Well it happened yesterday, the Illinois Senate voted to ban horse harvesting in the state, but at the same time, activity in Texas is considered positive. The Texas Senate has passed a bill change offered by Sen. Glenn Hegar that opens the door for the sale of horsemeat for human consumption as long as animals have been "tested by the commission."

Stay tuned for further developments on that..

Frank Bowman is President of Horseman's Council of Illinois and had this to share.

Most downstate democrats broke ranks and voted against the bill and most
urban republicans also broke ranks and voted for the bill. Emotions ran high
during the floor debate but in the end animal welfare issues trumped common
sense.

In another somewhat related story: What is the purpose of a county or state fair? Yes, I thought so....educating consumers about food production. Look at this development this week in California. Remember it was California that lead the nation in banning horse harvesting in 1998 and now the removal of livestock from a county fair.

Pigs, sheep, geese told to scurry from Valley Fair, drawing outrage


Anti-foie gras suit dismissed

Source: Chron.com

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit by animal rights activists challenging a state grant of $420,000 to a foie gras farm in SullivanCounty. Justice Thomas McNamara concluded Empire State Development Corp. had "a rational basis" to award the grant, without special environmental review, to Hudson Valley Foie Gras to upgrade water treatment facilities and expand.

The court challenge by the Humane Society of the United States and six New York members also lacked standing, McNamara ruled. The plaintiffs had to challenge the expenditure as unlawful and not just money spent unwisely, he wrote. "The factual bases offered to support the claim do not rise to the level of illegal or unconstitutional acts."

The underlying issue is foie gras production in New York, which the Humane Society considers cruel and wants to stop. Hudson Valley Foie Gras, with three locations in rural SullivanCounty, raises 250,000 ducks annually to produce meat. Foie gras - French for "fat liver" - farms force-feed ducks to fatten their livers well beyond normal sizes.

I know most of us don't even know what Foie Gras is, but I truly believe it has the potential to impact all of us particularly given today's governmental attitude that they are better qualified to make food choices for us. We should take a really hard look at were that started. It began in NAZI Germany and should stay there. Nothing about that government that placed the life of animal above humans should be duplicated. It appears Chicago is beginning to see that. It is also interesting to note that when a colleague of mine recently spoke to the Illinois lawyer that pushed through the foie gras ban in Chicago and asked for an explanation on why he supported the banning of a food product that the veterinary community has determined not to be raised under cruel conditions, he said with a smile and a shrug that he "did it for the money." Well, there is lies another great problem.... Trent


As the foie gras turns

Source: Chicagoist.com

Mayor Daley, who found the ban nearly as ridiculous as a runway in downtown Chicago, has predicted that aldermen will repeal the outlawed delicacy ban soon. This came on the tails of Ald. Ed Burke of the 14th Ward (remember how he wanted cabbies to have a dress code?) maneuvering aldermen into voting to repeal the ban.

In perhaps one of the better sound bites this year, Ald. Ed Smith of the 28th Ward, who happens to chair the Health Committee where the ban is upheld, not only threatened to resign if the ban was repealed, he said, "My manhood, my integrity is at stake."

Only in Chicago would you find foie gras pitted against an Alderman's manhood. Be sure to tune in next time for the continuing story of "As the Foie Gras Turns."

Resource for AVMA:

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901q.asp

Prohibiting production of foie gras in the United States would have a minimal impact on agricultural markets, but several delegates expressed concern that efforts to oppose foie gras production were just "baby steps" by groups with much more ambitious goals.

Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos

Cocaine, I have never tried it nor I suggest anyone do so. In fact, I will most likely never try Censored either, but at least I have heard of it. What in the world are you talking about Trent?

I must admit the first time I heard the news story about this energy drink that FDA was banning the name of, I wondered why in world anybody would name a drink after a street drug. Now that they have received millions of dollars in free publicity from the government and they renamed it Censored I fully understand. So often we in farm and ranch country are reluctant to do anything that might be viewed as controversial yet we are equally offended for not being recognized.

A perfect example occurred on the last California trip visiting with some dairymen. They told me the local TV station had come to their place to capture footage. The individuals commented while at the farm how impressive and clean the dairy was only to never use the story. Why? Upon calling the station they were told there is nothing controversial about this. My point is most times we can find a silver lining in what some consider bad PR.

Another good example is who would ever have guessed that BSE in the United States would lead to improved consumer confidence and increased beef consumption, but it did. Why? Because we had unprecedented opportunities to tell the story. You may not be ready to seek limelight in any fashion but please don't avoid it. Those who are trying to put you out of business don't run from the camera.


Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos

Sorry I am running late today but it is the direct result of being a Rancher's Husband. Yes, this week we are artificially breeding heifers. Oh, my! Using technology to get heifers bred instead of doing it the natural way. Indeed the heifers and the stockmen alike benefit from using bulls that are proven to be calving ease sires. It decreases the incidence of calving difficultly, which can result in death of the calf and/or the heifer. Secondly, the shorter calving window allows for more direct attention during the critical calving season.

The great irony of this particular today is a result of yesterday's dialogue about hands on occupations. So many of you responded about the lack of work ethic in today's young people. I think I may have been there one day myself as a youngster but the funny thing is that today I desire to spend a day getting dirty working cattle unlike I have at any previous time in my life.

I hope to one day find the formula to get our young people to understand earlier in life that our way of living is the best there could ever be, rather than believing that something other than hands on is anything but just an easier way out.


Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos

Once again I had a great weekend in California with dairy producers. I always marvel when in California at the number of young families involved agriculture. Yes, as I travel the country and honestly believe more young, child-rearing families are engaged in farming in California than any other state. We have four different articles included today that all stumble around the declining number of farms in the country, but they like so many others, miss the reason. Young people today do not want to work like the last generation did.

California farms grew a generation ago allowing for today's generation to have more of a executive position instead of a labor position. It is so frequently that people that are not involved in farming cry about the lack of small farms, I said small not family. Small farms require a farmer to be the laborer and decision maker, which today's young people are not going to do. Parents in this country do not want their kids to work as hard as they did and this leads to either growth or exiting the scene.

This also hit me really hard. Cannery Row in Monterey kept our nation and our troops fed during two World Wars. Today, hundreds of thousands of tourist eat and shop without truly understanding what is gone. Oh sure, the shops are cool, but what if all food production facilities become tourist traps for what used to be? A direction we are headed by the way.

David Martosko joins me on Loos Trails and Tales discussing testimony on Capitol Hill last week about the future of food production here at home. Click here to listen.

Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos

Kids or pigs - you decide

On November 7, 2006 the voting public of the State of Arizona will have the opportunity to walk out of the polling booth and send a loud signal to the rest of America. We know history and we don’t want to relive it. Proposition 204 is on the ballot. If this law were enacted, it would give animals in the state their own rights. Animals need to be properly cared for but they should not be given legal rights.

The proponents of 204 have spent millions of dollar trying to blur the line between humans and animals. After carefully studying the Animal Rights agenda for years, I have determined that their mission is more about dehumanizing people than it is about elevating the status of animals.

You may find it interesting to know that the first government to take this approach existed about 70 years ago. It was called the National Socialist Party or NAZI for short.
It is well documented that Adolph Hitler’s regime in Germany enacted the most comprehensive set of laws protecting animals. The "Animal Protection Law in 1933" clearly attempted to blur the line between humans and animals.

There were laws instated to protect horses and pets and laws involving laboratory research animals. There was even a regulation regarding the boiling process for lobsters. Laws restricting gun ownership and hunting were quick to follow.

The Nazis also had a fondness for protecting the wilderness. Their version of the “Endangered Species” laws was intended to preserve various species of animals. Ironically, they went to great lengths of protect animals, but they justified the killing of six million Jewish human beings.

As a 6th generation United States farmer, I can tell you that today’s food animals have far better living conditions than at any time in the history of the world. I can share stories about my childhood jobs including sitting with sows that were giving birth to ensure that the piglets were not smashed or eaten by their mothers. In those days, before we began to use acceptable, modern livestock facilities, those that are at issue on the Arizona ballot, it was not uncommon to lose six piglets if the sow happened to roll over just the wrong way. Sows, by nature, are not kind individuals and placing them in individual stalls is the best means of protecting the weaker individuals from the bullies. If you haven’t seen a sow whose uterus has prolapsed because other animals piled on top of her in times of extreme weather conditions, you might struggle to understand the benefits of individual housing units and climate controlled buildings. I have seen it and if you can open your mind enough to imagine it, you will see why producers want what is best for their animals.
Farmers have implemented management procedures based on what is best for their food animals because if their animals suffer, their reproductive performance fails and so does the farm. But what Arizona voters must ask themselves, as they cast their vote, is “What will come to me next?” I was taught in school that the purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. A pig or any other food animal does not rank on the scale of citizenship unless of course you follow the logic of Animal Rights groups who have indicated “the life of an ant and that of my child should granted equal consideration”.

I feel fortunate that in today’s world of readily available information the Arizona voters will have the opportunity to educate themselves and not blindly walk into the voting booth. Educated voters will vote NO on Proposition 204. History speaks for itself. In the United States of America, we value the life of our kids above that of any food animal. Let’s keep it that way!

Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer and producer, host of the "Loos Tales" radio show, public speaker and founder of Faces of Agriculture, which puts the human element back into food production. Find out more at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail trent@loostales.com.

ATTENTION FFA MEMBERS!!!!!

Carrie Underwood may not be America’s Idol afterall…….

Did you know?

-She is the main fundraiser for HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) a group with the mission to ABOLISH ANIMAL AGRICULTURE!

-She was booed off a stage in Nebraska for her militant attempts to CONVERT HER AUDIENCE TO VEGETARIANISM!

-Ironically, Carrie, America’s Sexiest Vegetarian of the Year, appears on Got Milk? and pepperoni pizza roll ads.

-Carrie appeared on PBS Kids and spoke about her vegetarianism on air to influence children!

-Hypocritically, Carrie claims to be a country girl from Oklahoma. It is ok that she is a vegetarian, it is NOT ok that she preaches it to the world and influences our generation!


FFA members,

IF YOU CARE ABOUT AGRICULTURE, your livelihood and passion, make your statement and WALK OUT of the Mega Concert after Jason Aldean and Keith Anderson to show Carrie her actions are unacceptable to this agricultural organization!

Printed in Feedstuffs Oct 21, 2006

FFA students leading the charge

It is truly amazing that we live in what is considered to be the information age but some of us still struggle to get access to enough credible information to make an informed decision. The 79th National FFA Convention is taking place this week in Indianapolis. Carrie Underwood is scheduled to perform on Wednesday night at what is being called the “Mega Concert.” The concert is sponsored by RFD TV and the National FFA Convention. Someone needs to explain to me why the National FFA organization would allow anyone to perform who has openly promoted an end to animal agriculture.

Yes, this 2005 American Idol star is very open about her agenda to end animal agriculture. In fact, she has been quoted as saying, “Eating meat weirds me out” and she said she would much rather to sing to cows than eat them. In a live discussion posted on the website of the Washington Post in January 2006, Underwood admitted that she regularly works with Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and frequently donates clothes to be auctioned off to assist with fund raising. In February 2006, she was involved in a stamp promotion for the financial benefit of the HSUS. The HSUS logo is prominently displayed on the home page of her website.

I would hope that by now it is not news to anybody that HSUS has a direct mission to abolish animal agriculture and end hunting in this country. As recently as last week Miyun Park, Vice President of Farm Animal Welfare, openly stated their mission: “to get rid of the industry”. The Center for Consumer Freedom reports HSUS’s true mission is to spend millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. Does anyone that helps with fund raising for an organization that is openly against food animal production qualify to perform to our nation’s premiere agricultural organization?

A friend of mine was working in the hospitality area for a summer music concert here in Nebraska called the Comstock Windmill festival. This party in the pasture has truly become a “Who’s Who” of country music. Carrie Underwood was scheduled to perform at this year’s event. One hour before her arrival she phoned to ensure that she would not be subjected to any of the sights or sounds of the bull riding event that was taking place. The chef for the entertainer’s hospitality tent was told that Ms. Underwood demanded a vegetarian buffet. He felt compelled to offer chicken breast in addition to the vegetarian entrees. My friend witnessed Underwood picking up the cover to the chicken breast and going into a tirade that would rival that of a terrible-two-year-old. If that wasn’t enough, she took the stage in fit of rage and suggested to the crowd, standing in the middle of a cow pasture, that everyone should convert to vegetarian diet.

Let’s just say that in a state like Nebraska, where cows outnumber people four to one, her suggestion was not very well received. Our mothers may have taught us that booing is not polite but there comes a point in time when stupidity should be greeted with the appropriate response. My friend said that she had voted for Underwood on American Idol and she wished she had the opportunity to do it all over again because she lost all respect for this entertainer. On a positive note, Trick Pony was the next act to perform and their “eat more beef” message was received with applause that would have put to shame any home crowd after a Super Bowl win.

We all live in the United States of America where we have the right to choose. I am not trying to stymie anybody’s right to choose to be a vegetarian. I am simply saying that the National FFA should have researched the situation a little more thoroughly before hiring her to perform. In fact, I have now been told that some of the executives were a little suspicious of her strange demands such as the 10 black towels that had to be imported from France for her performance. Further investigation into this matter reveals that the powers that be in the National FFA organization are threatening chapters that oppose supporting Underwood in concert. They fear that the organization will not be able to stand the $100,000 fee they are contracted to pay her if tickets aren’t sold to fill seats at the concert.

Aside from all of the emotion that we in animal agriculture interject into a scenario like this, Underwood needs be versed on the benefits of animal protein in the diet. Research studies continue to confirm that meat from animals is necessary for cognitive development in children. It is my goal that before entertainers, with no expertise in the area of nutrition, give dietary advise to our nation’s youth, we tell them to live their own lives and leave our children’s nutrition to the experts.

I have faith that the nations youth involved in agriculture will not take this lying down. In fact a campaign against Underwood’s concert started at South Dakota State University. Without bankrupting the national organization, the students will encourage FFA members to attend the first two portions of the concert and walk out when Underwood is introduced. Sure Underwood has a right to assist animal rights groups that want to abolish animal agriculture but those students who walk out on her concert will be sending her a message about their rights as well. They have a right to say, “L” is for “Leave Country Carrie!” What better way to express their support for an industry that they truly believe in!

I attended the 39th Annual Western Illinois Threshers this past weekend. The photo is taken of horsepower making it possible to unload this load of ear corn and elevate up to storage facility. Link here for more information 39th annual Western Ill. Threshers show set Aug. 4, 5, 6, near ...

Leave Country Carrie

The 2006 National High School Rodeo Finals just concluded in Springfield, IL and I was fortunate enough to attend for a day and a half. From across the entire country came 1566 young Rural Americans to compete in all the typical rodeo events plus cutting. Anyone who says our nation’s kids are misguided or nothing but trouble makers should take the time to attend one of these events. I heard frequently while I was there, “these kids don’t get into trouble.” They truly are the shining examples of everything good about raising kids in Rural America.

With that said, there are people who have made it their life’s mission to end the sport of rodeo. Steve Hindi, an Illinois native, is one of those individuals. I have followed his work for quite some time and was not surprised to see him and his daughter sitting in the front row filming every single animal that entered the ring for 13 rodeo performances. When I spotted him I made my way over and sat by him for over an hour. He didn’t want to visit. He did not want to be distracted from witnessing every single animal that might generate an image that he could use to portray rodeo in a negative light. He was cordial, though, as he did offer to have lunch with me the next day. He simply didn’t want me to interefere with his work on that day.

Yes, to him it is work. Some have said that he needs more to do but you need to understand that he makes his living from 3 seconds of video footage, placed out of context, that will generate negative publicity forever. The sadly ironic thing is I that could sit at any soccer game with a camera and capture equally excrutiating photos of kids in pain from a soccer game but it wouldn’t cause near as much of an uproar. Many in attendance seemed to be worried about what he might do to disrupt the rodeo, but that is not his mission. He doesn’t want to temporarily disrupt the rodeo. He honestly believes that his work will permanently end all rodeos, which is a much loftier goal.

He would much rather take any negative images he might capture and utilize the internet and his website to slowly generate public discontent for rodeo. Secondly, he will take a few pictures and convey to the sponsors of rodeo that they are supporting animal cruelty. Some sponsorers will understand his mission, understand that photos can be taken out of context in order to incorrectly generate negative immpressions but others will cave in to his methods of persuasion. That is cause for all of us to get much more vigilant in explaining even the proper care of animals in an event such as rodeo.

Hindi also claims credit for getting Carrie Underwood to cancel her performance at the 2006 Cheyenne Frontier Days rodeo. Carrie Underwood does not represent the country lifestyle she wants us to buy into and why we continue to support her and her music is beyond me. Underwood is a self-proclaimed vegetarian and stopped consuming beef when she was 13. Recently she was featured on a segment of PBS Kids. When asked how a girl who grew up on a farm became a vegetarian, she responded:

I quit eating beef when I was about thirteen. I kind of phased everything out, so it took a few years actually. I do it because I really love animals and it just makes me sad. Like, I don’t like to watch commercials where they have meat. It weirds me out. But it’s not something I like to preach to anyone.

That last statement could not be farther from the truth. In every interview and every online biograghy of Carrie Underwood, she shares the fact that she is a long-time vegetarian. During the American Idol competition, she wore a t-shirt sporting an oversized “V” for vegetarian. Now you can buy her t-shirts online for $20. She told Readers Digest that as a young girl she decided she would rather sing to cows than eat them. In 2005, PETA named her the “World’s Sexiest Vegetarian.” She obviously thought that was great honor.

Eating meat weirds her out! She cancels performances at a rodeo because of cruelty to animals but she accepts this PETA award even though PETA employees are charged with over 50 felonies for improperly killing dogs and cats that were given to them to find homes for. In fact from 1998 through 2005, PETA killed over 14, 400 companion animals that were donated to them. That is in excess of 5 animals per day and Carrie Underwood thinks rodeo is cruel?

The bottom line is pretty straightforward. We do proudly live in America where both Carrie Underwood and I have the right to choose our own lifestyle. I don’t wear or sell shirts that say, “M is for meat eating,” which to me proves that she is, indeed, is preaching to us about how we should lead our lives. It is high time those of us who make our living producing the high quality essentials of life that she is campaigning against stand up and tell Carrie Underwood that she does not represent the country lifestyle. I suggest we begin by protesting her music and her live performances and change the radio station any time her songs come on the air. By saying nothing for far too long we are endorsing her preaching and I, for one, will stand for it no longer. In fact I have already ordered my t-shirts and will start selling them they say “L” is for Leave Country Carrie.

Dear Mr. Felknor,

My name is Paxton Ramsey. I am a fourth generation rancher in south east Texas, a close neighbor to many in your organization, and I am very concerned about your Senator Landrieu having Louisiana ranchers and ranchers as a whole as ANY kind of priority.

32 years ago, my grandfather passed away. It cost my Grandmother $1,000,000 to pay the death tax. In the past 5 years, My family has spent over $395,000 to just prepare our finances for an even larger ($2.75 million) hit when my 91 year old Grandmother passes away. You know as well as I do that ranchers do not have that kind of disposable income. In Washington D.C., ranchers are being compared to the Bill Gates of the world. How uneducated can one be. Our ranch barely supports the three households it takes to run it. I will have to sell a large portion of My Great Grandfather’s land of 102 years, out from under my children and my sister’s children in order to pay this tax. People like Senator Landrieu do not seem to realize that most land, sold under these conditions, is developed for purposes other than agriculture. There is no more real estate being made and we are going to continue to lose ground, suitable for raising the SAFEST and BEST QUALITY beef in the world.

I was in Washington D.C., on the Young Cattlemen’s Conference, through the NCBA, when the Death tax was voted on last week. I sat on the floor and PERSONALLY watched your Senator pace back and forth, counting votes, waiting until the end to cast her own, based on the votes of other Senators. It made me sick to think that people such as this have any kind of control of my children’s future. My feelings are this. You either know what you believe in or you don’t! Your Senator barely won her election and then took an oath to FIGHT for the people of your state. Your Senator has obviously sold her soul to politics and it is effecting us all. The people of south east Texas and Louisiana have suffered enough through last year’s Hurricane season. A death under today’s laws would be a double shot to the heart for many. Please help us to not only preserve our heritage but also to keep the land , necessary to continue to raise beef for a global market in this demand driven industry.

I am sorry to dump this on you this morning but I feel we owe it to our children to make this fight. I hope all else is going well for you and if there is ever anything your neighbors can do to help you, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me or anyone through Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. I appreciate your time on this matter and I look forward to meeting you soon.
Sincerely,
Paxton Ramsey

Coalition for Animal Health
March 28, 2006

Senator John Nutting
Representative John Piotti
Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
2 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0002

Dear Senator Nutting and Representative Piotti:

The undersigned organizations represent the animal producers, veterinarians, feed and animal health companies working together to ensure antibiotics are available and safely used to keep food animals healthy and produce a safe food supply.

We have read with great interest the report submitted to you on the issue of antibiotic use to keep animals healthy, and would like to offer our perspective and suggestions.

We wholeheartedly agree with the two major principles outlined in the report. Every day we seek to practice good antimicrobial stewardship by selecting the right antibiotic for the specific condition and using it in a way that maximizes animal health and minimizes potential adverse consequences. It addition, the principle of control and prevention is at the heart of the practice of veterinary medicine: We work to first keep animals healthy, but in the event of a disease outbreak we are forced to use drugs for treating the outbreak. We consider this a sound animal welfare practice. Our responsibility to keep animals healthy is an important factor in providing consumers with the safest food supply possible.

Some of the recommendations in the report seem to overlook the various science-based layers of protection currently in place to ensure the safe development, rigid regulation and responsible use and monitoring of antibiotic use in animals. These are safeguards accepted by the food chain, but are perhaps little understood by the general public. We would appreciate your careful review of these safeguards and would be pleased to provide you additional details or more information sources about these safeguards:

1. The Food and Drug Administration reviews and approves all antibiotics before they can be used. Antibiotics administered to animals are approved for four distinct purposes: Disease treatment, disease control, disease prevention and growth promotion or health maintenance. Disease treatment, control and prevention are widely considered to be “therapeutic” uses by such organizations as the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Thus, the term “non-therapeutic” that is often associated with prevention in your report carries no legitimacy with animal health authorities worldwide.

In order to protect both animal and human health, the statutory standard of “safe and effective” is the same for animal antibiotics as for human antibiotics, and the requirements for submitting data to demonstrate safety and efficacy are the same for both. However, there are at least three ways in which the process for animal antibiotics is more stringent than that for human antibiotics:
• Sponsors of antibiotics used in animals must also submit data demonstrating the meat from animals that have been administered antibiotics is safe for human consumption.
• FDA weighs the benefits of a human antibiotic against its risks; there is no consideration of benefits in the review of antibiotics administered to animals. This means that the risk to humans for products under review must be exceptionally low because FDA does not consider any benefits to animals to counterbalance risks.
• FDA issued Guidance for Industry #152 in late 2003 requiring sponsors to use a qualitative risk assessment process to evaluate the potential for adverse human health effects from antimicrobial resistance for all proposed antibiotic products. This process is heavily weighed towards protecting human health first. Importantly, FDA is in the process of re-examining all existing, approved antibiotics used in animals using this same risk assessment process. In fact, Congress has, as suggested in the report, provided funding that is being used specifically for these risk assessments.

2. Monitoring and surveillance programs ensure that the safeguards that are part of the review process are working to protect public health. We are supportive of these programs and collectively we have lobbied the U.S. Congress to provide funding for them.
• USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) tests meat in processing plants to ensure there are no violative antibiotic residues.
• The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) is a computer-based decision support system designed to provide livestock producers, extension specialists, and veterinarians with practical information on how to avoid drug residue problems.
• The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), coordinated by FDA, monitors the incidence of antibiotic resistant food borne pathogens in animals, human and retail meat samples. This information provides an early-warning system about the potential emergence of antibiotic resistant pathogens.

3. The animal health industry pioneered the application of quantitative risk assessment to measure the risk to humans of antibiotics administered to animals. This methodology is essential to making sound public policy decisions and gives decision-makers more precise information about risks. Quantitative risk assessments done by sponsors have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and FDA has completed such an assessment on an antibiotic used in animals. To date, all of these have shown very low levels of risk. Notably, the FDA risk assessment, in which the agency concluded the potential risk of a person even carrying an antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result of use on the farm was in the range of seven chances in a billion to 14 in 100 million over one year was done on a product that would likely be affected by the purchasing preference recommended in the report.

4. AVMA, species-specific veterinary groups, feed and producer groups have all worked with public agencies including FDA to produce guidelines for safe and judicious use of antibiotics. These guidelines are used as the basis for producer education programs and represent an important effort on the part of the animal agriculture community to ensure that antibiotics are used properly. Many producers have used these guidelines to create standard operating procedures for antibiotic use on the farm.

As you can see, there is much in the report with which we agree and we have worked to institute programs reflecting this intent. However, we do not support implementation of a purchasing preference for several reasons. First, it will be an undue burden on Maine agencies and will unnecessarily stigmatize producers who rely on these FDA-approved safe and effective tools to maintain the health of their herds and flocks. It could be used to deny critical treatment options to animals, threatening animal health and welfare and food safety. Finally, without establishment of an auditing and enforcement system to verify compliance it would be meaningless. Nor do we support federal or state legislative efforts to limit antibiotic use because we believe in the efficacy of the science-based review process at FDA, and we do not believe it is good policy to undermine confidence in that process.

Again, we would be happy to provide more detailed information on any of the issues mentioned above. Should you desire more information, please contact Ron Phillips at the Animal Health Institute, 202-662-4130 or rphillips@ahi.org.

Sincerely,

American Association of Bovine Practitioners
American Association of Swine Veterinarians
American Feed Industry Association
American Sheep Industry Association
American Veterinary Medical Association
Animal Health Institute
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Pork Producers Council
National Turkey Federation