NP Rank:
New York "PHARMS" Serve Up Adulterated Meat
Last January, Papas Dairy in North Bangor, New York received a letter from the Public Health Service of the Food and Drug Administration's New York District Office in Buffalo, New York. Papas Dairy is a dairy CAFO, registered with New York State's DEC that maintains about 2,600 dairy cows. Papas had also received $124,037 in USDA subsidies in 2006 (the most recent year in public databases), and from 1995 through 2006 Papas received $795,534 in USDA subsisides.
A month later, Roes Haven Farm in Carthage, New York also heard from the FDA. And, later in the year, the FDA contacted Doug Richards about his farm in Rome, NY. All had offered up cows for slaughter that were adulterated with excess residues of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals. Roes accepted $60,790 in USDA subsidies between 1995 and 2006, and Richards collected $268,480 in USDA subsidies between 1995 and 2006.
In Mr. Richards' case, an analysis of the tissues from his lactating dairy cow showed sulfamethazine at 9.58 parts per million (ppm) in liver tissue and 8.79 ppm in muscle tissue. The FDA has not established any permissible residue for sulfamethazine in lactating dairy cows. The labels for the Sulfa-Max III Calf Bolus used by Mr. Richards specifically states that treated animals must not be slaughtered for food for at least 12 days after the last dosage, and it specifically prohibits the use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. The FDA also found that the conditions on Mr. Richards' farm were so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were "likely" to enter the food supply.
Sulfamethazine is primarily used as a veterinary antibacterial drug in food animals and has been detected in airborne dust collected from pig fattening facilities.
Mr. Roes' cow tested 8,888 parts per billion (ppb) of phenylbutazone in its kidney tissues. Phenylbutazone is usually used in horses for relief from painful inflammation. The FDA has no established permissible residue levels for phenylbutazone in the edible tissues of cattle. There is a zero tolerance level in meat, milk or eggs intended for human consumption.
The FDA also found that Mr. Roes lacked an adequate system to ensure that animals medicated on his farm were withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit the depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. He failed to follow label directions and improperly used drugs in manners not in accordance with their approved labels. He failed to maintain treatment records, and the conditions under which he maintained his animals were likely to cause medicated animals to enter the food supply.
Papas had offered a cow for slaughter, and an analysis of tissue samples collected from the cow identified the presence of .60 parts per million (ppm) of sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue and .41 ppm of sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue. The FDA has established a tolerance of .1 ppm of sulfadimethoxine in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle. These residues were up to six times the permissible amount under federal law. Like the others, Papas also held animals under conditions that were likely to cause medicated animals to enter the food supply, and failed to maintain complete treatment records. Papas also administered IBA Penicillin G Procaine to cows on the farm without following dosage levels, routes of administration, duration of treatment as approved, and did so without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
Scientific studies confirm that the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals contributes to the development on antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in people. Not only are some of New York's cattlemen serving up tainted meat, but they are recklessly poisoning our environment with excess antibiotics and aggravating the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through improper administration and overuse of pharmaceuticals. And, these CAFO operators collect substantial public funds while mishandling pharmaceuticals.
Read more at: http://www.ab8163.com


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (1)
at 06:25 on October 17th, 2009
What a fright! Are we to trust farmers and ranchers with dispensing antibiotics. Isn't that why we have pharmacists? veterinarians? physicians? Who delegated the administration of pharmaceuticals to ranch-hands?