U.S. may restrict antibiotics

[Ladyhawke1]

I would never take any of my birds to a vet around here. They do not know “jack” about birds.

Around here, their bread and butter is giving vaccinations and recommending their fancy cancer clinics to their rich or vulnerable clientele. Then once there, they can prey upon your emotions to treat animals with cancer and make thousands upon thousands of dollars. Try to explain chemotherapy and it horrific side effects to dog.

I love my animals dearly…..however, I will not cause them to be in further pain just to keep them around for my pleasure. Off topic, however not sorry.

 

[ivan3]

They've got their work cut out for them. As usual, there will be more politics than science involved in the decisions on what and where to restrict use. IMHO antibiotics should be placed on Schedule 3/probably 2 of the Controlled Substances system alongside Codeine/Percodan, for use in humans (main source of resistant bugs/contamination - not agricultural use).

An example from the European Union is interesting and exhibits what the problems are:

The first quote has to do with where to set the limits (what is allowable/what is a threat). As I was watching the `bottled water' hearings of the Commerce Subcommittee the other day this came to mind (Video is on C-Span website). The lower you set a limit on exposure to a substance, without assessing the actual risk, the more expensive and vanishingly small the benefit (if any).

The fatal flaw of zero-tolerance is that 'zero concentration' -implied by zero-tolerance- is not a physico-chemical reality as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (One of the implications of the Second Law is that complete separation of for instance a binary mixture (a mixture of two components) is not possible.) This mere fact leaves the Annex IV without foundation. Indeed, increasing sensitivity of analytical equipage will reveal -now or in the future- ever-smaller amounts up to the molecular level of listed substances, whatever the source. Residue regulation based on the MRPL (Minimum Required Performance Limit; the concentration level that regulatory laboratories in the European Community should at least be able to detect and confirm) will therefore eventually fail, as it will be prone to technological development as shown below for the history of limits of detection of CAP.10 More importantly. MRPL-based regulation is devoid of any toxicological deliberations and is therefore in terms of protection of public health irrelevant. Below an example is given of decreasing limits of detection:

The second quote (from the same document) has to do with the detection of a breakdown product of Nitrofurans (another substance banned for agricultural use in Europe/US) in the water supply that was thought to be coming from illegal use by Commercial poultry/cattle/swine producers - not so - the water supply is probably contaminating the commercial outfits (human use/plastic manufacturing) Example alluded to in first quote:

Intermezzo III: Multiple Sources of semicarbazide and CAP12

SEM (semicarbazide) has long been considered a characteristic molecule of the antibiotic nitrofurazone (Annex IV). Studies have shown that the parent drugs are rapidly metabolised by animals, and are therefore undetectable directly. The stable metabolites are however detectable for some weeks after application of nitrofurans and are therefore regarded as indicators for the application of nitrofurans. However, recently SEM was found as a contaminant in food packaged in glass jars, unrelated to the nitrofurans. In this case SEM is formed by thermal degradation of azodicarbonamide (ADC). ADC is used as the blowing agent in plastic gaskets of packaging material. SEM migrates from the gaskets into food products. SEM was also detected in special animal and vegetable matrices that had been concentrated using drying procedures like heating to reduce water content. A substantial formation of SEM was observed after samples were treated with hypochlorite (bleach) in accordance with common food processing methods used for disinfection or bleaching.13

CAP has unequivocally been found in German sewage and surface water.14 The most likely source for CAP in the aquatic environment in this case is human medicinal use. Other research has shown that in food products not related to illicit use, CAP can nevertheless be detected (CAP is a naturally produced antibiotic). These results are suggestive for multiple sources of CAP in the food-production chain, although definitive proof is lacking. However, the fact that in Europe CAP can actually be detected in the aquatic environment does give rise to the distinct possibility that the food-production chain can be contaminated through other routes than intended misuse. Moreover, the aquatic environment (including groundwater) proves to be a source for multiple antibiotics by which the public is exposed through mainly drinkingwater.15

Article quoted from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5723e/y5723e0m.htm

To examine where all this is going in the U.S. Check out the EPA's `Pharmaceuticals and Personal Products' site (yes, we humans are the most prolific contaminators so watch out): http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html

Keep in mind: Our technology is extremely precise at this point in our history (down past mere picograms), but our (and our representatives) intolerance of any perceived danger and consequent inability to incorporate an actuarial assessment of risk is a form of insanity - imho.

For those of you who wish to review the `sumo' match that occurs when science and the law intersect: The `94 Baytril-Bayer/FDA (poutry use ban) decision.
Not as simple or as transparent as we'd like to imagine: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/mar04/031604/00n-1571-idf0001-vol389.pdf

If you use antibiotics for your birds stick to the schedule and amounts recommended.

Ed: SP​

 

[Junkmanme]

Ivan3,

I THINK that you and I agree on many points here. (Especially after reading what you've posted, if I understand it correctly.)

I must also agree that politics will play a heavier part than science in any Gov't action taken. This is ONE reason WHY I have written Representatives and Senators encouraging them to make FDA an "advisory" body rather than a "dictatorial" entity.

I also believe that we should disband DEA.

Let people do as they please. IF they kill themselves with drugs, or get shot in a burglary, it's their choice....just as it can be MY choice to NOT use cocaine, heroin, etc. but to buy medical drugs WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION (and HIGH COST). Get the "drug cartels" out of business by destroying their profit incentive!

These "so-called" PROTECT US "laws" are caging us more than "protecting us". Got a robber, burglar, murderer, in your house? How long will it take the "cops" to show up...and anything else.....the cops won't do anything until AFTER the crime is committed.

What kind of "protection" is this?

I DO fully expect this posting to be "banned", "blacklisted", "deleted" or whatever.

BUT, I do NOT apologize for it.

-Junkmanme-

 

[ivan3]

Junkmanme wrote: I must also agree that politics will play a heavier part than science in any Gov't action taken. This is ONE reason WHY I have written Representatives and Senators encouraging them to make FDA an "advisory" body rather than a "dictatorial" entity.

This is an unrealistic expectation; FDA is here to stay (politics is a given - the goverment IS US and that includes both the lobbyists and the honest brokers of policy) - FDA's decisions are ultimately our `dictates': The point I was making was that most folks could care less about science/politics unless their Backyard Ox is being gored and that is sad. Our founders warned against complacency as being the most likely corruptor of liberty (thank you for writing your congress critters!). I was simply posting up a bit of info to illuminate a specific concern and casting it to the wind.

Most of these bans (antibiotics) have been put in place to limit problems (resistance/contamination) arising from overuse in the commercial sector. Sometimes done with sufficient cause and sometimes not. In commercial facilities one is dealing with an isolated population, a specific pathogen that is being targeted, and the treated population will usually be harvested after a limited time. This goes a long way to prevent evolution of resistant strains. If citizens would learn to cook their meat thoroughly nearly all problems disappear.

However, us backyarders are heir to a different potential misuse: 1. Treating without knowing what the causative agent is 2. Using too much, too little, for too long or for too short a time. However, our flocks are usually small and isolated.

As we don't have our chooks and turks to use as food, I'm hard pressed to accept not being able to find Dimetridazole (was stocking up from Foy's Pigeon Supplies) if I need it. This is the ONLY really effective treatment against Blackhead disease in turkeys but, because it is a potential carcinogen it is banned owing to a commercial outfit using it in flocks destined for the table.

I would suggest reading the links I've provided and drill down as far as you desire from there.
I would agree, all substances should be legalized except for those with a direct and immediate consequence on the health of the population at large, i.e., put the DEA in charge of keeping an eye on physician's prescribing antibiotics to humans willy-nilly.

I'm not one to want to sink the boat, just want it to tack in a direction that will prevent our going `round in circles

ed: clarity (done now, unless someone else can find another error

) &SP.​

 

[Junkmanme]

Ivan3,

Certainly an astute and knowledgeable comment!

The main problem that I have with the whole idea is that I'm an 18th Century Man living in the 21st Century. Ha-Ha!

Yes, theoretically, WE are OUR LAWMAKERS.....BUT, we tend to let the bureaucrats and lobbyists rule in our stead because we're busy trying to take care of our own business(es).

It's a Long, Long Way from the "sticks of New Mexico" to Washington, D.C. (psychologically as well as physically)

I maintain that an "informed" public will make more "good" decisions than a public that is "forced" to adhere to RULES made by "elitists", educated and informed perhaps, yet likely self-interested mostly.

I much appreciate, and mostly adhere to your views on this.

-Junkmanme-

 

[threehorses]

Quote:
$$$$$ My thoughts exactly, Ladyhawke.

 

[threehorses]

Quote:
(Also mentioned Blackhead...a recent pet peeve of mine!)

Exactly. This is such a problem, and very few people will or can take their birds to the vet to do a culture and sensitivity to make SURE that the problem is bacterial and then, what to use exactly, etc etc.

I've been guilty of this myself.

And on the blackhead... grumble. I recently lost a turkey-hen to what I'm pretty certain was blackhead. I could not get information on the meds, and then I couldn't get the meds until it was too late.

On another note, I think the best thing we can do as backyard fanciers is to make sure we do our part in preventing antibiotic resistance in the few antibiotics we thankfully DO have left over the counter. Never treat unless you're pretty sure it's bacterial, and it's the right antibiotic, and for the correct dosage (reading those packages is very very misleading sometimes), and for the correct period of time.

/rantover

 

[ivan3]

threehorses wrote: On another note, I think the best thing we can do as backyard fanciers is to make sure we do our part in preventing antibiotic resistance in the few antibiotics we thankfully DO have left over the counter. Never treat unless you're pretty sure it's bacterial, and it's the right antibiotic, and for the correct dosage (reading those packages is very very misleading sometimes), and for the correct period of time.

AMEN.

My other concern (fear) is, that a situation similiar to that in Europe that I referenced above will occur (again) here and that the media will get ahead of itself (as usual), start screaming about DANGEROUS ANTIBIOTICS DUMPED INTO GROUNDWATER BY FACTORY FARMS (so they can keep their advertisers happy selling more diet pills or snuggies) and never report the followup testing results six months later that reveal that we humans flushed (or otherwise disposed of) said antibiotic directly into the water supply of the commercial facility. Two years later the same media report will be held high in the hand of some Rep/Sen trying to get some face time in some committee or other and, boom, another useful med withdrawn from use for animals (poultry).

end of that rant

 

[threehorses]

Oh no, you pushed MY rant button. I won't do it, but just know that I fully and absolutely agree with you!

It's maddening!

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Quote:
The FDA is supposed to be a regulating body. I want my drugs tested and safe.

You have to take the private corporations interference out of the FDA. The pharmaceutical and chemical companies get their people installed at the FDA and then it’s ……“ OH, my what a wonderful drug…everyone should get some and make these companies very rich………….Gosh…only a few people will die or get sick but who’s counting when there are such astronomical profits to be made. These are profiteers doing business at any cost.

I want government interference. It is my government and I am suppose be in charge of it not a for profit company. One just has to put one’s foot down. The American people have for gotten how to do that.