AVMA Briefs Congress On Importance Of Antibiotics
TheCattleSite.com
US - The nation's largest veterinary association briefed Congress yesterday (29 March) on the uses of antibiotics and how they help protect animal health, providing in-depth scientific information on the necessity of antibiotic use for preventing and treating disease in companion animals and livestock.
Two educational sessions were held by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) with honorary hosts Representative Kurt Schrader, DVM, (Oregon) and Senator John Ensign, DVM, (Nevada), the only veterinarians serving in Congress. The discussions allowed congressional staffers to learn about when and how veterinarians utilise antibiotics to keep both food supply animals and household pets disease-free.
Speaking at the briefings as an expert in livestock medicine, Dr Lloyd Keck, a worldwide animal health consultant to the poultry industry and former AVMA Congressional Science Fellow, dispelled arguments related to human antibiotic-resistance risks.
Dr Keck said: "Antibiotics are necessary for veterinarians to protect the health and well-being of animals. Benefits to animals and people outweigh the current risk associated with bacterial resistance. Going forward, we need to let good sense and good science guide this issue." Read More
For those who raise livestock, keeping them healthy is your job. Restricting the use of antibiotics would prevent them from doing that job. The idea that you should let animal get really sick before you could start treating them flies in the face of good animal husbandry. Not only that but keeping our livestock healthy is also an important step in keeping ourselves healthy.
Showing posts with label AVMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AVMA. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
AVMA Responds to PEW Report
AVMA says Pew Commission report is flawed, unscientific
Response addresses commission's recommendations, advertisements
An AVMA report says recommendations by a prominent critic of industrial animal agriculture are unscientific and can actually threaten human health.
The document, available at www.avma.org/PEWresponse, questions the validity of the content and review process for a report published in 2008 by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (www.ncifap.org) on the sustainability of the nation's food animal production systems. The AVMA contends the report is not consistent with the well-documented, science-based reports that the Association has come to expect from the Pew Commission.
The AVMA response is being widely distributed, and members of Congress are among those who will receive copies.
The AVMA document, "The American Veterinary Medical Association Response to the Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production," was a product of members of eight volunteer leadership councils and committees and three staff divisions. The Pew Commission report, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America," was a two-year project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Dr. David R. Smith, a professor and the extension dairy and beef veterinarian for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said it is important for the AVMA to provide veterinarians' perspective on the Pew Commission's conclusions. He said authors of the Pew report have been trying to raise awareness about their recommendations, particularly among members of Congress involved in antimicrobial use legislation.
Dr. Smith is one of the AVMA volunteer leaders who read the Pew report, evaluated the commission's recommendations, and crafted the AVMA's response. The Pew report is directly related to his work with cattle producers on issues of food safety, responsible use of antimicrobials, animal well-being, and the public health impacts of cattle management.
Dr. Smith said the Pew report lacks insight into animal health issues, why antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals, and the regulation of those antimicrobials. He hopes the AVMA report provides people with a critical look at the Pew Commission's recommendations and "whether acting on those recommendations would make the world a better place."
"Largely, our conclusions were that the Pew report was a superficial look at animal agriculture, and the recommendations lacked deep understanding of the issues involved," Dr. Smith said.
Read More
The PEW Commission’s report was basically written before they had their first meeting. It was very predictable what was going to be in there. Many of the panelists had already stated their viewpoints and it was doubtful they would be changed. Written mostly on emotion and with a lack of scientific understanding, the AVMA has chimed in to offer their expert opinion. Many of the suggestions offered by the PEW Commission have the potential to endanger the livestock and our food supply. If they had been serious about crafting a report with any type of credibility, they would have filled the panel with people familiar with taking care of livestock.
Response addresses commission's recommendations, advertisements
An AVMA report says recommendations by a prominent critic of industrial animal agriculture are unscientific and can actually threaten human health.
The document, available at www.avma.org/PEWresponse, questions the validity of the content and review process for a report published in 2008 by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (www.ncifap.org) on the sustainability of the nation's food animal production systems. The AVMA contends the report is not consistent with the well-documented, science-based reports that the Association has come to expect from the Pew Commission.
The AVMA response is being widely distributed, and members of Congress are among those who will receive copies.
The AVMA document, "The American Veterinary Medical Association Response to the Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production," was a product of members of eight volunteer leadership councils and committees and three staff divisions. The Pew Commission report, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America," was a two-year project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Dr. David R. Smith, a professor and the extension dairy and beef veterinarian for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said it is important for the AVMA to provide veterinarians' perspective on the Pew Commission's conclusions. He said authors of the Pew report have been trying to raise awareness about their recommendations, particularly among members of Congress involved in antimicrobial use legislation.
Dr. Smith is one of the AVMA volunteer leaders who read the Pew report, evaluated the commission's recommendations, and crafted the AVMA's response. The Pew report is directly related to his work with cattle producers on issues of food safety, responsible use of antimicrobials, animal well-being, and the public health impacts of cattle management.
Dr. Smith said the Pew report lacks insight into animal health issues, why antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals, and the regulation of those antimicrobials. He hopes the AVMA report provides people with a critical look at the Pew Commission's recommendations and "whether acting on those recommendations would make the world a better place."
"Largely, our conclusions were that the Pew report was a superficial look at animal agriculture, and the recommendations lacked deep understanding of the issues involved," Dr. Smith said.
Read More
The PEW Commission’s report was basically written before they had their first meeting. It was very predictable what was going to be in there. Many of the panelists had already stated their viewpoints and it was doubtful they would be changed. Written mostly on emotion and with a lack of scientific understanding, the AVMA has chimed in to offer their expert opinion. Many of the suggestions offered by the PEW Commission have the potential to endanger the livestock and our food supply. If they had been serious about crafting a report with any type of credibility, they would have filled the panel with people familiar with taking care of livestock.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Ohio's Prop 2
HSUS to take Prop 2-like action to Ohio
April 6, 2009
By: Jennifer Fiala
For The VIN News Service
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is taking its campaign to eliminate tight housing quarters for farm animals on the road. Next stop: Ohio.
In February, HSUS leaders Wayne Pacelle and Paul Shapiro sat down with agriculture groups and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) and announced plans to bring California’s costly and contentious Proposition 2 to the state that ranks second in egg production and ninth in swine, nationally. The group intends to put a citizen referendum to ban sow gestation stalls, veal crates and battery cages for layer hens on the November 2010 ballot.
But first, the activist group is reaching out in hopes that a deal can be negotiated, and it appears that veterinary medicine will play a major role in how that might take place.
For now, all sides say they’re willing to engage in a dialogue. Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ Factory Farming Campaign, says that it’s in the agriculture industry’s best interest to compromise on imposing free-range housing requirements for livestock and hens. After all, when it comes to successfully taking its message to voters, HSUS is a financial and political powerhouse with an undefeated record. Since the group started its campaign to change agriculture’s controversial confinement standards, five states have imposed bans on housing systems deeply entrenched in U.S. agriculture. Read More
This situation isn’t unique to Ohio. HSUS is the bully on the block trying to force their ideas everywhere they go. It never has been about animal rights, it’s been about power and money. That is what they are most interested in. If they were really concerned about the livestock, they would recognize sound science and follow what the research says. So when HSUS shows up in your state, you basically have two choices. You can lay down or you can stand up. So far we haven’t been successful at the ballot box, but negotiating with them hasn’t gotten us anything either. So don’t give up, instead speak out and tell your story to anyone who will listen.
April 6, 2009
By: Jennifer Fiala
For The VIN News Service
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is taking its campaign to eliminate tight housing quarters for farm animals on the road. Next stop: Ohio.
In February, HSUS leaders Wayne Pacelle and Paul Shapiro sat down with agriculture groups and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) and announced plans to bring California’s costly and contentious Proposition 2 to the state that ranks second in egg production and ninth in swine, nationally. The group intends to put a citizen referendum to ban sow gestation stalls, veal crates and battery cages for layer hens on the November 2010 ballot.
But first, the activist group is reaching out in hopes that a deal can be negotiated, and it appears that veterinary medicine will play a major role in how that might take place.
For now, all sides say they’re willing to engage in a dialogue. Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ Factory Farming Campaign, says that it’s in the agriculture industry’s best interest to compromise on imposing free-range housing requirements for livestock and hens. After all, when it comes to successfully taking its message to voters, HSUS is a financial and political powerhouse with an undefeated record. Since the group started its campaign to change agriculture’s controversial confinement standards, five states have imposed bans on housing systems deeply entrenched in U.S. agriculture. Read More
This situation isn’t unique to Ohio. HSUS is the bully on the block trying to force their ideas everywhere they go. It never has been about animal rights, it’s been about power and money. That is what they are most interested in. If they were really concerned about the livestock, they would recognize sound science and follow what the research says. So when HSUS shows up in your state, you basically have two choices. You can lay down or you can stand up. So far we haven’t been successful at the ballot box, but negotiating with them hasn’t gotten us anything either. So don’t give up, instead speak out and tell your story to anyone who will listen.
Friday, August 1, 2008
AAEP Against Slaughter Ban
Veterinary Group Opposes New Slaughter Legislation
by: Pat Raia July 30 2008,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearings on new anti-slaughter legislation will begin July 31, and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) has gone on record opposing the bill. In a written statement (posted in its entirety below), the AAEP rejected H.R. 6598--the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008--because it eliminates what is "currently a necessary end-of life-option" for unwanted horses.
"We oppose H.R. 6598 not because the AAEP believes that sending a horse to a processing plant is the best option for reducing the unwanted horse population," the statement said, "but because it does not help address the long-term care and funding that will be necessary to help the tens of thousands of horses that will be affected by the ban." Read More
Some have accused the agriculture community of only wanting horse slaughter so that we can get filthy rich from the sale of these horses. That is simply not the truth. In fact, the AAEP members would probably make more money from the ban, but they realize what is best for the welfare of the animals and have made that the priority.
by: Pat Raia July 30 2008,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearings on new anti-slaughter legislation will begin July 31, and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) has gone on record opposing the bill. In a written statement (posted in its entirety below), the AAEP rejected H.R. 6598--the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008--because it eliminates what is "currently a necessary end-of life-option" for unwanted horses.
"We oppose H.R. 6598 not because the AAEP believes that sending a horse to a processing plant is the best option for reducing the unwanted horse population," the statement said, "but because it does not help address the long-term care and funding that will be necessary to help the tens of thousands of horses that will be affected by the ban." Read More
Some have accused the agriculture community of only wanting horse slaughter so that we can get filthy rich from the sale of these horses. That is simply not the truth. In fact, the AAEP members would probably make more money from the ban, but they realize what is best for the welfare of the animals and have made that the priority.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Food Labeling
AVMA Board takes on food labeling, other concerns of animal agriculture
Labeling of meat and other animal products was the subject of several actions of the Executive
Board in April. The board also approved policies relevant to production animals ranging from cattle to catfish.
On the recommendation of the Animal Agriculture Liaison Committee, the board approved a policy on "Truthful and non-misleading human food labeling." The policy supports labels on animal products that provide clear, unambiguous, scientifically valid, and verifiable claims regarding production practices. These production practices should not diminish the health and welfare of animals or increase risks to food safety. Read More
Labeling issues have become a very heated topic as of late due to exaggerated claims on some foods. When it comes to food production, it doesn’t do anyone any good to run down one sector of agriculture to promote another. Doing so only plays into the agenda of the anti-animal agriculture crowd.
Labeling of meat and other animal products was the subject of several actions of the Executive
Board in April. The board also approved policies relevant to production animals ranging from cattle to catfish.
On the recommendation of the Animal Agriculture Liaison Committee, the board approved a policy on "Truthful and non-misleading human food labeling." The policy supports labels on animal products that provide clear, unambiguous, scientifically valid, and verifiable claims regarding production practices. These production practices should not diminish the health and welfare of animals or increase risks to food safety. Read More
Labeling issues have become a very heated topic as of late due to exaggerated claims on some foods. When it comes to food production, it doesn’t do anyone any good to run down one sector of agriculture to promote another. Doing so only plays into the agenda of the anti-animal agriculture crowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)