CDC Tells Congress MRSA Not From Food Animals
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 28, 2008 – Claims that food animals, such as pigs, are increasingly the source of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria in humans are greatly exaggerated, according to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In a recent letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and panel members Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Robin Hayes, R-N.C., the CDC said if transmission of MRSA from food animals to people occurs, “it likely accounts for a very small proportion of human infections in the United States.”
Studies conducted in Canada and the Netherlands found MRSA in pigs and pork producers on some farms. Citing those studies, several newspaper articles and editorials and critics of the pork industry, including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, have attempted to link pigs, pork products and the use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry with the recent rise in MRSA-related illnesses.
“Statements connecting pork products and MRSA and linking the bacterial infection to the use of antibiotics in pigs are seriously misleading,” said Jill Appell, a pork producer from Altona, Ill., and president of the National Pork Producers Council. “Pigs are not responsible for the increase in MRSA cases contrary to the claims of our critics and some editorial writers.”
The Dutch food safety authority, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, conducted a risk assessment in the Netherlands and concluded that the MRSA present in food animals such as pigs is not a food-safety threat. And a recent Institute of Food Technologists report stated that correlating the risk of antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans is not possible.
The CDC pointed out that 80 percent of life-threatening MRSA infections appear to be the result of patient-to-patient transmission in inpatient health-care facilities. Additionally, the “vast majority” of community-associated infections result from person-to-person transmission, it said. The agency also pointed out that it has conducted numerous investigations of community-associated MRSA outbreaks, and “in none of these investigations has animal exposure been identified as a risk factor for infection.”
The U.S. pork industry has funded research to determine if MRSA is present in the domestic swine herd and supports additional epidemiological research and surveillance systems in health-care facilities to monitor the disease. The industry also has established a panel of U.S., Dutch and Canadian researchers to discuss and coordinate U.S. and international research efforts on MRSA in pigs.
The CDC has several infection surveillance programs for monitoring MRSA, including the Emerging Infections Program and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.
MRSA is a type of Staphylococcus aureus, a common bacterium found throughout the environment and carried in the nasal passages and on the skin of more than 30 percent of the population. MRSA, however, is resistant to certain antibiotics. There are at least three types of MRSA. Virulent forms are most commonly found in health-care settings such as hospitals and long-term care facilities and can cause serious illness and even death. Less virulent forms of MRSA are commonly found throughout the general population and on animals. A third form, which is less invasive than the health-care-associated forms, recently was discovered on some swine farms in the Netherlands and in Canada.
Groups such as Keep Antibiotics Working, which includes the Human Society of the United States and the Sierra Club, are urging Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the use in livestock and in animal feed of sub-therapeutic antibiotics, which they claim are being overused and, as a result, causing a proliferation of drug-resistant “super bugs” such as MRSA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., are sponsoring bills to ban certain animal antibiotics.
NPPC has been working to defeat the measures and is cautioning lawmakers not to adopt policies that could adversely affect the pork industry without more information about MRSA and any link it may have to pigs. In the Canadian study, for example, while one-fifth of the pork producers were found to be carrying the same form of MRSA as their hogs, they did not have a higher rate of MRSA-associated illness than the general population.
[To read the CDC letter, visit NPPC’s Web site at http://nppc.org/CDCLetter.pdf.]
to top
NPPC Names Science-Technology Director
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 15, 2008 – The National Pork Producers Council has named Dr. Jennifer Greiner director of science and technology in its Washington, D.C., office.
“Jen will be a great addition to our policy team,” said Kirk Ferrell, NPPC’s vice president for public policy. “She brings a mix of practical knowledge about veterinary science and public policy related to animal agriculture.”
Most recently, Greiner was corporate affairs associate with Elanco Animal Health, working in the areas of government relations and public affairs. As director of cattle health and ID programs for the Indiana State Board of Animal Health, she was involved with regulatory health programs related to animal diseases, and she coordinated the state’s implementation of a premises ID program with the National Animal Identification System.
For two years, Greiner was a practicing veterinarian, working in a swine-exclusive practice, where she conducted herd health analysis and performed diagnostics, and in a small animal practice, where she did routine health exams and diagnostics.
An Iowa native, who grew up on a livestock and grain farm, Greiner received a bachelor’s degree in animal science and a doctoral degree in veterinary medicine from Iowa State University.
“Growing up on a hog farm, working as a swine veterinarian and doing government relations for an animal health company make Jen a tremendous asset to pork producers,” said Ferrell.
to top
Australian Pork Industry Misleads Producers,
Consumers About Affects Of Pork Imports
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 13, 2008 – The National Pork Producers Council today expressed its disappointment at continued attempts by Australian Pork Limited (APL) to mislead its members and Australian consumers about the impact on the Australian economy of pork imports.
APL Executive Director Andrew Spencer in a recent article in Australia’s The Weekly Times claimed that U.S. pork producers receive “more than $100 billion” in subsidies.
“This is a deliberately misleading figure,” said NPPC President Jill Appell, a pork producer from Altona, Ill. “Australian Pork Limited is exaggerating the level of support foreign producers receive to justify the imposition of a safeguard tariff on imported frozen pigmeat.”
Under pressure from Australian pork groups, the Australian government’s Productivity Commission conducted an investigation of the impact of imported pork on the country’s pork industry. A preliminary report of its findings issued Dec. 14 recommended that no restrictions be placed on U.S. pork imports. (A final report is due by the end of March 2008.) APL and other groups had urged – and continue to urge – a 62 percent tariff on pork imports.
The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Safeguards allows WTO member countries to impose for up to 200 days provisional safeguard measures if “a surge of imports causes or threatens to cause serious material injury to a domestic industry.”
While the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that in 2006 the total estimated support for the entire U.S. agriculture sector was $95 billion, a significant proportion of that amount was for consumer support, including food stamps. Support for all U.S. agriculture producers was only $29 billion; U.S. pork producers received just $367 million in subsidies. (By contrast, Danish and Canadian pig farmers received substantially higher producer subsidies, putting U.S. imports at a competitive disadvantage.)
An analysis of OECD figures presented to the Productivity Commission by NPPC shows that producer support per kilo of pork is about the same for Australian and U.S. producers. (A copy of the relevant extract from the OECD report can be found at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/24/39583576.pdf.)
NPPC pointed out that if a 62 percent tariff were imposed, Australian consumers would face a substantial rise in the prices of such products as bacon, salami and pepperoni.
APL is blaming imports for the Australian pork industry’s problems despite admitting to the Productivity Commission that “a substantial part of the [Australian pork] industry is not globally competitive.” The country also has been dealing with historically high feed prices caused by drought and the rise in renewable fuels.
“Australian Pork Limited’s refusal to accept the true causes of its industry’s problems only continues to delay action that could actually help Australian pig farmers,” said NPPC’s Appell.
Keeping the Australian market open to U.S. pork exports is being made possible in part because of the effective working relationship between NPPC and the National Pork Checkoff Board and their shared goal of increasing U.S. pork exports.
to top
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 4, 2008 - The National Pork Producers Council applauded the Bush administration’s decision to enter negotiations on investment and financial services with the so-called Pacific 4, or P4, countries, a move that could lead to U.S. membership in a regional free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.
The FTA between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, officially known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, went into effect in May 2006. It includes an accession clause that allows other nations to join the agreement. The P4 members are expected in March to begin negotiating a new chapter to the FTA that covers investment and financial services. The United States will participate in those negotiations.
NPPC is hopeful this will lead to negotiation in other sectors, including agriculture, and to the United States joining the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership.
“This is an important step toward expanding pork exports to the Asia-Pacific region,” said NPPC President Jill Appell, a pork producer from, Altona, Ill. “Pork producers have benefited tremendously from the increased exports that result from trade agreements.”
New and expanded market access through trade agreements has been the most important catalyst for increasing U.S. pork exports. Since the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was implemented in 1989, exports of U.S. pork products have grown to more than $2.6 billion from $394 million. Pork exports were expected hit a new record in 2007, their 16th consecutive record year.
Increased pork exports resulting from trade agreements are made possible in part because of the effective working relationship between NPPC and the National Pork Checkoff Board and their shared goal of increasing U.S. pork exports.
to top
|
