total amount sold based on weight. Tetracycline used to be widely prescribed, but is now limited in use to treating the sexually transmitted disease caused by Chlamydia, Mycoplasma infections and Rickettsial diseases like Lyme and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. For these illnesses, there are antibiotics far superior to tetracycline. These other antibiotics, generally in the class called Macrolides, are the first line of therapy.

The above report raises serious questions regarding the role and credibility of scientists, the USFDA, the USDA and others involved in educating consumers regarding the truth vis-a-vis antibiotics use by animal food industry. If logic is the guiding factor the contention by the author of above critique sounds more convincing than the off-the-cuff opinions and views of critics who deride the practice of antibiotics use by the animal food industry. Another issue is that antibiotics in feed increases the yield of meat which is a desirable practice and no one should have quarrel on that unless it is proved unhealthy to the humans. Now that this controversy has been raked up there is a need for scientific clarity and make a revisit of the issue by those in power controlling the destiny of the food industry through their executive authority. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT PRODUCTS AND ANTIBIOTICS-THE LABELING GAME!

Increased emergence of bugs resistant to some of the commonly used antibiotics for treatment of serious diseases in human beings is a cause for alarm globally. While part of the problem can be attributed to the indiscriminate prescription by physicians of all hues and colors to treat any and every fever with strongest antibiotics available in the market, meat industry has to bear the major burden for such a situation because of large scale use (or mis-use?) of antibiotics in raising meat animals. It is scandalous that more than 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for feeding meat animals, under the pretext that meat so produced will be safer from pathogens like Salmonella, virulent E.coli and others. However a reality check shows that antibiotics are used to improve the production economics as the animals grow faster using less and less feed inputs. The hapless consumer, in spite of his yearnings to consume antibiotic free meat products does not have ready access to such products because most of the meat produced comes from farms which liberally use antibiotics in their day to day operations. Here is a take on this vexatious issue that seems to be caught between the powerful meat lobby and aggressive consumer activists organizations.  

"Currently, there is no labeling standards for drug free meat products, but until there is, the researchers say, foods labeled "organic" are, by definition, required to be antibiotic-free. In addition, they say consumers can generally rely on labels that explicitly say "no antibiotics," but should be wary of terms like "natural," "antibiotic-free," "no antibiotic residues" and "no antibiotic growth promotants," as these terms can be misleading. But a coalition of agricultural advocacy organizations – including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation -  do not agree that there is a problem. "The research is clear that the contribution of using antibiotics in food-animal production to the human burden of antibiotic resistance is quite small, if it exists at all," the coalition said in a letter to Congress in June".

It is a shame that the government in the world's most powerful country, viz the US is unable to come to the rescue of its citizens through restraining policies that will discourage the meat industry from using antibiotics recklessly. Adding insult to injury, the powerful meat lobby does not concede the point that its large scale use of antibiotics is responsible for the drug resistance encountered in may pathogen infections, in spite of massive scientific evidence to the contrary! What prevents the US authorities in insisting on compulsory labeling of antibiotic treated meat is indeed baffling, the only charitable interpretation being its vulnerability to the lobbying power of the meat industry. Though consumers have an alternative in organic meats, the fact that they cost heavily compared to normal meat excludes many of them with limited income from patronizing such expensive products. Access to safe food is a fundamental human right and no government can shirk its responsibility in ensuring the same, no matter how powerful the food industry may be!    

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com