Residue Avoidance and Prevention    |    Testing in Milk and Dairy Beef    |    NMPF Comments & Letters

Residue Avoidance and Prevention

• National Dairy Farm Residue Prevention Manual

   

  The National Dairy FARM Program introduced a new educational tool for producers, the newly revised Milk and Dairy Beef Residue Prevention Manual for 2012. The manual is a quick resource for producers to review those antibiotics approved for use in dairy animals. The manual covers areas such as residue testing, extra-label drugs use, underlying causes of antibiotic residues, and a best management check list to avoid drug residues.

  The manual may be downloaded, at no cost, from the National Dairy FARM website.
   

• Approved Dairy Cattle Drugs
  
  Visit the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank, maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for information about approved dairy cattle drugs. Users must register through member services to see a complete list of approved drugs for both lactating and non-lactating cattle.

Testing in Milk and Dairy Beef

• Dairy Industry Statement on Supplemental Antibiotic Residue Testing

   

  The dairy industry is committed to providing safe and wholesome milk to consumers. The nation’s 55,000 dairy farmers have a strong track record of compliance with state and federal regulations, and support education and enforcement efforts to further strengthen that record. It’s important to clarify that the dairy industry is cooperating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are pleased that the agency recently agreed to take additional time to collect input and review the proposed scope and methodology of the testing plan.

  The full press release is available through the NMPF website (January 26, 2011).

  Update: April 11, 2011:  The previously announced Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) compliance milk sampling program involving dairy farms that have been identified as marketing for slaughter dairy cows with drug residues has been temporarily placed on hold.  FDA has been seeking additional stakeholder input to help redefine the scope of the project.

  On March 24, 2011 the California Department of food & Agriculture hosted an listening session on the FDA sampling project.  A second listening session hosted by the New York Department of Agriculture & Markets was postponed.  NMPF will attend both these meetings.

  The goal of these two listening sessions is to “provide input to FDA on practical approaches to answering the public health question of whether practices on dairy farms that have lead to drug residues in tissues of slaughtered dairy cows also causes drug residues in milk.”

  Participants at these listening session have been asked to consider the following questions for discussion:

  1. It has been suggested that FDA consider a blinded sampling approach that would enable collection of data without creating uncertainty about the regulatory status of the milk or the dairy farm.  Is such an approach feasible and would it adequately address concerns raised by both industry and state regulators?
  2. Are there other approaches that would enable collection of milk sampling data aimed at the public health question of concern without causing significant disruption to the dairy industry?
      

  FDA's talking points on their supplemental antibiotic residue testing program are available through the NMPF website(updated December 21, 2010).

  FDA's Q&A on their supplemental antibiotic residue testing program is available through the NMPF website(updated December 21, 2010).

NMPF Comments & Letters

• NMPF Signs Letter to Congress Regarding Antibiotic Use in Animals - July 2, 2012

   
  A coalition of agricultural organizations, including NMPF, sent a letter to Congress to set the record straight regarding antibiotics usage in food-producing animals, emphasizing that consumers deserve a choice when it comes to their meat and poultry purchases but also need accurate information about those choices.

  The letter is in response to the recent Consumers Union report on the use of antibiotics in animal production. "Blanket actions to restrict antibiotic use would actually make our food system less safe, limit our ability to prevent, control and treat disease and hurt countless animals. We agree that a dialogue is essential to the use of antibiotics in farm animals, but we stand firm that antibiotics, when used properly and under the care of a veterinarian, are critical to making food safe," stated the Coalition.
  
  The coalition further noted that all production systems, including organic, conventional and others, come with their own set of issues that must be addressed. The letter states that regardless of the production system consumers choose to support, they should have confidence in the safety and nutrition of their meat and poultry purchases.
  
  The letter also corrects some of the erroneous claims in the Consumer Union campaign.

   

• NMPF Comments on USDA Residue Testing Guidance - June 25, 2012

   
  The USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) published a draft “Compliance Guide for Residue Prevention” to inform the slaughter industry about USDA expectations regarding residue prevention – particularly for cull dairy cows and bob veal. While the USDA FSIS Guidance is not legally binding, it represents suggestions from USDA for how the slaughter industry should prevent residues in meats. 
  
  In submitted comments, NMPF found that the USDA FSIS Guidance provides some useful direction to assist slaughter establishments in minimizing the probability of purchasing an animal with tissue residue violations.  However, NMPF commented on several recommendations in the Guidance which are unlikely to result in reducing the already low number of dairy cull cow tissue residue violations and instead will lead to confusion in the dairy farmer community.

   

• NMPF Comments on FDA Draft Guidance on Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in Food-Producing Animals - August 30, 2010

   
  NMPF submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on draft guidance intended to help reduce the development of resistance to medically important antimicrobial drugs used in food-producing animals. The draft guidance summarizes a number of published reports on antimicrobial resistance and from this, the agency stated that the overall weight of evidence available to date supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production or growth enhancing purposes (i.e., non-therapeutic or subtherapeutic uses) in food-producing animals is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health. 
  
  The FDA draft guidance recommended phasing in measures that would limit medically important antimicrobial drugs to uses in food-producing animals that were considered necessary for assuring animal health and that include veterinary oversight or consultation. FDA believed these steps would help reduce overall use of medically important antimicrobial drugs, thereby reducing the pressure that generates antimicrobial resistance.

   

• NMPF Submits Joint Letter to White House Regarding Antibiotic Use on Farms - August 14, 2009

   
  NMPF joined a coalition of 19 other agricultural organizations to submit a letter to the White House urging the Obama Administration to consider the significant political and scientific complexity of the use of antibiotics on farms to prevent, treat, and control disease in food producing animals. The organizations, representing American food producers and the industries that serve them, asked for continuing discussion about the specifics of the issue and exploring what science-based, practical options were open to industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  
  No conclusive scientific studies have demonstrated that the use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to an increase in human resistance. A growing body of evidence shows just the opposite, namely the responsible, professional use of these products reduces pathogens in and on foods, enhancing animal welfare while not contributing to resistance.
  
  The full letter is available here.