Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Reprinted from Farmshine: May 4, 2007

Industry is heading down a slippery slope

By SHERRY BUNTING
Special for Farmshine

BROWNSTOWN, Pa. – The dairy industry is heading down a slippery slope. For those who may have thought the “rbST-free” milk labeling issue was an isolated concern: think again.

A small milk bottler in Washington state recently initiated a new production tool into the “free of” discussion: ionophores. According to news bulletins, the bottled milk label for Sno-Fresh Dairy now reads, “All Natural, Farm Fresh. Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, rBST.”

Wow! What a scientific breakthrough! Milk, that is free of all these things? How’d they do that? Must be good stuff. The best.

Get the big truck for that load of manure! My good ‘ole standard, conventional, local store brand doesn’t contain any of those things either. Guaranteed.

Maybe some dairy farmers are not concerned about “rbST-free” milk labeling. Maybe the industry has come to accept and disregard claims of milk that is “free of antibiotics.” Maybe we view misleading labels as a “market niche” of little concern to our choices on the farm. Or maybe, we simply console ourselves with the thought that most consumers are reasonable enough to know that ALL MILK is free of antibiotics… free of rbST… free of “you name the production tool.” Just because this last statement is true in reality, doesn’t mean it is “true” in the minds of consumers.

Just because a dairy farmer treats a sick cow with antibiotics or chooses to use FDA-approved rbST for production management or chooses to supplement with an FDA-approved ionophore for improved feed efficiency, doesn’t mean the milk contains any of these things. I would have to say that most consumers are not aware of this simple truth.

Milk has been safety-tested for decades. This is something consumers don’t have conscious awareness of anymore: it is behind the scenes and taken for granted. From a milk-regulating standpoint, misleading labels that raise concern about the safety of “conventional” milk are a slap-in-the-face. All milk goes through a litany of tests, and milk safety regulators take their jobs very seriously.

Do consumers even realize that milk containing antibiotics, can’t be sold under any label? It is discarded. Do they realize that dairy farmers hold the milk from antibiotic-treated cows, out of the tank? Do they know dairy farmers can’t sell milk from treated cows until after the prescribed withdrawal period, and if they do accidentally milk a treated cow in the line, the whole tank of milk is thrown away? That’s already the law for all milk. The safeguards and testing are already in place for all milk.

Here’s a provocative thought: What’s to stop ALL MILK labels from stating: “free of antibiotics, rbST, etc.?” Since the milk doesn’t contain these items even if they are used in managing the herd, can’t all labels – including conventional milk labels – simply state that the milk doesn’t contain these things? Seems reasonable to me.

When I explain to my ag-illiterate friends and acquaintances, who question me about milk or beef from time to time, they end up seeing the reason in my argument. Trouble is, most consumers don’t ask the right people, or they don’t ask anyone at all. They read a label and form their own conclusions.

Concerning the “free of” milk labels on today’s market… I make this humble observation. What are dairy farmers supposed to do? Volatile and prolonged periods of low milk prices… The government-subsidized business of producing fuel from corn, sending grain prices skyward… Energy costs to run a dairy and grow feeds and forages, going through the roof… A mixed up, largely incomprehensible, regulated milk marketing system with price accuracy in question… Increasing pressures from costly environmental regulations and nuisance lawsuits…

In the face of very tight margins, some producers make the choice to adopt organic methods of production, and there is a niche for this product. Others remain conventional and make the choice to adopt available and approved production tools to get better feed efficiency (read more milk per pound of feed), to get better cow efficiency (read more milk per cow), to treat a sick cow that shows a good chance of recovery (read keep my good cow if the treatment will make her better).

Every producer should have this choice. And such choices are no doubt made after penciling out the return, in an effort to run a profitable dairy farm.

This is not an organic versus conventional debate. Misleading labels are a concern because they promote the chipping away of producer choices without commensurate dollars returned and without thinking about the long term consequences for food production. Unless the Food and Drug Administration and/or Federal Trade Commission clarify labeling guidelines to stop deceptive and often disparaging labels and advertising, I believe we will see a steady increase in approved technologies, coming under fire due to marketing ploys and misleading labels.

I know the mantra: the customer is king; the customer is always right; give the customers what they want. But honestly, do consumers today even know what they want? Do they have any kind of real-world perspective on this? Or is the animal rights activist agenda telling them – ever so subtly and dishonestly – what they want? They have certainly targeted a busy bunch of people. Dairy farmers are way too busy on the farm to effectively organize against the subtle attack that lies beneath the surface of the deceptive labeling issue.

But make no mistake, the labeling issues are frustrating to the people who know better: the people who toil to produce food for a largely ungrateful nation; the scientists who research and develop the means for better production from fewer resources.

In today’s marketing environment, it appears that some people think it is okay to use confusion as a marketing tool. And why not? Evidently, it pays. Apparently, there are enough affluent people in this country, who are willing to pay for simple un-truths and half-truths.

In my opinion, the way some of these “free of” labels are worded is a disgrace. It is also foolish. Are we – as a society – really this gullible? Guess so.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Marcela Martinez, Graduate Student
Gabriella Varga, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
Penn State University

Introduction by Terry Etherton

In the talks I have been giving across the United States about the importance of biotechnology in animal agriculture, I have a slide with a list of technologies beyond rbST use that likely will be attacked. This is not based on the scientific evidence but rather is driven by the smoke and mirrors milk-marketing campaigns that differentiate milk in the grocery store by the use of “absence claims” on the label.

These absence claims are deceptive, misleading, and are designed to convey to consumers that conventional milk contains antibiotics, pesticides, etc. As I have written about extensively in my Blogs, this is not true!

Well, we can strike rumensin off my list since a small dairy in Washington (Sno-Fresh) is now selling milk with the label: “Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, and rbST”. This defies logic.

For facts about what rumensin is, and that use in the dairy industry is FDA-approved and safe, read the Blog below written by Ms. Martinez and Dr. Varga. It is great!

————-

Monensin sodium (Rumensin) is an ionophore that has obtained considerable success as a feed additive in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industries. Rumensin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1971 for control of coccidiosis in broilers. On December 16, 1975, monensin was registered with the commercial name of Rumensin (Elanco Products Co., a division of Eli-Lilly, Indianapolis, IN) to improve feed efficiency in beef cattle (Tedeschi et al., 2003). In June 1996, Canada allowed the use of rumensin premix for lactating cows for coccidiosis control and in December 1997, a rumensin controlled released capsule (CRC) was approved to aid in the prevention of subclinical ketosis in dairy cattle (Duffield and Bagg, 2000). In October 2004, the FDAapproved the use of rumensin in the United States to increase milk production efficiency in dairy cows (FDA, 2004). Before the approval of rumensin for dairy cows, this feed additive has been widely used in feedlots in U.S. to improve feed efficiency. Since its first introduction, rumensin has been widely used in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industry to improve animal health and performance. The use of rumensin reduces the incidence of illness in food animals which can help increase the safety of animal products for human consumption.

Ionophores are potent antimicrobial compounds that have the capacity to alter ruminal bacteria reducing the incidence of health issues related to the ruminal fermentation (e.g., bloat). Ionophores specifically target the ruminal bacterial population and they are not used in human medicine. Because of the complexity and high degree of specificity of ionophores, it appears that ionophores do not contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance to important human drugs. In recent years there has been concern about the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. This concern is based on the idea that animals fed antibiotics often have more antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those not fed antibiotics and that resistance can be transferred to other pathogens (Russell and Mantovani, 2002). It appears that ionophores do not promote the development of antibiotic resistance because of their complex nature and high degree of specificity.

The evaluation of human food safety is a meticulous process before a new drug is approved for food animals by the FDA. Toxicology data and residues of the drug are main factors evaluated before a new drug is approved for use in food animals. By doing this, consumers can consume products from animals that have been treated or received drugs approved by the FDA with confidence that the animal product is safe.

Bagg et al. (2005) fed 24, 72, 144, and 240 ppm rumensin to Holstein dairy cows and milk was evaluated for residues. Considering 24 ppm of rumensin as the recommended dose in dairy cows, this study evaluated 10 times this dose. The results from this study showed that there were no detectable rumensin residues (< 0.005 μg/mL) in any of the milk samples collected despite the use of highly sensitive assays. Results of this study confirm that food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels are safe for human consumption. Other studies (Dick et al., 1996 and Wilkinson et al., 1997) have also evaluated the presence of rumensin residues and none were found in milk.

Donoho and Kline (1968) measured rumensin at zero withdrawal in chickens provided rumensin and no detectable residues (less than 0.025 ppm) were observed in muscle, liver and kidney. Fat contained 0.05-0.1 ppm at zero withdrawal but after one day withdrawal no detectable residues were observed. Same results were also observed by Okada et al. (1980) when chickens were fed the highest level of rumensin recommended and no detectable residues of rumensin were observed (less than 0.0125 ppm) in edible tissues after 2 days of withdrawal from rumensin. In 1982, Donoho et al. fed chickens with 14C-rumensin at a concentration of 110 g/ ton of feed for 4 to 6 d and found a rumensin concentration of radioactivity of 0.5 ppm in the liver, and less than 0.2 ppm in muscle, kidney and skin. Rumensin concentration in tissues declined with time and after 1-day withdrawal no rumensin residues (detection level of 0.05 ppm) were detected in fat or liver.

The Food and Drug Administration stated that meat and milk derived from dairy cattle fed rumensin are safe when animals are fed according to the approved label. Residue information in edible tissues from treated dairy cows confirmed the applicability of the zero withdrawal period already established for rumensin in beef cattle. Since rumensin is extensively metabolized, FDA waived the requirement to develop a regulatory method to detect residues in milk and meat from rumensin treated animals. Extensive chemistry and toxicology data have been developed to support the safe use of rumensin in cattle relative to residues in meat and milk. Based on toxicology and residue data, pre-slaughter withdrawal is not required for rumensin by the FDA. Therefore, it can be said that any small quantity of residual rumensin in food would not cause any adverse effects in humans. Scientific data indicate that meat and milk produced from animals treated with rumensin are safe for human consumption (Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003).

An assessment was presented on the effects of rumensin residues present in edible tissues of cattle fed at the proposed upper level dose, on human intestinal flora. It was concluded that the amount of active rumensin residues present in the human colon is probably too low to produce any adverse effects on the human intestinal flora.

In conclusion, the safety of food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels for human consumption are safe and the consumer does not need to worry about health issues. Milk labels with claims of being rumensin-free need to be evaluated carefully by the consumers considering the scientific facts which prove that rumensin residues are not present in milk.

References:

Bagg, R., G. H. Vessie, C. P. Dick, T. Duffield, J. B. Wilson, and J. J. Aramini. 2005. Milk residues and performance of lactating dairy cows administered high doses of Rumensin. Can J Vet Res. 69(3): 180–185.

Callaway, T. R., T. S. Edrington, J. L. Rychlik, K. J. Genovese, T. L. Poole, Y. S. Jung, K. M. Bischoff, R. C. Anderson and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Ionphores: their use as ruminant growth promotants and impact of foof safety. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2:43-51.

Dick, C. P., G. V. Vessie, J. W. Moran, and M.Coleman. 1996. The determination of Rumensin residues in cattle following the administration of two Rumensin controlled release capsules. Proceedings of the World Buiatrics Congress, Edinburgh. 254.

Donoho, A. L. and R. M. Kline. 1968. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology. Ann Arbor, MI. P. 763.

Duffield, T. F. and R. N. Bagg. 2000. Use of ionophores in lactating dairy cattle: A review. Canad. Vet. J. 41:388-394.

FDA. 2004. Monensin Sodium. In code of Federal Regulations, Section 21 CFR 558.335. p 68783. Revised November 26, 2004. Approved October 28, 2004 – Food and Drug Administration., Washington.

Ipharraguerre I. R. and J. H. Clark. 2003. Usefulness of ionophores for lactating dairy cows: a review. Animal feed and science technology. 106: 39-57.

Okada, J., I. Higuchi, and S. Kondo. 1980. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zassahi. 21. P. 177.

Russell, J.B. and H. C. Mantovani. 2002. The bacteriocins of ruminal bacteria and their potential as an alternative to antibiotics. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 4:347–3

Tedeschi, L. O., D. G. Fox, and T. P. Tylutki. 2003. Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. J Environ. Qual. 32:1591-1602.

Wilkinson, J. I. D., A. S. Kennington, K. M. Ehrenfried, J. W. Moran,and J. M. Buck. 1997. Human food safety with the use of Rumensin in lactating cows. In: Usefulness of Ionophores in Lactating Dairy Cattle. Proceedings of Symposium June 25 to 26, University of Guelph. 86.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Marcela Martinez, Graduate Student
Gabriella Varga, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
Penn State University

Introduction by Terry Etherton

In the talks I have been giving across the United States about the importance of biotechnology in animal agriculture, I have a slide with a list of technologies beyond rbST use that likely will be attacked. This is not based on the scientific evidence but rather is driven by the smoke and mirrors milk-marketing campaigns that differentiate milk in the grocery store by the use of “absence claims” on the label.

These absence claims are deceptive, misleading, and are designed to convey to consumers that conventional milk contains antibiotics, pesticides, etc. As I have written about extensively in my Blogs, this is not true!

Well,we can strike rumensin off my list since a small dairy in Washington (Sno-Fresh) is now selling milk with the label: “Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, and rbST”. This defies logic.

For facts about what rumensin is, and that use in the dairy industry is FDA-approved and safe, read the Blog below written by Ms. Martinez and Dr. Varga. It is great!

————-

Monensin sodium (Rumensin) is an ionophore that has obtained considerable success as a feed additive in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industries. Rumensin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1971 for control of coccidiosis in broilers. On December 16, 1975, monensin was registered with the commercial name of Rumensin (Elanco Products Co., a division of Eli-Lilly, Indianapolis, IN) to improve feed efficiency in beef cattle (Tedeschi et al., 2003). In June 1996, Canada allowed the use of rumensin premix for lactating cows for coccidiosis control and in December 1997, a rumensin controlled released capsule (CRC) was approved to aid in the prevention of subclinical ketosis in dairy cattle (Duffield and Bagg, 2000). In October 2004, the FDA approved the use of rumensin in the United States to increase milk production efficiency in dairy cows (FDA, 2004). Before the approval of rumensin for dairy cows, this feed additive has been widely used in feedlots in U.S. to improve feed efficiency. Since its first introduction, rumensin has been widely used in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industry to improve animal health and performance. The use of rumensin reduces the incidence of illness in food animals which can help increase the safety of animal products for human consumption.

Ionophores are potent antimicrobial compounds that have the capacity to alter ruminal bacteria reducing the incidence of health issues related to the ruminal fermentation (e.g., bloat). Ionophores specifically target the ruminal bacterial population and they are not used in human medicine. Because of the complexity and high degree of specificity of ionophores, it appears that ionophores do not contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance to important human drugs. In recent years there has been concern about the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. This concern is based on the idea that animals fed antibiotics often have more antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those not fed antibiotics and that resistance can be transferred to other pathogens (Russell and Mantovani, 2002). It appears that ionophores do not promote the development of antibiotic resistance because of their complex nature and high degree of specificity.

The evaluation of human food safety is a meticulous process before a new drug is approved for food animals by the FDA. Toxicology data and residues of the drug are main factors evaluated before a new drug is approved for use in food animals. By doing this, consumers can consume products from animals that have been treated or received drugs approved by the FDA with confidence that the animal product is safe.

Bagg et al. (2005) fed 24, 72, 144, and 240 ppm rumensin to Holstein dairy cows and milk was evaluated for residues. Considering 24 ppm of rumensin as the recommended dose in dairy cows, this study evaluated 10 times this dose. The results from this study showed that there were no detectable rumensin residues (< 0.005 μg/mL) in any of the milk samples collected despite the use of highly sensitive assays. Results of this study confirm that food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels are safe for human consumption. Other studies (Dick et al., 1996 and Wilkinson et al., 1997) have also evaluated the presence of rumensin residues and none were found in milk.

Donoho and Kline (1968) measured rumensin at zero withdrawal in chickens provided rumensin and no detectable residues (less than 0.025 ppm) were observed in muscle, liver and kidney. Fat contained 0.05-0.1 ppm at zero withdrawal but after one day withdrawal no detectable residues were observed. Same results were also observed by Okada et al. (1980) when chickens were fed the highest level of rumensin recommended and no detectable residues of rumensin were observed (less than 0.0125 ppm) in edible tissues after 2 days of withdrawal from rumensin. In 1982, Donoho et al. fed chickens with 14C-rumensin at a concentration of 110 g/ ton of feed for 4 to 6 d and found a rumensin concentration of radioactivity of 0.5 ppm in the liver, and less than 0.2 ppm in muscle, kidney and skin. Rumensin concentration in tissues declined with time and after 1-day withdrawal no rumensin residues (detection level of 0.05 ppm) were detected in fat or liver.

The Food and Drug Administration stated that meat and milk derived from dairy cattle fed rumensin are safe when animals are fed according to the approved label. Residue information in edible tissues from treated dairy cows confirmed the applicability of the zero withdrawal period already established for rumensin in beef cattle. Since rumensin is extensively metabolized, FDA waived the requirement to develop a regulatory method to detect residues in milk and meat from rumensin treated animals. Extensive chemistry and toxicology data have been developed to support the safe use of rumensin in cattle relative to residues in meat and milk. Based on toxicology and residue data, pre-slaughter withdrawal is not required for rumensin by the FDA. Therefore, it can be said that any small quantity of residual rumensin in food would not cause any adverse effects in humans. Scientific data indicate that meat and milk produced from animals treated with rumensin are safe for human consumption (Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003).

An assessment was presented on the effects of rumensin residues present in edible tissues of cattle fed at the proposed upper level dose, on human intestinal flora. It was concluded that the amount of active rumensin residues present in the human colon is probably too low to produce any adverse effects on the human intestinal flora.

In conclusion, the safety of food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels for human consumption are safe and the consumer does not need to worry about health issues. Milk labels with claims of being rumensin-free need to be evaluated carefully by the consumers considering the scientific facts which prove that rumensin residues are not present in milk.

References:

Bagg, R., G. H. Vessie, C. P. Dick, T. Duffield, J. B. Wilson, and J. J. Aramini. 2005. Milk residues and performance of lactating dairy cows administered high doses of Rumensin. Can J Vet Res. 69(3): 180–185.

Callaway, T. R., T. S. Edrington, J. L. Rychlik, K. J. Genovese, T. L. Poole, Y. S. Jung, K. M. Bischoff, R. C. Anderson and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Ionphores: their use as ruminant growth promotants and impact of foof safety. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2:43-51.

Dick, C. P., G. V. Vessie, J. W. Moran, and M. Coleman. 1996. The determination of Rumensin residues in cattle following the administration of two Rumensin controlled release capsules. Proceedings of the World Buiatrics Congress, Edinburgh. 254.

Donoho, A. L. and R. M. Kline. 1968. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology. Ann Arbor, MI. P. 763.

Duffield, T. F. and R. N. Bagg. 2000. Use of ionophores in lactating dairy cattle: A review. Canad. Vet. J. 41:388-394.

FDA. 2004. Monensin Sodium. In code of Federal Regulations, Section 21 CFR 558.335. p 68783. Revised November 26, 2004. Approved October 28, 2004 – Food and Drug Administration., Washington.

Ipharraguerre I. R. and J. H. Clark. 2003. Usefulness of ionophores for lactating dairy cows: a review. Animal feed and science technology. 106: 39-57.

Okada, J., I. Higuchi, and S. Kondo. 1980. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zassahi. 21. P. 177.

Russell, J.B. and H. C. Mantovani. 2002. The bacteriocins of ruminal bacteria and their potential as an alternative to antibiotics. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 4:347–3

Tedeschi, L. O., D. G. Fox, and T. P. Tylutki. 2003. Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. J Environ. Qual. 32:1591-1602.

Wilkinson, J. I. D., A. S. Kennington, K. M. Ehrenfried, J. W. Moran,and J. M. Buck. 1997. Human food safety with the use of Rumensin in lactating cows. In: Usefulness of Ionophores in Lactating Dairy Cattle. Proceedings of Symposium June 25 to 26, University of Guelph. 86.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Marcela Martinez, Graduate Student
Gabriella Varga, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
Penn State University

Introduction by Terry Etherton

In the talks I have been giving across the United States about the importance of biotechnology in animal agriculture, I have a slide with a list of technologies beyond rbST use that likely will be attacked. This is not based on the scientific evidence but rather is driven by the smoke and mirrors milk-marketing campaigns that differentiate milk in the grocery store by the use of “absence claims” on the label.

These absence claims are deceptive, misleading, and are designed to convey to consumers that conventional milk contains antibiotics, pesticides, etc. As I have written about extensively in my Blogs, this is not true!

Well, we can strike rumensin off my list since a small dairy in Washington (Sno-Fresh) is now selling milk with the label: “Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, and rbST”. This defies logic.

For facts about what rumensin is, and that use in the dairy industry is FDA-approved and safe, read the Blog below written by Ms. Martinez and Dr. Varga. It is great!

————-

Monensin sodium (Rumensin) is an ionophore that has obtained considerable success as a feed additive in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industries. Rumensin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1971 for control of coccidiosis in broilers. On December 16, 1975, monensin was registered with the commercial name of Rumensin (Elanco Products Co., a division of Eli-Lilly, Indianapolis, IN) to improve feed efficiency in beef cattle (Tedeschi et al., 2003). In June 1996, Canada allowed the use of rumensin premix for lactating cows for coccidiosis control and in December 1997, a rumensin controlled released capsule (CRC) was approved to aid in the prevention of subclinical ketosis in dairy cattle (Duffield and Bagg, 2000). In October 2004, the FDA approved the use of rumensin in the United States to increase milk production efficiency in dairy cows (FDA, 2004). Before the approval of rumensin for dairy cows, this feed additive has been widely used in feedlots in U.S. to improve feed efficiency. Since its first introduction, rumensin has been widely used in the poultry, beef and recently in the dairy industry to improve animal health and performance. The use of rumensin reduces the incidence of illness in food animals which can help increase the safety of animal products for human consumption.

Ionophores are potent antimicrobial compounds that have the capacity to alter ruminal bacteria reducing the incidence of health issues related to the ruminal fermentation (e.g., bloat). Ionophores specifically target the ruminal bacterial population and they are not used in human medicine. Because of the complexity and high degree of specificity of ionophores, it appears that ionophores do not contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance to important human drugs. In recent years there has been concern about the use of antibiotics in animal feeds. This concern is based on the idea that animals fed antibiotics often have more antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those not fed antibiotics and that resistance can be transferred to other pathogens (Russell and Mantovani, 2002). It appears that ionophores do not promote the development of antibiotic resistance because of their complex nature and high degree of specificity.

The evaluation of human food safety is a meticulous process before a new drug is approved for food animals by the FDA. Toxicology data and residues of the drug are main factors evaluated before a new drug is approved for use in food animals. By doing this, consumers can consume products from animals that have been treated or received drugs approved by the FDA with confidence that the animal product is safe.

Bagg et al. (2005) fed 24, 72, 144, and 240 ppm rumensin to Holstein dairy cows and milk was evaluated for residues. Considering 24 ppm of rumensin as the recommended dose in dairy cows, this study evaluated 10 times this dose. The results from this study showed that there were no detectable rumensin residues (< 0.005 μg/mL) in any of the milk samples collected despite the use of highly sensitive assays. Results of this study confirm that food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels are safe for human consumption. Other studies (Dick et al., 1996 and Wilkinson et al., 1997) have also evaluated the presence of rumensin residues and none were found in milk.

Donoho and Kline (1968) measured rumensin at zero withdrawal in chickens provided rumensin and no detectable residues (less than 0.025 ppm) were observed in muscle, liver and kidney. Fat contained 0.05-0.1 ppm at zero withdrawal but after one day withdrawal no detectable residues were observed. Same results were also observed by Okada et al. (1980) when chickens were fed the highest level of rumensin recommended and no detectable residues of rumensin were observed (less than 0.0125 ppm) in edible tissues after 2 days of withdrawal from rumensin. In 1982, Donoho et al. fed chickens with 14C-rumensin at a concentration of 110 g/ ton of feed for 4 to 6 d and found a rumensin concentration of radioactivity of 0.5 ppm in the liver, and less than 0.2 ppm in muscle, kidney and skin. Rumensin concentration in tissues declined with time and after 1-day withdrawal no rumensin residues (detection level of 0.05 ppm) were detected in fat or liver.

The Food and Drug Administration stated that meat and milk derived from dairy cattle fed rumensin are safe when animals are fed according to the approved label. Residue information in edible tissues from treated dairy cows confirmed the applicability of the zero withdrawal period already established for rumensin in beef cattle. Since rumensin is extensively metabolized, FDA waived the requirement to develop a regulatory method to detect residues in milk and meat from rumensin treated animals. Extensive chemistry and toxicology data have been developed to support the safe use of rumensin in cattle relative to residues in meat and milk. Based on toxicology and residue data, pre-slaughter withdrawal is not required for rumensin by the FDA. Therefore, it can be said that any small quantity of residual rumensin in food would not cause any adverse effects in humans. Scientific data indicate that meat and milk produced from animals treated with rumensin are safe for human consumption (Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003).

An assessment was presented on the effects of rumensin residues present in edible tissues of cattle fed at the proposed upper level dose, on human intestinal flora. It was concluded that the amount of active rumensin residues present in the human colon is probably too low to produce any adverse effects on the human intestinal flora.

In conclusion, the safety of food products derived from lactating dairy cattle receiving rumensin at recommended levels for human consumption are safe and the consumer does not need to worry about health issues. Milk labels with claims of being rumensin-free need to be evaluated carefully by the consumers considering the scientific facts which prove that rumensin residues are not present in milk.

References:

Bagg, R., G. H. Vessie, C. P. Dick, T. Duffield, J. B. Wilson, and J. J. Aramini. 2005. Milk residues and performance of lactating dairy cows administered high doses of Rumensin. Can J Vet Res. 69(3): 180–185.

Callaway, T. R., T. S. Edrington, J. L. Rychlik, K. J. Genovese, T. L. Poole, Y. S. Jung, K. M. Bischoff, R. C. Anderson and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Ionphores: their use as ruminant growth promotants and impact of foof safety. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2:43-51.

Dick, C. P., G. V. Vessie, J. W. Moran, and M.Coleman. 1996. The determination of Rumensin residues in cattle following the administration of two Rumensin controlled release capsules. Proceedings of the World Buiatrics Congress, Edinburgh. 254.

Donoho, A. L. and R. M. Kline. 1968. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology. Ann Arbor, MI. P. 763.

Duffield, T. F. and R. N. Bagg. 2000. Use of ionophores in lactating dairy cattle: A review. Canad. Vet. J. 41:388-394.

FDA. 2004. Monensin Sodium. In code of Federal Regulations, Section 21 CFR 558.335. p 68783. Revised November 26, 2004. Approved October 28, 2004 – Food and Drug Administration., Washington.

Ipharraguerre I. R. and J. H. Clark. 2003. Usefulness of ionophores for lactating dairy cows: a review. Animal feed and science technology. 106: 39-57.

Okada, J., I. Higuchi, and S. Kondo. 1980. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zassahi. 21. P. 177.

Russell, J.B. and H. C. Mantovani. 2002. The bacteriocins of ruminal bacteria and their potential as an alternative to antibiotics. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 4:347–3

Tedeschi, L. O., D. G. Fox, and T. P. Tylutki. 2003. Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant diets. J Environ. Qual. 32:1591-1602.

Wilkinson, J. I. D., A. S. Kennington, K. M. Ehrenfried, J. W. Moran,and J. M. Buck. 1997. Human food safety with the use of Rumensin in lactating cows. In: Usefulness of Ionophores in Lactating Dairy Cattle. Proceedings of Symposium June 25 to 26, University of Guelph. 86.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Contact:
Cassandra Benz
217.356.2426 Ext. 33

Hundreds of Scientists Endorse FDA Risk Assessment on Livestock Cloning

Over 200 scientists have signed a public statement in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s draft risk assessment on the safety of food from cloned animals and their conventionally-bred offspring. The sign-on letter was distributed by the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). The full text and list of signers can be found at www.fass.org/DefendScience.

“FASS is proud to give scientists an opportunity to congratulate the U.S. FDA on a thorough and excellent job,” said Dr. Jerome Baker, CEO of FASS. “This is one of the most rigorous food safety reviews ever conducted. The American people should be absolutely confident in the FDA’s good work.”

The document states that “We support and agree with the FDA’s conclusion as stated in the science-based draft risk assessment that edible products from healthy cloned animals and progeny of cloned animals pose no additional food consumption risks relative to corresponding products from other animals.” It is signed by some of the world’s leading researchers. Signers include Dr. Terry Etherton, who was on the National Academy of Sciences panel that evaluated the safety of food from clones and their offspring, as well as one of the “fathers” of Dolly the Sheep — Dr. Ian Wilmut.

In addition to coordinating the sign-on letter, FASS also ran an advertisement in the Wednesday, May 2nd Washington Post. In that ad, Etherton says “The scientific evidence is absolutely, robustly clear. There isno food safety risk from the meat or milk from clones, or from their conventionally bred offspring.” In addition to serving on the NAS panel that evaluated this issue, Etherton is a former President of FASS and the Head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University.

“FASS will continue to take an active role in helping educate the public about the scientific community’s support for the FDA on this issue,” said Baker.

About FASS: The chief public voice for animal science in the United States, the Federation of Animal Science Societies represents 13 scientific societies and more than 10,000 individual animal scientists.

Federation of Animal Science Societies
111 N. Dunlap Avenue
Savoy, Illinois 61874
phone: 217/356-3132
E-mail: fass@assochq.org
Web site: www.fass.org

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Contact:
Cassandra Benz
217.356.2426 Ext. 33

Hundreds of Scientists Endorse FDA Risk Assessment on Livestock Cloning

Over 200 scientists have signed a public statement in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s draft risk assessment on the safety of food from cloned animals and their conventionally-bred offspring. The sign-on letter was distributed by the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). The full text and list of signers can be found at www.fass.org/DefendScience.

“FASS is proud to give scientists an opportunity to congratulate the U.S. FDA on a thorough and excellent job,” said Dr. Jerome Baker, CEO of FASS. “This is one of the most rigorous food safety reviews ever conducted. The American people should be absolutely confident in the FDA’s good work.”

The document states that “We support and agree with the FDA’s conclusion as stated in the science-based draft risk assessment that edible products from healthy cloned animals and progeny of cloned animals pose no additional food consumption risks relative to corresponding products from other animals.” It is signed by some of the world’s leading researchers. Signers include Dr. Terry Etherton, who was on the National Academy of Sciences panel that evaluated the safety of food from clones and their offspring, as well as one of the “fathers” of Dolly the Sheep — Dr. Ian Wilmut.

In addition to coordinating the sign-on letter, FASS also ran an advertisement in the Wednesday, May 2nd Washington Post. In that ad, Etherton says “The scientific evidence is absolutely, robustly clear. There is no food safety risk from the meat or milk from clones, or from their conventionally bred offspring.” In addition to serving on the NAS panel that evaluated this issue, Etherton is a former President of FASS and the Head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University.

“FASS will continue to take an active role in helping educate the public about the scientific community’s support for the FDA on this issue,” said Baker.

About FASS: The chief public voice for animal science in the United States, the Federation of Animal Science Societies represents 13 scientific societies and more than 10,000 individual animal scientists.

Federation of Animal Science Societies
111 N. Dunlap Avenue
Savoy, Illinois 61874
phone: 217/356-3132
E-mail: fass@assochq.org
Web site: www.fass.org

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Contact:
Cassandra Benz
217.356.2426 Ext. 33

Hundreds of Scientists Endorse FDA Risk Assessment on Livestock Cloning

Over 200 scientists have signed a public statement in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s draft risk assessment on the safety of food from cloned animals and their conventionally-bred offspring. The sign-on letter was distributed by the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). The full text and list of signers can be found at www.fass.org/DefendScience.

“FASS is proud to give scientists an opportunity to congratulate the U.S. FDA on a thorough and excellent job,” said Dr. Jerome Baker, CEO of FASS. “This is one of the most rigorous food safety reviews ever conducted. The American people should be absolutely confident in the FDA’s good work.”

The document states that “We support and agree with the FDA’s conclusion as stated in the science-based draft risk assessment that edible products from healthy cloned animals and progeny of cloned animals pose no additional food consumption risks relative to corresponding products from other animals.” It is signed by some of the world’s leading researchers. Signers include Dr. Terry Etherton, who was on the National Academy of Sciences panel that evaluated the safety of food from clones and their offspring, as well as one of the “fathers” of Dolly the Sheep — Dr. Ian Wilmut.

In addition to coordinating the sign-on letter, FASS also ran an advertisement in the Wednesday, May 2nd Washington Post. In that ad, Etherton says “The scientific evidence is absolutely, robustly clear. There isno food safety risk from the meat or milk from clones, or from their conventionally bred offspring.” In addition to serving on the NAS panel that evaluated this issue, Etherton is a former President of FASS and the Head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University.

“FASS will continue to take an active role in helping educate the public about the scientific community’s support for the FDA on this issue,” said Baker.

About FASS: The chief public voice for animal science in the United States, the Federation of Animal Science Societies represents 13 scientific societies and more than 10,000 individual animal scientists.

Federation of Animal Science Societies
111 N. Dunlap Avenue
Savoy, Illinois 61874
phone: 217/356-3132
E-mail: fass@assochq.org
Web site: www.fass.org

Permalink

Comments are closed.