Buying Baytril - Buyer Beware

[casportpony]

Good links:
From the makers of Baytril:

• http://www.animalhealth.bayer.com/5203.0.html
• http://www.animalhealth.bayer.com/fileadmin/media/baytril/pdf_food/balancing_Folder.pdf
• http://www.animalhealth.bayer.com/fileadmin/media/baytril/pdf_food/Baycox_Einleger.pdf
• http://www.animalhealth.bayer.com/fileadmin/media/baytril/pdf_food/Quinolones_E_Internet.pdf
• http://www.animalhealth.bayer.com/fileadmin/media/baytril/pdf_food/gvp_3_f_PDF.pdf

 

[Fancychooklady]

Interesting thread. I respect peoples choice to use drugs to help their ill birds but I think that they should read the facts about those drugs. The use of baytril in the poultry industry has compromised the effectiveness of antibiotics in our population. Whilst it's hard for any of us to imagine being a chemotherapy patient or on the transplant list, truth is some of us will be. It is then and only then , with your weakened immune system that you may be effected by what is being added to your food.
I have been there and suffer with VRE ( vancomycin resistance ). It's very unnerving when you are the one laying on the bed and the doctors are scratching their heads, telling you that the intravenous antibiotics aren't working .
If you are going to use baytril in meat or egg producing birds at least read the literature .
I wouldn't wish my experiences on anyone.

http://www.keepantibioticsworking.c...tal_to_Bayers_False_Claimsabout_FDAs_Prop.htm


http://www.health.nt.gov.au/Vancomycin_Resistant_Enterococcus_VRE/index.aspx

 

[casportpony]

Interesting thread. I respect peoples choice to use drugs to help their ill birds but I think that they should read the facts about those drugs. The use of baytril in the poultry industry has compromised the effectiveness of antibiotics in our population. Whilst it's hard for any of us to imagine being a chemotherapy patient or on the transplant list, truth is some of us will be. It is then and only then , with your weakened immune system that you may be effected by what is being added to your food.
I have been there and suffer with VRE ( vancomycin resistance ). It's very unnerving when you are the one laying on the bed and the doctors are scratching their heads, telling you that the intravenous antibiotics aren't working .
If you are going to use baytril in meat or egg producing birds at least read the literature .
I wouldn't wish my experiences on anyone.

http://www.keepantibioticsworking.c...tal_to_Bayers_False_Claimsabout_FDAs_Prop.htm


http://www.health.nt.gov.au/Vancomycin_Resistant_Enterococcus_VRE/index.aspx

Thanks for sharing!

-Kathy

 

[casportpony]

For those that don't click on links:

Rebuttal by Keep Antibiotics Working to Bayer's False Claims about FDA's Proposed Ban on Fluoroquinolones
On November 19, 2002, messages from more than 16,000 concerned citizens were delivered to Bayer’s new CEO, Dr. Attila Molnar, urging the company to comply with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed ban on using a Cipro-like antibiotic, Baytril, in poultry. FDA proposed the ban based on evidence that such use is spurring the leading bacterial cause of severe food poisoning in humans, Campylobacter, to become increasingly resistant to Cipro.
In response to these and other messages from members of the public, Bayer has distributed materials arguing that FDA’s proposal is unjustified. This memo outlines why Bayer’s assertions are wrong or misleading.









Keep Antibiotics Working: The Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse
www.KeepAntibioticsWorking.com

1. Bayer assertion: “The rate of Campylobacter infections in humans has decreased 41 percent since the FDA approved Baytril for use in poultry, while chicken consumption in the United States has increased more than 10 percent.”
   Response: According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Campylobacter infection rates declined 27% from 1996 to 2001, not 41% as Bayer claims. The decreasing rate ofCampylobacter infections is good news, but this decline is the result of a concerted effort on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FDA, and others to improve food safety, not the use of Baytril. The bad news is that approximately one in every six Campylobacter infections, or about 19%, is now resistant to fluoroquinolones (the class of antibiotics that includes both Cipro and Baytril). Cipro and other fluoroquinolones are key antibiotics for treating severe cases of foodborne illness. Poultry is the major source of Campylobacter infections in humans in the United States. In recent years, consumers have become increasingly aware that they must carefully handle uncooked meat and poultry to avoid infections from Campylobacter and other foodborne bacteria, and poultry processors have taken steps to reduce contamination of chicken meat by dangerous bacteria. Even so, there are still almost two million cases of Campylobacter infections in the United States each year - resulting in about 100 deaths - according to CDC. Fortunately, most cases do not require antibiotic treatment. However, patients with severe infections and/or those with weakened immune systems - including seniors as well as chemotherapy, transplant, and HIV/AIDS patients - depend on antibiotics to recover. Bayer Corporation should live up to its slogan, “Expertise with responsibility,” and protect the effectiveness of antibiotic treatments for Campylobacter by withdrawing Baytril from the market.
2. Bayer assertion: “Latest data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistance in human Campylobacter cases is virtually unchanged since Baytril was approved in 1996.”
   Response: This assertion is wrong. The latest Centers for Disease Control data show a clear increase the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistance in human Campylobacter cases. Although fluoroquinolones (the class of antibiotics that includes Baytril) were approved for use in humans in 1986, resistance to them remained quite low until shortly after these drugs were first approved for use in poultry in 1995. By 1997, 13% of Campylobacter infections were resistant, a figure that rose to 19% in 2001. A recent statistical “trend analysis” by CDC shows that the incidence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections increased markedly from 1997 to 2001. In addition, a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania has documented an even more marked increase in fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections in the Philadelphia area, from zero in 1992 to 40.5% in 2001.
3. Bayer assertion: “Foreign travel is the leading risk factor associated with fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections.”
   Response: The Food and Drug Administration took such infections into account when the agency proposed to ban Baytril use in poultry. Specifically, FDA estimates that 9,261 people in 1999 who needed antibiotic treatment for severe Campylobacter infections had fluoroquinolone-resistant infections as a result of Baytril use in chicken production in the United States. The fact that additional people become infected with resistant Campylobacter because of foreign travel is no justification for ignoring resistant Campylobacter from contaminated chickens in the U.S.
4. Bayer assertion: “Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter was present before the introduction of Baytril for poultry.”
   Response: Fluoroquinolones were given to poultry in others countries well before these drugs were allowed for use in poultry in the United States, and as stated above, travelers brought resistant infections back to the U.S. A very small number of additional fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections may be attributed to prior use of fluoroquinolones by the infected individual. These two mechanisms can account for the relatively low rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections seen in the U.S. before the introduction of Baytril. They do not explain satisfactorily the surge in resistant infections that has occurred since the introduction of Baytril.
5. Bayer assertion: “The theoretical human illness rate that the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine attributes to fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter is greatly overestimated. Even if its exaggerated assumptions were correct, the risk the FDA accepts for bottled drinking water is greater than that estimated for Baytril.”
   Response: Again, Bayer provides no factual basis for its contention that FDA estimate is incorrect. Indeed, the incidence of foodborne illness in the U.S., including from Campylobacter, is almost certainly underestimated. Many people with food poisoning do not seek treatment and, even if they seek treatment, may be given an antibiotic without being tested to determine the specific cause of their illness.
   Regarding FDA's standards for bacteria in bottled water, those standards should be made more stringent to be consistent with FDA's tougher standards for bacteria in tap water. However, Bayer’s assertion about FDA’s weak bottled water standards is irrelevant to the issue of antibiotic resistance and it does not excuse Bayer from criticism for jeopardizing public health by keeping Baytril on the market.
6. Bayer assertion: “Baytril is used for therapeutic purposes only and in less than 1 percent of U.S. broiler flocks. It is used only when prescribed by a veterinarian for specific life-threatening poultry diseases and only when disease is severe enough to cause high mortality in poultry. Federal law prohibits the extra-label use of this drug in food-producing animals. Baytril is never used in the feed of animals, and it is not a growth promoter.”
   Response: Even if only 0.5 percent of the more than 8 billion broiler chickens processed annually in the United States are treated with Baytril each year, that’s 40 million treated chickens! In 1999, industry estimated that around 38,000 pounds of Baytril were given to poultry. Although Baytril is only prescribed by veterinarians for treatment of illness, treatment is not limited to individual sick birds. Rather, Baytril is administered to an entire poultry flock (which may consist of more than 30,000 birds) – via the facility’s drinking water system – even if only a portion of the flock is sick. This treatment of healthy as well as sick birds, each receiving levels of antibiotic that vary with their water consumption, is a recipe for the proliferation of antibiotic-resistantCampylobacter.
7. Bayer assertion: “The safety and wholesomeness of the nation’s food is dependent upon the availability of effective therapeutics, including antimicrobials [antibiotics]. Baytril is the only effective antimicrobial available for some of the most serious bacterial diseases in poultry.”
   Response: The assertion that “Baytril is the only effective antimicrobial available for some of the most serious bacterial diseases in poultry” is conspicuously at odds with statements by six of the top 20 U.S. poultry producers, including Tyson Foods (#1), Gold Kist (#2), ConAgra Poultry (#4), Perdue Farms (#5), Foster Farms (#9), and Claxton (#19), that they no longer use fluoroquinolones in chickens produced for human consumption.
8. Bayer assertion: “A recent assessment of CVM’s position by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (the European equivalent of the FDA) supports Bayer’s conclusions that the use of Baytril in poultry poses no public health threat.”
   Response: The assessment in question was actually prepared by European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products’ Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, which is comprised of veterinarians and animal scientists rather than medical or public-health experts. By contrast, U.S. health care professionals are very concerned about the threat to public health from the use of Baytril in poultry. More than 180 U.S. health care professionals and organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association, have written Bayer Corporation asking the company to withdraw Baytril.
   Moreover, Bayer misrepresents EMEA's assessment, which agrees with most of FDA’s analysis concerning the use of fluoroquinolones in chickens. EMEA's assessment refutes many of Bayer’s claims, including items (2) and (3) above. However, EMEA's assessment downplays the threat of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter to humans, stating that most Campylobacterinfections in humans do not require antibiotic treatment and that alternative antibiotics are available. This portion of EMEA's conclusions is partially contradicted later in EMEA assessment, which notes that early treatment with fluoroquinolones can be critical to prevent complications in patients at particular risk for severe Campylobacter infections. These patients include senior citizens as well as people with less-effective immune systems because of chemotherapy, HIV/AIDS, transplant-related immunosuppression, or other factors.
9. Bayer assertion: “Baytril was licensed by CVM [the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine] after thorough review and is regarded by as an essential drug by veterinarians. Bayer takes seriously its responsibility to base any and all decisions regarding Baytril on solid scientific evidence. Scientific data clearly show that the judicious use of Baytril on the farm, under the supervision of veterinarians, contributes to the wholesomeness of our food while preserving the effectiveness of fluoroquinolones as powerful antimicrobial [antibiotic] agents…Withdrawing Baytril for poultry will increase the likelihood of food-borne illness.”
   Response: In October 2000, FDA initiated proceedings to revoke its prior approval of fluoroquinolones for poultry, based on scientific data the agency received after granting the approval in 1995. (It is worth noting that the Centers for Disease Control strongly opposed the approval in 1995, and strongly supports the withdrawal.) We know of no data showing that the use of Baytril in poultry contributes to the wholesomeness of foods. Baytril is used to treat respiratory diseases in poultry, not Campylobacter – Campylobacter does not make poultry sick. However, as discussed above, the use of Baytril in poultry is compromising the effectiveness of Cipro and other fluoroquinolones to treat human illness.

 

[casportpony]

And the other:
Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus (VRE)

What is VRE?

VRE stands for Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus. The Enterococcus is a bacterium (germ) that everyone has in their bowel. Vancomycin is one of the antibiotics used to treat infections caused by the Enterococcus germ. Sometimes this germ develops resistance to Vancomycin. When this occurs, the infection can no longer be treated by Vancomycin.
Healthy people can carry VRE with no ill effects or signs and symptoms. This is called colonisation. This is the most common situation with VRE. People who are colonised do not need treatment.
In hospitals VRE can cause infections in a small minority of very sick patients whose ability to fight off infections has been lowered. When this occurs, it is more difficult to treat these patients, although there are still several antibiotics to which the VRE is susceptible.
Where does VRE come from?

VRE occurs the bowels of some people who have taken antibiotics, often at very low or undetectable levels. When people receive specific antibiotics such as vancomycin, VRE may be selected for and become detectable. Excessive use of antibiotics for minor infections, such as the common cold, where antibiotics are not required, is likely to be a major contributor to the emergence of VRE. In some parts of the world, the emergence of VRE has also been linked to use of antibiotics in animal husbandry.
How is VRE spread?

VRE is spread mainly by direct contact from another colonised person or from contact with unwashed hands or a contaminated surface. It is not spread through coughing or sneezing.
When are hospital patients tested?

As the VRE germ lives in the bowel, testing for VRE involves taking a faeces sample or a rectal swab. Unfortunately, the VRE germ is difficult to detect and for this reason it may be necessary to take several samples. Pending the outcome of results, which will take several days to finalise, nursing staff will take special precautions such as the wearing of a gown and gloves. A card alerting the staff to take these precautions may be placed on the door. Visitors will not need to take any special precautions apart from washing their hands on leaving a patient's room.
What happens if a VRE test is positive?

Being positive for VRE does not mean being infected. Most patients are carriers only and have no signs or symptoms. There will be no change to the quality of the planned treatment and care given. A patient may be required to remain in a single room or share accommodation with other VRE positive patients. This could mean being moved to another ward. Staff will continue to take the special precautions already mentioned. These measures are required to prevent spread to very sick patients.
Will being VRE positive affect family or friends?

No, it will not affect family and friends. While VRE is a risk for very sick patients in hospital, it is not a threat to normal healthy people.
What happens when a patient goes home?

After returning home, patients should continue normal hygiene practices - such as handwashing after going to the toilet and before eating. It is not necessary to take any special precautions.

Adapted from "VRE Information for Patients" guidelines, Coffs Harbour Base Hospital, NSW.​

Further information

For further information please visit the Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus Factsheet on the Department of Health and Ageing website.

 

[Garden Peas]

Not to take anything away from the arguments, but I would like to point out that Baytril continues to be used in parrots and other "not poultry" birds, as well as dogs & cats and livestock, I believe.

Baytril is no longer prescribed for POULTRY

The vet told me she cannot prescribe it for my peachick, because the FDA considers peafowl to be poultry. I looked it up, and she is correct, peafowl (and pheasants) are classified as poultry by the FDA

I don't have any trouble stating that I do not intend to ever eat any of my peafowl. And I cannot imagine giving it to peafowl as a growth enhancer. I know some folks eat pea eggs, but I don't.

Much of the problem (to the extent there is a problem), arose from giving a variety of antibiotics to food animals, including chickens and livestock, as growth enhancers, or to try to prevent common intestinal diseases which spread quickly through a flock. Note that I said PREVENT, in the same manner that we use amprolium-treated feed to prevent coccidiosis, rather than TREAT, in the way that we administer medications to a bird which is verifiably ill.

Look and see whether feed laced with antibiotics is still being used for livestock? And what is being given to poultry raised overseas?

Giving baytril to a sick peafowl, whose owner is practicing reasonable hygiene, is not likely to introduce quinolone resistance to the human population anymore than giving it to a sick parrot would... and THAT is still allowed by the FDA. On the other hand, buying commercially grown chickens whose feed has contained low doses of it, very well could, and the buyer of said commercial chicken at the big-box grocery store has absolutely no way to know what has been fed to said chicken.

Let's compare apples to apples, not oranges, okay?

 

[Garden Peas]

Oh yeah, and your kiddo can pick up MRSA at school from any variety of surfaces... now THAT scares the willies out of me.

 

[casportpony]

Baytril is still used in cattle and swine.

-Kathy

 

[casportpony]

All great posts!

-Kathy

 

[Fancychooklady]

Baytril is still used in cattle and swine.

-Kathy

It is readily available in Aus, but then so too are cigarettes . It all comes down to personal choices and I can see no reason not to use it in ornamental birds. However I would think twice about using it on the off chance that it might save a bird and come back to bite you later.