FDA study on drug residues in milk

[Aegolius acadicus]

So I found these articles the other day and was wondering whether anyone else had seen them or wanted to weigh in with opinions.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Animal...forcement/ComplianceEnforcement/UCM435759.pdf

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...dairy-farmers-breaking-the-law-on-antibiotics

The FDA study was aimed at finding out whether there was a correlation in antibiotic residues found in dairy farms that had previously been found in violation of residue laws, versus farms which had not before been found in violation of these laws. What they found was that less than one percent of all the farms tested showed positive for illegal drugs, and while more of the violations were found in the targeted group than the control, there was not ultimately a correlation between testing positive for antibiotic residues and having a previous infraction. To me that seems really good; less than one percent of farms tested positive, to me that sounds like for the most part, farms are being careful with the drugs they give their animals and keeping them out of the food supply. In addition to this, the FDA acknowledged the problems associated with this 1% and what they are doing to address them.

I also thought the results of the drugs that were tested positive were interesting. The most commonly found one was Florfenicol (Nuflor), which I know is commonly used in calves and replacement heifers, though is not supposed to be used in lactating cows. None of the drugs commonly used in mastitis treatment (that I know of) were found in the milk samples tested.

I was also disappointed in the tone of the NPR article. At points the author seemed to imply that farmers were using these drugs because milk wasn’t being tested for them as a way to beat the system, when it seemed like it was more a mistake in following the label or the route in which the drug was administered. While I do agree that this is a problem, and this is why producers should work closely with their veterinarian when treating their animals, I don’t think I would call it “disturbing”, especially given the very low number of samples which tested positive. I guess I just wish that it had been better conveyed in the article that some of the drugs which were found in the samples are commonly used on farms and aren’t weird drugs which shouldn’t be used in cows at all. I wish the article had highlighted that these seem to be rare occurrences. I do agree with the last point of the article though; I think that farmers work really hard to get over the stigma attached to conventional agriculture, and it makes me sad that a few mistakes like this spoil it for the industry and further lower public opinion. I wish people would follow up and read the report and get more data rather than immediately concluding that farmers are horrible people (from the comments on NPR).

Anyway, just wanted to know whether people had any thoughts, sorry for the novel.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Falina]

I agree with you, it seems like dairymen are doing a pretty good job, but the tone of the article was poor.
If I recall correctly, dairies that test positive are hit with some pretty big fines. They really try to keep that stuff out of their main milk lines.

From my personal experience with dairies, drug violations were usually the result of mistakes, rather than people "trying to beat the system". A sleepy herdman isn't paying attention and puts a cow back in her normal milking pen before her withdrawal date it up. Bad worker is hung over and grabs the wrong antibiotic, that sort of thing. It's not ok by any means, and even these few instances need to be prevented as much as possible. But they're not done maliciously.

 

[Aegolius acadicus]

I agree with you, it seems like dairymen are doing a pretty good job, but the tone of the article was poor.
If I recall correctly, dairies that test positive are hit with some pretty big fines. They really try to keep that stuff out of their main milk lines.

From my personal experience with dairies, drug violations were usually the result of mistakes, rather than people "trying to beat the system". A sleepy herdman isn't paying attention and puts a cow back in her normal milking pen before her withdrawal date it up. Bad worker is hung over and grabs the wrong antibiotic, that sort of thing. It's not ok by any means, and even these few instances need to be prevented as much as possible. But they're not done maliciously.

Yeah, that was the impression that I got, especially given that some of the drugs I recognized are commonly used on farms. No farmer that I know is going to try to beat the system since that's a good way to lose their business! It seemed like the small number of herds that showed positive were probably from honest mistakes. I think it was good to see that the mastitis treatment drugs (again, the ones I recognized, can't speak for all of them) were not found in the samples; since that's a pretty common reason to treat a cow, it seems good that rigorous standards are being upheld to keep those substances out of the food supply.

 

[Country_roads]

I wish people would follow up and read the report and get more data rather than immediately concluding that farmers are horrible people (from the comments on NPR).

Being heavily involved in public opinion/ethics through my grad program, I wish nothing more than this same thing. However, with articles like this people feel like they have all the information they need. Plus, dramatics sell to the general public. Science, unfortunately, doesn't.

A couple unethical operations (considering the 2 samples with legitimately illegal drugs), and a few mistakes made by employees are reported, coupled with fear-mongering and a serious removal from agricultural is the perfect storm for people jumping to conclusions and refusing to investigate further.

Personally I think that marketing welfare and knowledge is the only way to beat those in the media who are trying to push their agenda against Ag. I think we need way more than just "Got Milk?".

Also, I'd be quite interested in the full comment made by those vets. I feel as though they may have had more than just a one sentence opinion on the topic.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I think you are being a little generous.
"less than 1%" ... what was the number 0.78 or something, is way too high in my personal view.

Don't forget these are above tolerance levels established, so there are going to be plenty of samples close to the limit as well.
Good farms test their milk to make sure they are complying... the fact that so many are slipping through is not a good sign in my view.

Sure, there can be many "excuses", but a well run farm should be catching these problems before sending to market.

Is it a horrible number? No. But I think there are still too many farmers who maybe are not taking these issues seriously, and that erodes public trust.

The tolerances are already there to account for occasional errors.
I know a little about dairy farms, but I am certainly no expert. This is an admittedly layman's opinion.

 

[Country_roads]

What bugged me the most about the article (aside from all the hateful comments) was that there were 2 samples that used 100% unacceptable drugs in a milking dairy cow.
If we want to rebuild the public's trust in conventional farming, that's not the way to do it.

I absolutely agree this suggests that there are some farmers that are not taking these issues seriously. And some is too many.

 

[Aegolius acadicus]

What bugged me the most about the article (aside from all the hateful comments) was that there were 2 samples that used 100% unacceptable drugs in a milking dairy cow.
If we want to rebuild the public's trust in conventional farming, that's not the way to do it.

I absolutely agree this suggests that there are some farmers that are not taking these issues seriously. And some is too many.

I have no idea what the situations may have been to prompt using some of those drugs in a lactating cow. Since they shouldn't be used during lactation, I don't know that the drug would have been provided a milk withhold time label (since it shouldn't be relevant), so maybe it was a matter of not knowing how long to keep that particular animal out of the tank. Maybe it was administered during her dry period and wasn't through her system before she calved in again, I have no clue. I agree that it's unfortunate that it hurt public trust especially for the 99% of producers doing everything right. It looks like the FDA is trying to address this by testing for a wider range of substances in the milk.

I guess I do tend to be a bit biased in favor of the producers; to me it seems like the goal should obviously be 0 positive samples, but mistakes get made, so realistically striving for as few positives as possible seems the better goal. The FDA seemed to feel that the number was small enough that they were still confident in the safety of the milk supply, though I'm not sure how many positives they would have to get before getting concerned over the state of things.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I have no idea what the situations may have been to prompt using some of those drugs in a lactating cow. Since they shouldn't be used during lactation, I don't know that the drug would have been provided a milk withhold time label (since it shouldn't be relevant), so maybe it was a matter of not knowing how long to keep that particular animal out of the tank. Maybe it was administered during her dry period and wasn't through her system before she calved in again, I have no clue. I agree that it's unfortunate that it hurt public trust especially for the 99% of producers doing everything right. It looks like the FDA is trying to address this by testing for a wider range of substances in the milk.

I guess I do tend to be a bit biased in favor of the producers; to me it seems like the goal should obviously be 0 positive samples, but mistakes get made, so realistically striving for as few positives as possible seems the better goal. The FDA seemed to feel that the number was small enough that they were still confident in the safety of the milk supply, though I'm not sure how many positives they would have to get before getting concerned over the state of things.

you missed my major point.
Yes, mistakes are made, that is why there are tolerance levels.
To exceed those tolerance levels generally means there are a lot of mistakes going on.
Don't forget the milk from each cow is getting aggregated so you need a decent amount to show up above those levels.

That is not a single error a single day.

 

[Country_roads]

I have no idea what the situations may have been to prompt using some of those drugs in a lactating cow. Since they shouldn't be used during lactation, I don't know that the drug would have been provided a milk withhold time label (since it shouldn't be relevant), so maybe it was a matter of not knowing how long to keep that particular animal out of the tank. Maybe it was administered during her dry period and wasn't through her system before she calved in again, I have no clue. I agree that it's unfortunate that it hurt public trust especially for the 99% of producers doing everything right. It looks like the FDA is trying to address this by testing for a wider range of substances in the milk.

I guess I do tend to be a bit biased in favor of the producers; to me it seems like the goal should obviously be 0 positive samples, but mistakes get made, so realistically striving for as few positives as possible seems the better goal. The FDA seemed to feel that the number was small enough that they were still confident in the safety of the milk supply, though I'm not sure how many positives they would have to get before getting concerned over the state of things.

I am incredibly biased in favor of producers. I was quite involved in the dairy industry during my undergrad and even in grad school, my research is focused on dairy.

According to Merck Vet Manual, withdrawal time for Sulfa is 10 days or 28 days for slow release bolus.

Quinolones are not acceptable for use (presumably) ever in dairy as it even excludes veal.

Sorry, but no excuses in my book.

 

[Aegolius acadicus]

I am incredibly biased in favor of producers. I was quite involved in the dairy industry during my undergrad and even in grad school, my research is focused on dairy.

According to Merck Vet Manual, withdrawal time for Sulfa is 10 days or 28 days for slow release bolus.

Quinolones are not acceptable for use (presumably) ever in dairy as it even excludes veal.

Sorry, but no excuses in my book.

I see what you're saying, that makes sense. As far as SOV's post about it being a lot of mistakes that added up, I'm not sure since for some of the drugs there was no established tolerance level and the presence of any amount at all was considered a positive. It may have been one mistake, it may have been several. I guess you guys both have a point though; if farmers want to win back public trust there shouldn't be an issue with drugs entering the food supply when they shouldn't have been used to treat those particular animals in the first place. The whole situation is just unfortunate.

 

[StartingoverVet]

The whole situation is just unfortunate.

this

Not to mention the concerns of the public are entirely misplaced.