NaturalNews) GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the diabetes drug Avandia, knew the drug was linked to tens of thousands of heart attacks but went out of its way to hide this information from the public, says a 334-page report just released by the Senate Finance Committee. (http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpr...)
This report also accuses the FDA of betraying the public trust, explaining that FDA bureaucrats intentionally dismissed safety concerns found by the agency's own scientists.
The report says that Big Pharma's drugs "put public safety at risk because the FDA has been too cozy with drug makers and has been regularly outmaneuvered by companies that have a financial interest in downplaying or under-exploring potential safety risks." Sales of Avandia were $3.2 billion (yes, billion) in 2006.
According to a statistical analysis in the report, if all the diabetics currently taking Avandia were put on a "safer" drug, it would avert 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure every month in the United States alone. Presently, hundreds of thousands of Americans are still taking this drug, and hundreds will continue to die each month as a result, according to the report estimates.
This report, championed by U.S. Senators Grassley and Baucus, is the result of investigators pouring through more than 250,000 pages of documentation gathered from GlaxoSmithKline and the FDA. The document reveals some rather startling facts about the dangers of Avandia, including evidence from the FDA's own scientists who concluded that Avandia was associated with 83,000 heart attacks.
GlaxoSmithKline intimidates scientists
This investigative report also reveals that GSK engaged in the intimidation of physicians, saying: "GSK executives attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk."
"Patients trust drug companies with their health and their lives, and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust." said Sen. Baucus. (Gee, really? Is anyone really surprised that GSK put its own financial interests ahead of a few thousand human lives?)
A separate letter sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg by Senators Baucus and Grassley added, "the totality of evidence suggests that GSK was aware of the possible cardiac risks associated with Avandia years before such evidence became public."
The FDA's own research also showed Avandia to be associated with a significant increase in heart attack risk, yet the FDA did nothing to protect the public. The agency's own scientists wrote in 2008, "There is strong evidence that rosiglitazone [Avandia] confers an increased risk of [heart attacks] and heart failure compared to pioglitazone [a rival drug on market]." This evidence went completely ignored at the FDA.
The FDA's famous Dr David Graham -- the key whistleblower on the Vioxx scandal -- concluded from his own research, "Rosiglitazone should be removed from the market."
Even the American Medical Association -- a long-time defender of Big Pharma's drugs -- admitted Avandia was dangerous. Its journal, JAMA, wrote in 2007: "Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes, rosiglitazone use for at least 12 months is associated with a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction and heart failure, without a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality."
The New England Journal of Medicine also warned about the safety of the drug in an article published in 2007.
Despite these multiple warnings, an FDA panel voted 22 - 1 in favor of keeping Avandia on the market. This is no surprise, of course, to those who know how the FDA really operates (and where its priorities really lie).
Analysis: What does it all mean?
Are you kidding me? A drug company hid data that its high-profit drug was linked to increased risk of heart attacks? A drug company intimidated physicians and got away with hoodwinking the public while raking in billions of dollars in sales for a drug that the FDA's own scientists said should be pulled from the market?
http://www.naturalnews.com/028233_GlaxoSmithKline_Avandia.html
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Serious birth defects linked to the agricultural chemical atrazine
Monday, February 22, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
Click on title above for original article;
http://www.naturalnews.com/028222_atrazine_birth_defects.html
Click on title above for original article;
http://www.naturalnews.com/028222_atrazine_birth_defects.html
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Everything Wants to Kill You
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 (SF Gate)
Hi! Everything wants to kill you
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Then I happened to read a charming, albeit nauseating little news item
that tried to skulk by unnoticed recently, wherein is was announced that
the Huntington Meat Packing Co. of Southern California was expanding its
recall of possibly E. coli-tainted meat, from just over 860,000 pounds to
... wait for it ... five million pounds.
Five million pounds of bad meat. Sounds like a fun movie title. Or maybe a
nickname for Congress. While pondering the number, I did some quick math.
But being lousy at math, I also did some quick research.
All-knowing Google informed me that the average head of cattle, say a
1,200-pound animal, results in something like 500 pounds of usable meat,
give or take. Interesting! Or not.
Ergo, five million pounds is the rough and chopped-up output of about
10,000 animals. Ten thousand head of cattle is, freakishly, only about a
tenth -- if that -- of what the largest industrial feedlots in Idaho,
Texas, California, Nebraska and elsewhere have on their tortured and
tormented, methane-choked properties at any given moment (Broken Bow in
Nebraska can hold 85,000 head. Simplot in Idaho can process up to 150,000.
ConAgra's frightening Montfort lot in reeking Greely, Colo. is so big it
chokes your very soul). Which is just all sorts of disgusting. But there
it is.
(Oh and btw, five million pounds of meat is also the equivalent of about
30,000 average-weighted humans, or one big, sold-out Dave Matthews concert
in San Jose. Hey, we're all dead meat in the end).
It gets so you lose sight of the scale of things. Five million pounds?
Seems like a lot. It seems epic and sickening and a little horrifying.
And then you realize that it's not. Really it's just a drop in the giant
meatbucket that is the Western diet, a thimbleful of the staggering
tonnage of industrial foodstuffs we consume every day, much of it loaded
with poison and antibiotics and hormones and environmental burden; that
includes millions of enormous animals that should be eating grass but are
instead being force-fed land-ravaging grains and 10 billion gallons of
drugs per year so we may satisfy our ravenous appetites for far, far more
unhealthy meat than we actually need.
Which in turns makes you sort of amazed that there aren't more meat
recalls, more epidemics and outbreaks, more McDonald's restaurants
spontaneously combusting from all the chemicals. It makes you wonder why
the hell we aren't all dead right this very moment. Perhaps we are? Wait,
is this heaven? Nah. Just the Internet.
Speaking of McDonald's. Did you hear? A woman was sitting in the
McDonald's over in the Great Mall in Milpitas just recently, consuming her
capitalism-approved portion of hormone-blasted industrial feedlot beef and
HFCS-injected everything (though, to be fair, it could have been one of
their "healthy" prepackaged nuclear salads), when, of course, she went
into labor.
And she gave birth, right there in the food court, in the McDonald's, in a
giant suburban shopping mall, because there is possibly no more
quintessentially American scenario than birthing a human being in a fast
food outlet in a shopping mall food court, unless she also happened to be
thinking about firearms, watching "American Idol" and listening to Dave
Matthews whilst something something NASCAR.
Reading that story, it was impossible for me not to note how this woman,
this divine fertile feminine life force, was likely consuming some of the
worst possible processed foodstuffs imaginable right up to the moment she
birthed a human baby -- a child, we can politely surmise, that had been
nourished though much of its gestation by a veritable pharmacy of
bloodstream toxins, fats and salts and corn syrups, synthetic flavorings
and hormones from that selfsame feedlot beef.
Do you think this new mom was also was perhaps drinking a fine beverage
made by the Coca-Cola corporation at the moment of labor pains? Sipping
maybe a Dr. Pepper or a Sprite? The odds are reasonably good she was, a
Coca-Cola product being something of a prerequisite to browsing Champs,
Foot Locker and Kay Jewelers in any shopping complex in modern America.
Mmm, soda. Have you heard that soda is the new tobacco? A demon in angel's
clothing? Well, it is. Quite the sickening swill, really, far more
unhealthy and dangerous than we readily acknowledge because gosh, how can
something so happy, so all-American, so polar-bear Christmastime Homer
Simpson I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing wonderful, possibly be all
sorts of cancerous and sickening and Sarah Palin-grade wrong? Well, it is.
Like cigarettes, they say soda is in dire need of regulation, heavy
taxation, warning labels, the works. Do you imagine Coca-Cola cares all
that much about the anti-soda campaign being waged against its wares right
now? Hell yes, it does. But maybe not as much as you think, given how it
has pretty much maxed out the U.S market anyway. After all, how many blue
sports drinks, pink energy beverages and nefarious Coke Minis can you cram
down one country's gullet? We simply can't get much less healthy. Time to
move on.
And so it did. The Coca-Cola company just reported big profits last
quarter, despite how there's no one left in America to poison (except the
tiny, precious children). Do you know how it did it? Can you guess how it
made more millions? That's right: by slowly poisoning India, China and
Brazil.
They call them "emerging markets," because these countries are just now
emerging from millennia of drinking various liquids that were not
exceedingly good at killing them by way of high fructose corn syrup and
unpronounceable chemical additives. What, the western gift of fast food,
industrial meat and oil dependency weren't enough? Let's give them all
diabetes and obesity and even worse teeth? Fabulous. Have a Coke and a
smile, indeed.
It doesn't really matter. Might as well eat that industrial burger and
inhale a giant Coke as you speed down the freeway in your tiny Japanese
car. Do you know why? Because your airbag may kill you anyway.
Amid the furor over Toyota's massive recall of stuck accelerator pedals, a
lesser-seen item about Honda Motor Corporation, itself quietly recalling
about a half-million Accords and Civics over dangerously high airbag
pressure, which they say could knock you dead if deployed.
Wait, what? Death by airbag? Isn't that just a little bit of irony
overload? Isn't that a comedy routine somewhere? In hell, perhaps? Then
again, it would be a simply spectacular way to go, really, if you think
about it, if you really love irony, if you think God is basically just a
wickedly devious cosmic trickster. I mean, why the hell not?
It all balances out in the end, anyway. It's all just the grand and
dreamlike circus spinning and laughing and churning its cotton candy
profundity into the Void. For every adult human ironically sent to the
great feedlot in the sky by a misbehaving automotive safety device, a
child is born in a shopping mall food court, pre-addicted to Quarter
Pounders, ready to take on the overheated, surreal world all over again.
And lo, the great play continues ...
Join Mark on Facebook and Twitter. Email him here.
Mark Morford's column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate. To
join the notification list for this column, click here and remove one
article of clothing. To get on Mark's personal mailing list (appearances,
books, blogs, yoga and more), click here and remove three more. His
website is right here.
This column also has an RSS feed and a very handy archive page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2010 SF Gate
Hi! Everything wants to kill you
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Then I happened to read a charming, albeit nauseating little news item
that tried to skulk by unnoticed recently, wherein is was announced that
the Huntington Meat Packing Co. of Southern California was expanding its
recall of possibly E. coli-tainted meat, from just over 860,000 pounds to
... wait for it ... five million pounds.
Five million pounds of bad meat. Sounds like a fun movie title. Or maybe a
nickname for Congress. While pondering the number, I did some quick math.
But being lousy at math, I also did some quick research.
All-knowing Google informed me that the average head of cattle, say a
1,200-pound animal, results in something like 500 pounds of usable meat,
give or take. Interesting! Or not.
Ergo, five million pounds is the rough and chopped-up output of about
10,000 animals. Ten thousand head of cattle is, freakishly, only about a
tenth -- if that -- of what the largest industrial feedlots in Idaho,
Texas, California, Nebraska and elsewhere have on their tortured and
tormented, methane-choked properties at any given moment (Broken Bow in
Nebraska can hold 85,000 head. Simplot in Idaho can process up to 150,000.
ConAgra's frightening Montfort lot in reeking Greely, Colo. is so big it
chokes your very soul). Which is just all sorts of disgusting. But there
it is.
(Oh and btw, five million pounds of meat is also the equivalent of about
30,000 average-weighted humans, or one big, sold-out Dave Matthews concert
in San Jose. Hey, we're all dead meat in the end).
It gets so you lose sight of the scale of things. Five million pounds?
Seems like a lot. It seems epic and sickening and a little horrifying.
And then you realize that it's not. Really it's just a drop in the giant
meatbucket that is the Western diet, a thimbleful of the staggering
tonnage of industrial foodstuffs we consume every day, much of it loaded
with poison and antibiotics and hormones and environmental burden; that
includes millions of enormous animals that should be eating grass but are
instead being force-fed land-ravaging grains and 10 billion gallons of
drugs per year so we may satisfy our ravenous appetites for far, far more
unhealthy meat than we actually need.
Which in turns makes you sort of amazed that there aren't more meat
recalls, more epidemics and outbreaks, more McDonald's restaurants
spontaneously combusting from all the chemicals. It makes you wonder why
the hell we aren't all dead right this very moment. Perhaps we are? Wait,
is this heaven? Nah. Just the Internet.
Speaking of McDonald's. Did you hear? A woman was sitting in the
McDonald's over in the Great Mall in Milpitas just recently, consuming her
capitalism-approved portion of hormone-blasted industrial feedlot beef and
HFCS-injected everything (though, to be fair, it could have been one of
their "healthy" prepackaged nuclear salads), when, of course, she went
into labor.
And she gave birth, right there in the food court, in the McDonald's, in a
giant suburban shopping mall, because there is possibly no more
quintessentially American scenario than birthing a human being in a fast
food outlet in a shopping mall food court, unless she also happened to be
thinking about firearms, watching "American Idol" and listening to Dave
Matthews whilst something something NASCAR.
Reading that story, it was impossible for me not to note how this woman,
this divine fertile feminine life force, was likely consuming some of the
worst possible processed foodstuffs imaginable right up to the moment she
birthed a human baby -- a child, we can politely surmise, that had been
nourished though much of its gestation by a veritable pharmacy of
bloodstream toxins, fats and salts and corn syrups, synthetic flavorings
and hormones from that selfsame feedlot beef.
Do you think this new mom was also was perhaps drinking a fine beverage
made by the Coca-Cola corporation at the moment of labor pains? Sipping
maybe a Dr. Pepper or a Sprite? The odds are reasonably good she was, a
Coca-Cola product being something of a prerequisite to browsing Champs,
Foot Locker and Kay Jewelers in any shopping complex in modern America.
Mmm, soda. Have you heard that soda is the new tobacco? A demon in angel's
clothing? Well, it is. Quite the sickening swill, really, far more
unhealthy and dangerous than we readily acknowledge because gosh, how can
something so happy, so all-American, so polar-bear Christmastime Homer
Simpson I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing wonderful, possibly be all
sorts of cancerous and sickening and Sarah Palin-grade wrong? Well, it is.
Like cigarettes, they say soda is in dire need of regulation, heavy
taxation, warning labels, the works. Do you imagine Coca-Cola cares all
that much about the anti-soda campaign being waged against its wares right
now? Hell yes, it does. But maybe not as much as you think, given how it
has pretty much maxed out the U.S market anyway. After all, how many blue
sports drinks, pink energy beverages and nefarious Coke Minis can you cram
down one country's gullet? We simply can't get much less healthy. Time to
move on.
And so it did. The Coca-Cola company just reported big profits last
quarter, despite how there's no one left in America to poison (except the
tiny, precious children). Do you know how it did it? Can you guess how it
made more millions? That's right: by slowly poisoning India, China and
Brazil.
They call them "emerging markets," because these countries are just now
emerging from millennia of drinking various liquids that were not
exceedingly good at killing them by way of high fructose corn syrup and
unpronounceable chemical additives. What, the western gift of fast food,
industrial meat and oil dependency weren't enough? Let's give them all
diabetes and obesity and even worse teeth? Fabulous. Have a Coke and a
smile, indeed.
It doesn't really matter. Might as well eat that industrial burger and
inhale a giant Coke as you speed down the freeway in your tiny Japanese
car. Do you know why? Because your airbag may kill you anyway.
Amid the furor over Toyota's massive recall of stuck accelerator pedals, a
lesser-seen item about Honda Motor Corporation, itself quietly recalling
about a half-million Accords and Civics over dangerously high airbag
pressure, which they say could knock you dead if deployed.
Wait, what? Death by airbag? Isn't that just a little bit of irony
overload? Isn't that a comedy routine somewhere? In hell, perhaps? Then
again, it would be a simply spectacular way to go, really, if you think
about it, if you really love irony, if you think God is basically just a
wickedly devious cosmic trickster. I mean, why the hell not?
It all balances out in the end, anyway. It's all just the grand and
dreamlike circus spinning and laughing and churning its cotton candy
profundity into the Void. For every adult human ironically sent to the
great feedlot in the sky by a misbehaving automotive safety device, a
child is born in a shopping mall food court, pre-addicted to Quarter
Pounders, ready to take on the overheated, surreal world all over again.
And lo, the great play continues ...
Join Mark on Facebook and Twitter. Email him here.
Mark Morford's column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate. To
join the notification list for this column, click here and remove one
article of clothing. To get on Mark's personal mailing list (appearances,
books, blogs, yoga and more), click here and remove three more. His
website is right here.
This column also has an RSS feed and a very handy archive page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2010 SF Gate
Big Pharma Researcher Caught Faking Reports
A Big Pharma clinical trial researcher has been caught faking dozens of research studies for the top drug companies -- studies that were published in "scientific" medical journals.
The data that "proved" the effectiveness of some of pharma's most profitable drugs was simply created out of thin air!
Read original article by clicking on title above: http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html
The data that "proved" the effectiveness of some of pharma's most profitable drugs was simply created out of thin air!
Read original article by clicking on title above: http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
New Report: Antibiotics in Livestock Production cause Antibiotic Resistance in Humans
ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE AND AGRICULTURAL USES - USA
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: 12 Feb 2010
Source: The Farmer [edited]
Media reports are associating the use of antibiotics in livestock
production with antibiotic resistance in humans. Iowa State University
veterinary professor Dr. Scott Hurd, who is a former USDA Deputy
Undersecretary for Food Safety, says this concern is not based in
science. Hurd emphasizes that pork producers adopt withdrawal periods
for antibiotics, which protects the meat supply [but see comment to
[2] below]. The main issue is actually resistant organisms, so Hurd
says it is a much bigger, more difficult topic.
In 2000, Denmark implemented a blanket ban on preventative
antibiotics. That ban has been repeatedly highlighted in media reports
about antibiotic resistance. Hurd, who spent some time in Denmark as
the ban was moving forward, is able to offer some perspective on the
Danish ban.
"Immediately after that ban, in swine, the number of pigs that had to
be treated for illness actually doubled, and that trend continued for
many years after the ban," Hurd said. "The World Health Organization
did a study in 2002, and they said very clearly they could find no
evidence that human health has actually improved or that risk has
actually been reduced."
The media has unfairly portrayed this as a food safety story. Hurd
says an antibiotic ban would actually decrease the health of meat
animals entering the food supply.
"Antibiotics and other treatments and management are used in livestock
in order to produce healthy animals, which result in healthy food,"
Hurd said. "As the deputy undersecretary, I was in charge of all food
and meat inspection in the United States. Our 1st concern is to make
sure that no unhealthy animal enters the food chain, so obviously,
healthy animals are an important part of that; antibiotics are an
important part of making animals healthy and getting those into the
food chain."
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2]
Date: 13 Feb 2010
Source: Des Moines Register [edited]
(H. Scott Hurd is now an associate professor in the College of
Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University. Contact:
13 Feb 2010.)
As former deputy undersecretary for food safety at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and a scientist who has actively researched food safety
for over 20 years, I'm disappointed by recent media reports blaming
antibiotic use in livestock for most antibiotic resistance in humans.
Consumers should know that Methicillin-resistant _Staphylococcus
aureus_ (MRSA) mentioned in these reports is not a food-borne disease
and not usually from animals. Normally, the strain found in pigs is
different than that found in humans. The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has concluded, after investigating numerous human outbreaks of
MRSA infections in the United States, none of these investigations had
animal exposure as a risk factor. The CDC concludes the vast majority
of infections result from person-to-person transmission of MRSA in the
community, not the farm.
Of course, farmers should not use antibiotics unless they are needed.
However, national lawmakers who are pursuing a misguided blanket ban
on certain antibiotics uses in livestock haven't considered sound
science.
As President Obama said last year [2009], "We must make scientific
decisions based on facts, not ideology." I fully agree. Bacteria are
nonpartisan. _Salmonella_ and _Staphylococcus_ don't vote and don't
watch TV. The basic principles of microbiology, animal disease
prevention, food production and risk assessment apply equally to us
all. If new policies are not built on accurate science, they won't
work; they won't make the world a safer place. This issue impacts me
not just as a scientist, but also as the father of 8 children.
I don't accept antibiotics in my meat! And, it is critically important
to understand that meat consumed in America is to be free from
antibiotic residues. The presence of residues is illegal. As a former
leader in the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, I can assure you
the system checks carefully for the presence of this stuff in meat.
However, today's concern is about the possibility of resistant bacteria.
My years of experience and research in the food safety field have led
me to the following conclusion: The published scientific risk
assessments done to date (some I have published) on antibiotic use in
livestock demonstrate an extremely low to nonexistent human health
risk from resistant bacteria.
Therefore, the public health and political benefit of antibiotic bans
will be low, nonexistent or even contrary to public health. As a
veterinarian of over 25 years, I believe antibiotic bans may lead to
secondary public health consequences from the consumption of unhealthy
animals, not to mention added suffering of sick animals. Experience
teaches that evaluation of human health risk and the value of banning
certain antibiotics must be made on a case-by-case basis; blanket bans
are not effective.
The effects of such blanket bans are apparent in Denmark. After
Denmark passed its ban on preventive antibiotics in 2000, the World
Health Organization found no measurable public health benefit, partly
because farmers were forced to use more antibiotics to treat sick
pigs: 100 percent more. Those secondary health impacts of the ban and
the costs to producers haven't been covered in recent media reports.
If you truly value food safety for your family as much as I do, you'll
realize that an antibiotic ban will actually decrease the health of
meat animals entering the food chain. Science shows us that the
continued safety of our food supply depends on allowing responsible
farmers, with veterinary direction, to continue making decisions based
on best science and experience. The choice is ours. Let's make it on
what's sound science, which is best for us all.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[When I contacted Scott Hurd for any comments on The Farmer article,
he replied: "I have no objection to the item from FARMERS, except I
did NOT say farmers should adopt early withdrawal. I may have said
something to the effect that animals should not be given antibiotics
unless they need them. For info on my other comments, you can see the
link below. Also, I will send this weekend's editorial."
The editorial the Des Moines Register is above in [2].
His "other comments" can be seen in: "ISU Associate Professor and
Former USDA Deputy Undersecretary Food Safety Responds to CBS News
Segments on Antibiotics - Feb. 9 and 10:
Key Facts Disagree with CBS
Evening News Segment on Antibiotics," aired on 9 Feb 2010
.
As this is lengthy and detailed, I have not attempted to shorten it.
It is well worth reading.CLICK ON TITLE ABOVE TO SEE MR HURDS REPLY TO CBS REPORT
Our thanks to Scott for responding so fully. - Mod.MHJ]
[The issue is also which antibiotics. When antibiotics are used that
are of a class that contains parenteral antibiotics critical to human
health, and resistance emerges in bacteria, it can be a real problem.
Probable examples of the results of use in animal food are:
- avoparcin, a glycolipid, probably led to vancomycin-resistant enteroccocci;
- virginiamycin probably led to quinupristin/dalfopristin-resistant
_E. faecium_; and
- quinolones probably resulted in resistant campylobacter and salmonella.
Drugs such as bacitracin which have no parenteral class use in humans
are not a
problem. - Mod.DK]
[see also:
2000
----
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA (02) 20000511.0718
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA 20000429.0649
Antibiotic resistance, surveillance - Europe 20000103.0003
1998
----
Antibiotic resistance trends - Europe 19990204.0170
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance (02) 19981219.2407
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance 19981216.2373
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980807.1542
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980805.1509]
..............................................mhj/msp/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at.
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
####################################################
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: 12 Feb 2010
Source: The Farmer [edited]
Media reports are associating the use of antibiotics in livestock
production with antibiotic resistance in humans. Iowa State University
veterinary professor Dr. Scott Hurd, who is a former USDA Deputy
Undersecretary for Food Safety, says this concern is not based in
science. Hurd emphasizes that pork producers adopt withdrawal periods
for antibiotics, which protects the meat supply [but see comment to
[2] below]. The main issue is actually resistant organisms, so Hurd
says it is a much bigger, more difficult topic.
In 2000, Denmark implemented a blanket ban on preventative
antibiotics. That ban has been repeatedly highlighted in media reports
about antibiotic resistance. Hurd, who spent some time in Denmark as
the ban was moving forward, is able to offer some perspective on the
Danish ban.
"Immediately after that ban, in swine, the number of pigs that had to
be treated for illness actually doubled, and that trend continued for
many years after the ban," Hurd said. "The World Health Organization
did a study in 2002, and they said very clearly they could find no
evidence that human health has actually improved or that risk has
actually been reduced."
The media has unfairly portrayed this as a food safety story. Hurd
says an antibiotic ban would actually decrease the health of meat
animals entering the food supply.
"Antibiotics and other treatments and management are used in livestock
in order to produce healthy animals, which result in healthy food,"
Hurd said. "As the deputy undersecretary, I was in charge of all food
and meat inspection in the United States. Our 1st concern is to make
sure that no unhealthy animal enters the food chain, so obviously,
healthy animals are an important part of that; antibiotics are an
important part of making animals healthy and getting those into the
food chain."
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2]
Date: 13 Feb 2010
Source: Des Moines Register [edited]
(H. Scott Hurd is now an associate professor in the College of
Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University. Contact:
As former deputy undersecretary for food safety at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and a scientist who has actively researched food safety
for over 20 years, I'm disappointed by recent media reports blaming
antibiotic use in livestock for most antibiotic resistance in humans.
Consumers should know that Methicillin-resistant _Staphylococcus
aureus_ (MRSA) mentioned in these reports is not a food-borne disease
and not usually from animals. Normally, the strain found in pigs is
different than that found in humans. The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has concluded, after investigating numerous human outbreaks of
MRSA infections in the United States, none of these investigations had
animal exposure as a risk factor. The CDC concludes the vast majority
of infections result from person-to-person transmission of MRSA in the
community, not the farm.
Of course, farmers should not use antibiotics unless they are needed.
However, national lawmakers who are pursuing a misguided blanket ban
on certain antibiotics uses in livestock haven't considered sound
science.
As President Obama said last year [2009], "We must make scientific
decisions based on facts, not ideology." I fully agree. Bacteria are
nonpartisan. _Salmonella_ and _Staphylococcus_ don't vote and don't
watch TV. The basic principles of microbiology, animal disease
prevention, food production and risk assessment apply equally to us
all. If new policies are not built on accurate science, they won't
work; they won't make the world a safer place. This issue impacts me
not just as a scientist, but also as the father of 8 children.
I don't accept antibiotics in my meat! And, it is critically important
to understand that meat consumed in America is to be free from
antibiotic residues. The presence of residues is illegal. As a former
leader in the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, I can assure you
the system checks carefully for the presence of this stuff in meat.
However, today's concern is about the possibility of resistant bacteria.
My years of experience and research in the food safety field have led
me to the following conclusion: The published scientific risk
assessments done to date (some I have published) on antibiotic use in
livestock demonstrate an extremely low to nonexistent human health
risk from resistant bacteria.
Therefore, the public health and political benefit of antibiotic bans
will be low, nonexistent or even contrary to public health. As a
veterinarian of over 25 years, I believe antibiotic bans may lead to
secondary public health consequences from the consumption of unhealthy
animals, not to mention added suffering of sick animals. Experience
teaches that evaluation of human health risk and the value of banning
certain antibiotics must be made on a case-by-case basis; blanket bans
are not effective.
The effects of such blanket bans are apparent in Denmark. After
Denmark passed its ban on preventive antibiotics in 2000, the World
Health Organization found no measurable public health benefit, partly
because farmers were forced to use more antibiotics to treat sick
pigs: 100 percent more. Those secondary health impacts of the ban and
the costs to producers haven't been covered in recent media reports.
If you truly value food safety for your family as much as I do, you'll
realize that an antibiotic ban will actually decrease the health of
meat animals entering the food chain. Science shows us that the
continued safety of our food supply depends on allowing responsible
farmers, with veterinary direction, to continue making decisions based
on best science and experience. The choice is ours. Let's make it on
what's sound science, which is best for us all.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[When I contacted Scott Hurd for any comments on The Farmer article,
he replied: "I have no objection to the item from FARMERS, except I
did NOT say farmers should adopt early withdrawal. I may have said
something to the effect that animals should not be given antibiotics
unless they need them. For info on my other comments, you can see the
link below. Also, I will send this weekend's editorial."
The editorial the Des Moines Register is above in [2].
His "other comments" can be seen in: "ISU Associate Professor and
Former USDA Deputy Undersecretary Food Safety Responds to CBS News
Segments on Antibiotics - Feb. 9 and 10:
Key Facts Disagree with CBS
Evening News Segment on Antibiotics," aired on 9 Feb 2010
As this is lengthy and detailed, I have not attempted to shorten it.
It is well worth reading.CLICK ON TITLE ABOVE TO SEE MR HURDS REPLY TO CBS REPORT
Our thanks to Scott for responding so fully. - Mod.MHJ]
[The issue is also which antibiotics. When antibiotics are used that
are of a class that contains parenteral antibiotics critical to human
health, and resistance emerges in bacteria, it can be a real problem.
Probable examples of the results of use in animal food are:
- avoparcin, a glycolipid, probably led to vancomycin-resistant enteroccocci;
- virginiamycin probably led to quinupristin/dalfopristin-resistant
_E. faecium_; and
- quinolones probably resulted in resistant campylobacter and salmonella.
Drugs such as bacitracin which have no parenteral class use in humans
are not a
problem. - Mod.DK]
[see also:
2000
----
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA (02) 20000511.0718
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA 20000429.0649
Antibiotic resistance, surveillance - Europe 20000103.0003
1998
----
Antibiotic resistance trends - Europe 19990204.0170
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance (02) 19981219.2407
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance 19981216.2373
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980807.1542
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980805.1509]
..............................................mhj/msp/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
####################################################
Campbell Condenses Marketing Plan, Healthier, Home-Grown Vegs
but still no "cruelty-free" meat
Campbell Outlines Growth Plans for U.S. Condensed Soup Business
Comprehensive Measures Span All Aspects of Condensed Soup: Enhanced Quality, Healthier Offerings, New Marketing
CAMDEN, N.J., Feb 17, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- --Reiterates Fiscal 2010 Full-Year Adjusted Net EPS and EBIT Guidance, Lowers Full-Year Sales Guidance
Campbell Soup Company /quotes/comstock/13*!cpb/quotes/nls/cpb (CPB 33.65, +0.06, +0.18%) today announced a comprehensive plan to boost the performance of its condensed soup portfolio in the United States, a business that generated more than $1 billion in net sales in fiscal 2009. Campbell plans to enhance more than 60 percent of its condensed line with product improvements, further sodium reduction, more contemporary packaging, improved shelving systems and new marketing aimed at the simple meals category.
These upcoming plans for condensed soup build on Campbell's substantial investments in its entire U.S. Soup business over the last several years, designed to improve the quality, convenience, variety and wellness profile across its portfolio. As a result of these investments, Campbell has increased net sales of U.S. soup every year since 2003.
Douglas R. Conant, Campbell's President and CEO, said, "We are committed to accelerating the performance of our existing portfolio, most notably in U.S. soup, and continuing to lay the foundation for superior long-term growth. We are going to fire up our important condensed soup business and step up the competitive posture of our ready-to-serve products to accelerate both our top- and bottom-line growth."
Conant continued, "With the improvements and innovations we've made over the past several years and our plans for next year, we will be able to unleash soup's full competitiveness against the simple meals category. We are now in a position to reframe the way we compete in the broader simple meals category. Our new marketing efforts will further position soup as a key part of a healthy, well-balanced simple meal and help consumers make more informed choices. We will build on the success of our high-margin, market-leading condensed soup franchise--enhancing its quality, making it healthier and increasing its relevance. We are confident that our continued investments will make 'Campbell's' condensed soup even more relevant and contemporary for today's consumers."
Updated Fiscal 2010 Guidance
Campbell reiterated its full-year guidance for adjusted earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) growth of 6 to 7 percent and adjusted net earnings per share growth of 9 to 11 percent from the fiscal 2009 adjusted base of $2.21. The company revised its fiscal 2010 guidance for sales growth to 2.5 to 3.5 percent from the prior range of 4 to 5 percent. A detailed reconciliation of the adjusted fiscal 2009 information to the reported information is included at the end of this news release.
Major Plans for Condensed Soup
Campbell has a number of innovations planned for its U.S. condensed soup business in fiscal 2011:
-- Expanded Healthy Offerings. Campbell plans to expand its industry-leading sodium reduction program and to reduce the sodium content in 23 of its condensed soups by up to 45 percent. Following this effort, almost half of "Campbell's" condensed soup portfolio will have sodium levels at 480 milligrams or less per serving, considered healthy by the U.S. government. Every major condensed variety will either be reduced in sodium or be available in a lower sodium option. Additionally, Campbell will improve the flavor in all 26 varieties of its chicken soups and use a specially roasted chicken meat.
-- More Contemporary Appeal. Campbell will update the labels of its popular condensed soups with a more contemporary design and new photography that will highlight the soup's appearance and appeal. The familiar red and white colors will remain, but changes to other visual elements will evoke a new and different way for consumers to think about "Campbell's" condensed soup. Campbell conducted extensive research with consumers to ensure the new labels hit the mark, including cutting-edge research methods that measured consumers' biometric responses along with ethnographic interviews. Research indicated that the new labels increased purchase intent among consumers. The company plans to use the new labels, which retain key brand equity elements, on all varieties of its condensed soup, except Chicken Noodle, Cream of Mushroom and Tomato.
-- Improved Shopping Experience. Campbell plans to redesign its popular gravity-fed shelving system, installed at 24,000 retailers nationally and credited for rejuvenating the soup aisle, expanding the category and vastly improving the shopping experience. Designed to make the category easier to browse and to spur incremental purchases, the new configuration will include improved navigation, color coding, more striking graphics and a new layout across four key eating and cooking consumer-focused segments: Classic Favorites, Taste Sensations, Healthy & Delicious and Healthy Kids. Partnering with its retail customers, Campbell plans to convert all 24,000 systems over the next 12 months. Campbell also used biometric and ethnographic research techniques to redesign the gravity-fed shelving system. In addition, the company plans to roll-out new portable gravity-fed systems, called "Canvertables," providing ideal secondary displays throughout a store. Campbell has more than 8,000 portable units in place and plans to increase that number to more than 12,000 this year and 15,000 in fiscal 2011.
-- New Marketing within Simple Meals. Campbell has new advertising in development to position soup and dishes made with soup as a simple meal. The new campaign will highlight the fact that soups are an affordable, tasty and nourishing alternative versus several other popular simple meals. The company also intends to better leverage its scale in its U.S. soup marketing efforts and is developing an overarching ad campaign designed to create stronger linkage across its soup brands.
-- Celebrating American-grown Ingredients. Campbell will promote the fact that the vegetables in "Campbell's" condensed soup are grown on American farms, including carrots, celery, potatoes and tomatoes. The company will continue to highlight its relationships with American family farmers that date back several generations.
The new and improved soups will be available at retail in August 2010.
Conant will share details with investors and the news media at the Consumer Analyst Group of New York (CAGNY) conference in Boca Raton, Fla., today at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. A webcast of the presentation will be available at www.campbellsoupcompany.com under the "Shareholder Event / Webcast Information" banner.
About Campbell Soup Company
Campbell Soup Company is a global manufacturer and marketer of high-quality foods and simple meals, including soup, baked snacks, and healthy beverages. Founded in 1869, the company has a portfolio of market-leading brands, including "Campbell's," "Pepperidge Farm," "Arnott's," and "V8." For more information on the company, visit Campbell's website at www.CampbellSoup.com
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains "forward-looking statements" that reflect the company's current expectations about the impact of its future plans and performance on sales, earnings, and margins. These forward-looking statements rely on a number of assumptions and estimates that could be inaccurate and which are subject to risks and uncertainties. The factors that could cause the company's actual results to vary materially from those anticipated or expressed in any forward-looking statement include (1) the impact of strong competitive responses to the company's efforts to leverage its brand power in the market; (2) the risks associated with trade and consumer acceptance of the company's initiatives; (3) the company's ability to realize projected cost savings and benefits; (4) the company's ability to manage changes to its business processes; (5) the increased significance of certain of the company's key trade customers; (6) the impact of fluctuations in the supply or costs of energy and raw and packaging materials; (7) the risks associated with portfolio changes; (8) the uncertainties of litigation; (9) the impact of changes in currency exchange rates, tax rates, interest rates, debt and equity markets, inflation rates, economic conditions and other external factors; (10) the impact of unforeseen business disruptions in one or more of the company's markets due to political instability, civil disobedience, armed hostilities, natural disasters or other calamities; and (11) other factors described in the company's most recent Form 10-K and subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company disclaims any obligation or intent to update the forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this release.
Reconciliation of GAAP and Non-GAAP Financial Measures Fiscal Year 2009 Net Earnings Per Share
Campbell Soup Company uses certain non-GAAP financial measures as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in certain communications. These non-GAAP financial measures are measures of performance not defined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and should be considered in addition to, not in lieu of, GAAP reported measures.
Items Impacting Diluted Net Earnings Per Share
The company believes that financial information excluding certain transactions not considered to be part of the ongoing business improves the comparability of year-to-year results. Consequently, the company believes that investors may be able to better understand its earnings results if these transactions are excluded.
The following items impacted diluted net earnings per share:
(1) In fiscal 2008, the company announced initiatives to improve operational efficiency and long-term profitability, including selling certain salty snack food brands and assets in Australia, closing certain production facilities in Australia and Canada, and streamlining the company's management structure. In fiscal 2009, the company recorded expenses related to these initiatives of $15 million after tax, or $0.04 per share.
(2) In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, as part of the company's annual review of intangible assets, a non-cash impairment charge of $47 million after tax, or $0.13 per share, was recorded related to certain European trademarks, primarily in Germany and the Nordic region.
(3) In the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the company recorded a $4 million tax benefit, or $0.01 per share, in discontinued operations related to the sale of the Godiva Chocolatier business.
The table below reconciles financial information, presented in accordance with GAAP, to financial information excluding certain transactions:
Year Ended
Aug. 2, 2009
Diluted net earnings per share, as reported (a) $ 2.05
Add: Net adjustment from restructuring related costs (1) 0.04
Add: Net non-cash impairment charge on intangible assets (2) 0.13
Deduct: Tax benefit from the sale of the Godiva Chocolatier business (0.01)
(3)
Adjusted Diluted net earnings per share (a) $ 2.21
(a) In the first quarter of fiscal 2010, the company adopted and retrospectively applied new accounting guidance related to the calculation of earnings per share. The retrospective application of the provision resulted in a reduction of the previously reported and adjusted diluted net earnings per share of $0.01 for fiscal 2009.
Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6182150&lang=en
SOURCE: Campbell Soup Company
Campbell Soup Company
Anthony Sanzio (Media)
856-968-4390
or
John Faulkner (Media)
856-342-3738
or
Jennifer Driscoll (Analysts)
856-342-6081
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/campbell-outlines-growth-plans-for-us-condensed-soup-business-2010-02-17?reflink=MW_news_stmp
The World Vaccine Congress 2010: You're Invited
Dear Colleague,
Increase revenues through franchise innovation and indication expansion
As the global vaccine industry looks to an increase of its revenues through both the introduction of novel vaccines and indication expansions for established products, more and more the functional model, characteristically associated with the conventional pharmaceutical industry, becomes ever so present.
The World Vaccine Congress Washington 2010 is dedicating a whole stream on the 20th April to this emerging trend.
Discover key drivers and success factors behind key Pneumococcal, Meningococcal and HPV candidate development
Understand new vaccine technologies and differentiation techniques
Identify novel indication expansions for well known Pneumococcal and HPV franchises
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
As a Pharma or Biotech you will garner the innovative strategies that are being employed by the World's leading manufacturers who are maximizing current blockbuster status.
As a service provider to this market, understand what new opportunities these open up to your organization as key manufacturers look to expand and prolong vaccine lifecycles.
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
The World Vaccine Congress Washington 2010 speaker faculty is now beyond the 120 mark, with over 15 sessions covering cutting edge industry trends like those mentioned above and 4 days of content, running from 19 - 22 April in Washington DC.
With the 'Contact' online pre-event networking portal NOW LIVE, there has never been a better time to register your place and join the 330+ currently registered.
Be one of the many new additions joining weekly.
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
or call +44 (0)207 827 4165
Your voucher code is: E4
sponsors(all Big-Pharm)
Want to reach 18,000+ FierceVaccines subscribers with your own message?
Contact ryan@fiercemarkets.com or call 202-824-5089.
Increase revenues through franchise innovation and indication expansion
As the global vaccine industry looks to an increase of its revenues through both the introduction of novel vaccines and indication expansions for established products, more and more the functional model, characteristically associated with the conventional pharmaceutical industry, becomes ever so present.
The World Vaccine Congress Washington 2010 is dedicating a whole stream on the 20th April to this emerging trend.
Discover key drivers and success factors behind key Pneumococcal, Meningococcal and HPV candidate development
Understand new vaccine technologies and differentiation techniques
Identify novel indication expansions for well known Pneumococcal and HPV franchises
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
As a Pharma or Biotech you will garner the innovative strategies that are being employed by the World's leading manufacturers who are maximizing current blockbuster status.
As a service provider to this market, understand what new opportunities these open up to your organization as key manufacturers look to expand and prolong vaccine lifecycles.
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
The World Vaccine Congress Washington 2010 speaker faculty is now beyond the 120 mark, with over 15 sessions covering cutting edge industry trends like those mentioned above and 4 days of content, running from 19 - 22 April in Washington DC.
With the 'Contact' online pre-event networking portal NOW LIVE, there has never been a better time to register your place and join the 330+ currently registered.
Be one of the many new additions joining weekly.
› Download the brochure for full details
› Register now to save up to $445
or call +44 (0)207 827 4165
Your voucher code is: E4
sponsors(all Big-Pharm)
Want to reach 18,000+ FierceVaccines subscribers with your own message?
Contact ryan@fiercemarkets.com or call 202-824-5089.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
USDA enhances integrity, defensibility of farm programs
Well this is good news. The USDA to be more careful about handing out farm-subs since a recent GAO Report indicated that they had misappropriated millions in the past, giving subs to wealthy farmers and ranchers not entitled or qualified to recieve them and in some cases cutting checks to DEAD FOLK!
Read more about that in the link below;
http://madcowhorses.blogspot.com/2009/04/usda-harvesting-cash-from-your-pockets.html
and now, on to the story;
The Daily Reporter
Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 02:21 PM
East Lansing, Mich. —
Christine White, Executive Director of USDA’s Farm Service Agency in Michigan, recently announced that USDA is partnering with the Internal Revenue Service to reduce fraud in farm programs and streamlining payment limits for family farmers.
“This new USDA-IRS partnership is intended to help USDA participants meet the requirements in the 2008 Farm Bill” said White. “This new policy will protect USDA participants and ensure overall program integrity”
USDA has finalized a Memorandum of Understanding with the Internal Revenue Service to establish an electronic information exchange process for verifying compliance with the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) provisions for farm programs. Written consent will be required from each producer or payment recipient for the tax review process. No actual tax data will be included in the report that IRS sends to USDA.
This agreement will ensure that payments are not issued to producers whose AGI exceeds certain limits. The limits set in the 2008 Farm Bill are $500,000 non-farm average AGI for commodity and disaster programs; $750,000 farm average AGI for direct payments; and $1 million non-farm average AGI for conservation programs. White also reminds producers the 2010 DCP/ACRE signup is underway and will end June 1.
http://www.thedailyreporter.com/newsnow/x1631832008/USDA-enhances-integrity-defensibility-of-farm
Read more about that in the link below;
http://madcowhorses.blogspot.com/2009/04/usda-harvesting-cash-from-your-pockets.html
and now, on to the story;
The Daily Reporter
Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 02:21 PM
East Lansing, Mich. —
Christine White, Executive Director of USDA’s Farm Service Agency in Michigan, recently announced that USDA is partnering with the Internal Revenue Service to reduce fraud in farm programs and streamlining payment limits for family farmers.
“This new USDA-IRS partnership is intended to help USDA participants meet the requirements in the 2008 Farm Bill” said White. “This new policy will protect USDA participants and ensure overall program integrity”
USDA has finalized a Memorandum of Understanding with the Internal Revenue Service to establish an electronic information exchange process for verifying compliance with the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) provisions for farm programs. Written consent will be required from each producer or payment recipient for the tax review process. No actual tax data will be included in the report that IRS sends to USDA.
This agreement will ensure that payments are not issued to producers whose AGI exceeds certain limits. The limits set in the 2008 Farm Bill are $500,000 non-farm average AGI for commodity and disaster programs; $750,000 farm average AGI for direct payments; and $1 million non-farm average AGI for conservation programs. White also reminds producers the 2010 DCP/ACRE signup is underway and will end June 1.
http://www.thedailyreporter.com/newsnow/x1631832008/USDA-enhances-integrity-defensibility-of-farm
Q-Fever on the Rise in Netherlands; Gov Says Not Too Worry
Q-Fever was only one of the zootonic diseases the USA is/was experimenting with as a biological weapon
Click on title to see vid
Click on title to see vid
Monday, February 15, 2010
USDA Tightens Organic Standards on Dairy and Livestock
by Sara Novak, Columbia, SC on 02.14.10
Food & Health (food)
As organic food has grown in popularity so too have the size of organic dairies and farms in this country. And in the last ten years questions have been raised about whether these large scale so-called organic dairies and farms have been abiding by all of the regulations which define them as organic in the first place. Some of the regulations themselves have been a bit gray and lacking in clarity. Issues have been specifically raised about whether enormous farms have been confining livestock excessively, without regard for the animals. Now the USDA has introduced tighter regulations to bring clarity to the amount of time organic livestock should actually be grazing.
The USDA is working to clear up some questions regarding how much of an organic livestock's life should be spent grazing. This is an issue that, according to the Cornucopia Institute, was continually skirted by the Bush Administration. Now it appears that the Obama Administration is picking up the slack. The Obama Administration recently suspended Promiseland Livestock, the nation's largest organic livestock producers with over 22,000 head of cattle, for not allowing the USDA to inspect financial and organic records.
New USDA Organic Regulations
The new rules go into effect in June of this year. They state that at least 30 percent of food cows' ingest must come from grazing. If the dairy farm is located in a mild climate like California, cows will be expected to graze even more than the 120 days mandated as a minimum by law. Organic beef standards will also be tightened. Organic cattle, goats, buffalo, and sheep must be able to graze as well. Although in the last four months of life, certain diet regulations can be eliminated.
More on the USDA:
USDA Investigates Cornucopia Allegations Against Wal-Mart
USDA Classifies PETA as a Terrorist Threat
USDA Waters Down Organic Standards
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/usda-cracks-down-on-organics.php
Food & Health (food)
As organic food has grown in popularity so too have the size of organic dairies and farms in this country. And in the last ten years questions have been raised about whether these large scale so-called organic dairies and farms have been abiding by all of the regulations which define them as organic in the first place. Some of the regulations themselves have been a bit gray and lacking in clarity. Issues have been specifically raised about whether enormous farms have been confining livestock excessively, without regard for the animals. Now the USDA has introduced tighter regulations to bring clarity to the amount of time organic livestock should actually be grazing.
The USDA is working to clear up some questions regarding how much of an organic livestock's life should be spent grazing. This is an issue that, according to the Cornucopia Institute, was continually skirted by the Bush Administration. Now it appears that the Obama Administration is picking up the slack. The Obama Administration recently suspended Promiseland Livestock, the nation's largest organic livestock producers with over 22,000 head of cattle, for not allowing the USDA to inspect financial and organic records.
New USDA Organic Regulations
The new rules go into effect in June of this year. They state that at least 30 percent of food cows' ingest must come from grazing. If the dairy farm is located in a mild climate like California, cows will be expected to graze even more than the 120 days mandated as a minimum by law. Organic beef standards will also be tightened. Organic cattle, goats, buffalo, and sheep must be able to graze as well. Although in the last four months of life, certain diet regulations can be eliminated.
More on the USDA:
USDA Investigates Cornucopia Allegations Against Wal-Mart
USDA Classifies PETA as a Terrorist Threat
USDA Waters Down Organic Standards
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/usda-cracks-down-on-organics.php
PTB to Collaborate: 1st FrankenMeat, Now, FrankenWheat
Collaborated Public/Private Wheat Variety Development Sought
Source: NAWG
The nation's leading wheat-grower organizations have adopted policy that advocates cooperation between land-grant universities and private companies in order to develop improved wheat varieties. The policy, called "Principles of Collaboration in Wheat Breeding and Biotechnology," gives state wheat commissions, wheat breeders and land-grant universities with public wheat breeding programs guidelines to follow when developing collaborations and agreements with private industry.
The Principles of Collaboration were adopted by U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) during the groups' winter meetings. In the last year, several agriculture technology firms have announced plans to enter the wheat variety development business. These firms could incorporate non-biotech molecular technologies to improve wheat variety development; these technologies have already been proven successful in corn and soybean breeding programs.
Eventually, this private investment will lead to a wide array of improved wheat varieties that could eventually feature biotech traits. U.S. Wheat and NAWG have publicly supported the development of biotech wheat for several years in order to meet growing demand for wheat around the world.
"For too long, wheat has failed to capitalize on private investment into wheat variety development," says Joe Kejr, past chairman of the NAWG/U.S. Wheat Joint Biotech Committee and a farmer near Brookville, KS. "Meanwhile, competing crops have made huge strides in yield, agronomic traits and end-use efficiency.
"The wheat industry has worked together on these Principles of Collaboration, which establish a protocol by which private investment in wheat will proceed. In the end, these collaborations will lead to a host of new wheat varieties for wheat farmers, giving them additional options to find varieties that suit their agronomic and geographic needs."
A key component to giving growers more options is to allow private companies access to the vast library of publicly held germplasm at land-grant universities. In turn, private industry can offer new access to advanced, high-volume breeding technologies to the public universities, adds Justin Gilpin, Kansas Wheat CEO.
Private investment into wheat variety research will be vital to feed the world's population in coming years, says David Baltensperger, who sits on the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A&M University and is head of the university's Department of Crops and Soils at the University. Wheat is the world's most widely consumed grain and, with the lack of investment in wheat technology combined with dwindling natural resources, the world's wheat farmers will not be able to grow enough wheat to meet demand, he says.
"We see an ever-increasing, higher protein portion of the diet for more people, which will take more grains. We are looking at very large demand to meet the same caloric intake in the future as what we have today," says Baltensperger. "Worldwide, we need to expand production of wheat. It will take new traits and new technologies to do that."
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=453444887
Source: NAWG
The nation's leading wheat-grower organizations have adopted policy that advocates cooperation between land-grant universities and private companies in order to develop improved wheat varieties. The policy, called "Principles of Collaboration in Wheat Breeding and Biotechnology," gives state wheat commissions, wheat breeders and land-grant universities with public wheat breeding programs guidelines to follow when developing collaborations and agreements with private industry.
The Principles of Collaboration were adopted by U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) during the groups' winter meetings. In the last year, several agriculture technology firms have announced plans to enter the wheat variety development business. These firms could incorporate non-biotech molecular technologies to improve wheat variety development; these technologies have already been proven successful in corn and soybean breeding programs.
Eventually, this private investment will lead to a wide array of improved wheat varieties that could eventually feature biotech traits. U.S. Wheat and NAWG have publicly supported the development of biotech wheat for several years in order to meet growing demand for wheat around the world.
"For too long, wheat has failed to capitalize on private investment into wheat variety development," says Joe Kejr, past chairman of the NAWG/U.S. Wheat Joint Biotech Committee and a farmer near Brookville, KS. "Meanwhile, competing crops have made huge strides in yield, agronomic traits and end-use efficiency.
"The wheat industry has worked together on these Principles of Collaboration, which establish a protocol by which private investment in wheat will proceed. In the end, these collaborations will lead to a host of new wheat varieties for wheat farmers, giving them additional options to find varieties that suit their agronomic and geographic needs."
A key component to giving growers more options is to allow private companies access to the vast library of publicly held germplasm at land-grant universities. In turn, private industry can offer new access to advanced, high-volume breeding technologies to the public universities, adds Justin Gilpin, Kansas Wheat CEO.
Private investment into wheat variety research will be vital to feed the world's population in coming years, says David Baltensperger, who sits on the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A&M University and is head of the university's Department of Crops and Soils at the University. Wheat is the world's most widely consumed grain and, with the lack of investment in wheat technology combined with dwindling natural resources, the world's wheat farmers will not be able to grow enough wheat to meet demand, he says.
"We see an ever-increasing, higher protein portion of the diet for more people, which will take more grains. We are looking at very large demand to meet the same caloric intake in the future as what we have today," says Baltensperger. "Worldwide, we need to expand production of wheat. It will take new traits and new technologies to do that."
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=453444887
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Biological Weapons in the USA
Click on title above for a wikipedia overview and be sure to note the post-ban section which states;
Both the U.S. bio-weapons ban and the Biological Weapons Convention restricted any work in the area of biological warfare to defensive in nature. In reality, this gives BWC member-states wide latitude to conduct BW research because the BWC contains no provisions for monitoring of enforcement.[25][26] The treaty, essentially, is a gentlemen's agreement amongst members backed by the long-prevailing thought that biological warfare should not be used in battle.[25]
After Nixon declared an end to the U.S. bio-weapons program debate in the Army centered around whether or not toxin weapons were included in the president's declaration.[19] Following Nixon's November 1969 order, scientists at Fort Detrick worked on one toxin, Staphylococcus enterotoxin type B (SEB), for several more months.[19] Nixon ended the debate when he added toxins to the bio-weapons ban in February 1970.[17] The U.S. also ran a series of experiments with anthrax, code named Project Bacchus, Project Clear Vision and Project Jefferson in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
In recent years certain critics have claimed the U.S. stance on biological warfare and the use of biological agents has differed from historical interpretations of the BWC.[27] For example, it is said that the U.S. now maintains that the Article I of the BWC (which explicitly bans bio-weapons), does not apply to "non-lethal" biological agents.[27] Previous interpretation was stated to be in line with a definition laid out in Public Law 101-298, the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.[28] That law defined a biological agent as:[28]
any micro-organism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind...
According to the Federation of American Scientists, U.S. work on non-lethal agents exceeds limitations in the BWC.[27]
[edit] Agents and weapons
When the U.S. BW program ended in 1969 it had developed seven mass-produced, battle-ready biological weapons in the form of agents that cause: anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever, VEE, and botulism.[10] In addition Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B was produced as an incapacitating agent.[10] In addition to the agents that were ready to be used the U.S. program conducted research into the weaponization of more than 20 other agents. They included: (among others) smallpox, EEE and WEE, AHF, Hantavirus, BHF, Lassa fever, glanders,[29] melioidosis,[29] plague, yellow fever, psittacosis, typhus, dengue fever, Rift Valley fever (RVF), CHIKV, late blight of potato, rinderpest, Newcastle disease, bird flu, and the toxin ricin.[30]
Both the U.S. bio-weapons ban and the Biological Weapons Convention restricted any work in the area of biological warfare to defensive in nature. In reality, this gives BWC member-states wide latitude to conduct BW research because the BWC contains no provisions for monitoring of enforcement.[25][26] The treaty, essentially, is a gentlemen's agreement amongst members backed by the long-prevailing thought that biological warfare should not be used in battle.[25]
After Nixon declared an end to the U.S. bio-weapons program debate in the Army centered around whether or not toxin weapons were included in the president's declaration.[19] Following Nixon's November 1969 order, scientists at Fort Detrick worked on one toxin, Staphylococcus enterotoxin type B (SEB), for several more months.[19] Nixon ended the debate when he added toxins to the bio-weapons ban in February 1970.[17] The U.S. also ran a series of experiments with anthrax, code named Project Bacchus, Project Clear Vision and Project Jefferson in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
In recent years certain critics have claimed the U.S. stance on biological warfare and the use of biological agents has differed from historical interpretations of the BWC.[27] For example, it is said that the U.S. now maintains that the Article I of the BWC (which explicitly bans bio-weapons), does not apply to "non-lethal" biological agents.[27] Previous interpretation was stated to be in line with a definition laid out in Public Law 101-298, the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.[28] That law defined a biological agent as:[28]
any micro-organism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind...
According to the Federation of American Scientists, U.S. work on non-lethal agents exceeds limitations in the BWC.[27]
[edit] Agents and weapons
When the U.S. BW program ended in 1969 it had developed seven mass-produced, battle-ready biological weapons in the form of agents that cause: anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever, VEE, and botulism.[10] In addition Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B was produced as an incapacitating agent.[10] In addition to the agents that were ready to be used the U.S. program conducted research into the weaponization of more than 20 other agents. They included: (among others) smallpox, EEE and WEE, AHF, Hantavirus, BHF, Lassa fever, glanders,[29] melioidosis,[29] plague, yellow fever, psittacosis, typhus, dengue fever, Rift Valley fever (RVF), CHIKV, late blight of potato, rinderpest, Newcastle disease, bird flu, and the toxin ricin.[30]
Aids, a Biological Weapon for Population Control?
Click on title above to meet the man that created aids
Monday, February 8, 2010
BOTULISM, UNEVISCERATED FISH - USA: ex NORWAY, RISK, RECALL
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Fri 5 Feb 2010
Source: FDA [edited]
Haifa Smoked Fish, located in Queens, New York, is recalling Haifa
brand vacuum packaged Whole Schmaltz Herring with the lot number 20,
because the product was found to be uneviscerated.
The lot being recalled is a product of Norway, individually
vacuum-packed in clear plastic pouches with lot #20 indicated on the
label and distributed through various food retailers in the NY and NJ area.
The Whole Schmaltz Herring was sampled by a New York State
Agriculture and Markets Food Inspector during a routine inspection.
Subsequent analysis of the product by New York State Food Laboratory
personnel confirmed that Whole Schmaltz Herring was not properly
eviscerated prior to processing.
The sale of uneviscerated fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because _Clostridium botulinum_
spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any
other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish has been linked to
outbreaks of botulism poisoning.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look
or smell spoiled and should return it to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-523-8899.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Brent Barrett
[Because of the potential severity of botulism, ProMED-mail posts
such recalls even if, as in this case, there are no human cases
associated with the food products. Most of the food recalls (as in
these cases) are related to defective preparation procedures, which
could, but not necessarily do, result in the germination of viable
spores of _C. botulinum_. - Mod.LL]
[see also:
2009
----
Botulism, baby food, uneviscerated fish - USA: risk, recall 20091020.3599
Botulism, home canned green beans - USA: (WA) 20090310.0990
Botulism, uneviscerated fish - USA (02): risk, recall 20090228.0827
Botulism, uneviscerated fish - USA: (NY, NJ) risk, recall 20090120.0247
Botulism, dessert sauces - USA: risk, recall 20090126.0343
2008
----
Botulism, human, home canned green beans - USA: (OH) 20080919.2947
Botulism, native foods - USA: (AK) 2007 20080811.2472
Botulism, tea concentrate - USA: (MT, AZ) risk, recall 20080618.1903
Botulism, pesto - USA: risk, recall 20080429.1474
Botulism, canned bean salad - USA: risk, recall 20080229.0821
Botulism, olive oil dip - USA: risk, recall 20080204.0448
Botulism, fish - USA: (NY, NJ, MD), risk, recall 20080124.0299
Botulism, canned beans - USA (03): risk, bean salad recall 20080122.0264
Botulism, canned beans - USA: risk, expanded recall 20080109.0117
Botulism, canned soup - USA: (PA) recall, RFI 20080103.0030
Botulism, foie gras - France: risk, recall 20080102.0016
Botulism, canned food: aerosol risk 20080101.0008]
..................................ll/msp/mpp
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at.
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
################################################
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Fri 5 Feb 2010
Source: FDA [edited]
Haifa Smoked Fish, located in Queens, New York, is recalling Haifa
brand vacuum packaged Whole Schmaltz Herring with the lot number 20,
because the product was found to be uneviscerated.
The lot being recalled is a product of Norway, individually
vacuum-packed in clear plastic pouches with lot #20 indicated on the
label and distributed through various food retailers in the NY and NJ area.
The Whole Schmaltz Herring was sampled by a New York State
Agriculture and Markets Food Inspector during a routine inspection.
Subsequent analysis of the product by New York State Food Laboratory
personnel confirmed that Whole Schmaltz Herring was not properly
eviscerated prior to processing.
The sale of uneviscerated fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because _Clostridium botulinum_
spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any
other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish has been linked to
outbreaks of botulism poisoning.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look
or smell spoiled and should return it to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-523-8899.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Brent Barrett
[Because of the potential severity of botulism, ProMED-mail posts
such recalls even if, as in this case, there are no human cases
associated with the food products. Most of the food recalls (as in
these cases) are related to defective preparation procedures, which
could, but not necessarily do, result in the germination of viable
spores of _C. botulinum_. - Mod.LL]
[see also:
2009
----
Botulism, baby food, uneviscerated fish - USA: risk, recall 20091020.3599
Botulism, home canned green beans - USA: (WA) 20090310.0990
Botulism, uneviscerated fish - USA (02): risk, recall 20090228.0827
Botulism, uneviscerated fish - USA: (NY, NJ) risk, recall 20090120.0247
Botulism, dessert sauces - USA: risk, recall 20090126.0343
2008
----
Botulism, human, home canned green beans - USA: (OH) 20080919.2947
Botulism, native foods - USA: (AK) 2007 20080811.2472
Botulism, tea concentrate - USA: (MT, AZ) risk, recall 20080618.1903
Botulism, pesto - USA: risk, recall 20080429.1474
Botulism, canned bean salad - USA: risk, recall 20080229.0821
Botulism, olive oil dip - USA: risk, recall 20080204.0448
Botulism, fish - USA: (NY, NJ, MD), risk, recall 20080124.0299
Botulism, canned beans - USA (03): risk, bean salad recall 20080122.0264
Botulism, canned beans - USA: risk, expanded recall 20080109.0117
Botulism, canned soup - USA: (PA) recall, RFI 20080103.0030
Botulism, foie gras - France: risk, recall 20080102.0016
Botulism, canned food: aerosol risk 20080101.0008]
..................................ll/msp/mpp
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
################################################
Saturday, February 6, 2010
PARECHOVIRUS, INFANT DEATHS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (WISCONSIN) BACKGROUND
******************************************************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Mon 1 Feb 2010
Source: Clin. Infect. Dis., 50 357-61 [edited]
Infant deaths associated with human parechovirus infection in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
---------
From December 1987 through August 2004, lung tissue, nasopharyngeal
swabs, and colon swab specimens obtained during 1263 autopsies of
infants and young children were examined to assess the role of viruses
in deaths of children aged less than 2 years.
Multiple cell cultures were used to isolate viruses. With 4
exceptions, virus isolates were identified by neutralization,
immunofluorescence assay, or enzyme immunoassay. RNA extracted from
these 4 isolates and associated autopsy specimens was tested using
parechovirus-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and
sequencing assays.
Specimens from 426 (34 percent) autopsies were positive for at least 1
virus; enteroviruses and adenoviruses were the most commonly
identified. Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) were identified antigenically
in isolates from 18 decedents (all HPeV type1) and by RT-PCR in
isolates and multiple autopsy specimens from 4 decedents with
untypeable virus isolates. Sequencing of the VP1 region identified
these 4 HPeVs as HPeV type 3 and HPeV type 6. Despite the detection of
HPeV the deaths of decedents 3 and 4 were determined to have been from
noninfectious causes.
These are the 1st confirmed HPeV type 3 and HPeV type 6 detections in
the United States. This is also the initial report of fatal cases with
associated HPeV type 3 infection. These results support prior findings
associating HPeVs with serious disease in young children. Clinical
testing for HPeVs and routine HPeV surveillance by public health
laboratories will help determine the burden of disease caused by HPeVs.
[Byline: Gerald Sedmak,1; W. Allan Nix,4; Jeffrey Jentzen,2; Thomas E.
Haupt,3; Jeffrey P. Davis,3; Sanjib Bhattacharyya,1; Mark A.
Pallansch,4; M. Steven Oberste,4
At: 1Virology and Molecular Science Laboratory, City of Milwaukee
Health Department, 2Milwaukee County Medical ExaminerÂ’s Office,
Milwaukee, 3Bureau of Communicable Diseases, Wisconsin Division of
Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin; 4Division of Viral Diseases,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia]
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[These retrospective data relating to infant deaths in Wisconsin are
posted to increase awareness of the potential importance of
parechoviruses in human pediatric disease.
Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) are members of the large and growing
family of _Picornaviridae_. Although originally described as echovirus
22 and 23 within the human enteroviruses group because of their
clinical and morphological properties, they have since been shown to
be distinct from this and other picornavirus groups in several
features of their genome organisation, structure and replication.
Human parechoviruses show genetic and antigenic heterogeneity and a
number of distinct HPeV types are known to circulate widely in human
populations throughout the world.
Although the majority of HPeV infections occur early in life without
specific symptoms, disease manifestations associated with many of the
currently described types have been described, ranging from
gastroenteritis and respiratory infections to neurological disease,
particularly in neonates. Although HPeV diagnosis has historically
been made by virus isolation, a new generation of sensitive and
specific molecular tests for HPeV RNA promises to greatly improve the
effectiveness of HPeV detection and type identification, as well as
providing a greater understanding its molecular epidemiology. (For a
detailed account see the review 'Human parechoviruses: biology,
epidemiology and clinical significance,' by H. Harvala and P. Simonds,
Journal of Clinical Virology, 45(1):1-9, 2009
subscription required.
The state of Wisconsin can be located using the HealthMap/ProMED-mail
interactive map of the United States at
. - Mod.CP]
................lm/cp/ejp/JW
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at.
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
##########################################
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Mon 1 Feb 2010
Source: Clin. Infect. Dis., 50 357-61 [edited]
Infant deaths associated with human parechovirus infection in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
---------
From December 1987 through August 2004, lung tissue, nasopharyngeal
swabs, and colon swab specimens obtained during 1263 autopsies of
infants and young children were examined to assess the role of viruses
in deaths of children aged less than 2 years.
Multiple cell cultures were used to isolate viruses. With 4
exceptions, virus isolates were identified by neutralization,
immunofluorescence assay, or enzyme immunoassay. RNA extracted from
these 4 isolates and associated autopsy specimens was tested using
parechovirus-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and
sequencing assays.
Specimens from 426 (34 percent) autopsies were positive for at least 1
virus; enteroviruses and adenoviruses were the most commonly
identified. Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) were identified antigenically
in isolates from 18 decedents (all HPeV type1) and by RT-PCR in
isolates and multiple autopsy specimens from 4 decedents with
untypeable virus isolates. Sequencing of the VP1 region identified
these 4 HPeVs as HPeV type 3 and HPeV type 6. Despite the detection of
HPeV the deaths of decedents 3 and 4 were determined to have been from
noninfectious causes.
These are the 1st confirmed HPeV type 3 and HPeV type 6 detections in
the United States. This is also the initial report of fatal cases with
associated HPeV type 3 infection. These results support prior findings
associating HPeVs with serious disease in young children. Clinical
testing for HPeVs and routine HPeV surveillance by public health
laboratories will help determine the burden of disease caused by HPeVs.
[Byline: Gerald Sedmak,1; W. Allan Nix,4; Jeffrey Jentzen,2; Thomas E.
Haupt,3; Jeffrey P. Davis,3; Sanjib Bhattacharyya,1; Mark A.
Pallansch,4; M. Steven Oberste,4
At: 1Virology and Molecular Science Laboratory, City of Milwaukee
Health Department, 2Milwaukee County Medical ExaminerÂ’s Office,
Milwaukee, 3Bureau of Communicable Diseases, Wisconsin Division of
Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin; 4Division of Viral Diseases,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia]
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[These retrospective data relating to infant deaths in Wisconsin are
posted to increase awareness of the potential importance of
parechoviruses in human pediatric disease.
Human parechoviruses (HPeVs) are members of the large and growing
family of _Picornaviridae_. Although originally described as echovirus
22 and 23 within the human enteroviruses group because of their
clinical and morphological properties, they have since been shown to
be distinct from this and other picornavirus groups in several
features of their genome organisation, structure and replication.
Human parechoviruses show genetic and antigenic heterogeneity and a
number of distinct HPeV types are known to circulate widely in human
populations throughout the world.
Although the majority of HPeV infections occur early in life without
specific symptoms, disease manifestations associated with many of the
currently described types have been described, ranging from
gastroenteritis and respiratory infections to neurological disease,
particularly in neonates. Although HPeV diagnosis has historically
been made by virus isolation, a new generation of sensitive and
specific molecular tests for HPeV RNA promises to greatly improve the
effectiveness of HPeV detection and type identification, as well as
providing a greater understanding its molecular epidemiology. (For a
detailed account see the review 'Human parechoviruses: biology,
epidemiology and clinical significance,' by H. Harvala and P. Simonds,
Journal of Clinical Virology, 45(1):1-9, 2009
subscription required.
The state of Wisconsin can be located using the HealthMap/ProMED-mail
interactive map of the United States at
................lm/cp/ejp/JW
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
##########################################
Friday, February 5, 2010
Dangerous Fibromyalgia Drug Should Be Pulled From the Market
Public Citizen Petition to FDA: Medication Has Limited Efficacy, Risky Effects
My Mother was on this drug for years before she died of a sudden stroke.
-----------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The fibromyalgia drug Savella should immediately be taken off the market because its dangers outweigh its benefits, Public Citizen said today in a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The European regulatory authority, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), rejected the drug’s approval for fibromyalgia in July 2009, stating that its benefits were “marginal” and “did not outweigh its risks.” This was shortly after the FDA approved the drug in January 2009. Since the drug went on the market in the U.S., approximately 250,000 prescriptions have been filled, with doctors writing more prescriptions every month.
In two randomized clinical trials, Savella, also known by its generic name milnacipran, was found to increase blood pressure, heart rate and suicidal thoughts, Public Citizen’s petition said. Among patients who had normal blood pressure at the beginning of the study, 19.5 percent of those who took Savella developed hypertension, compared to 7.2 percent of those on a placebo.
“Because Savella is a drug that produces only a marginal effect on pain, the main problem for which patients seek treatment, and has the potential to be quite dangerous, it is clear that it should not be sold,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “The FDA never should have approved Savella for fibromyalgia and should now immediately order the drug company to remove it from the market before large numbers of people suffer serious harm,” Wolfe said.
Based on the extent of increased blood pressure caused by Savella, the FDA medical officer who reviewed the drug estimated that persistent blood pressure hikes could increase the risk of a cardiovascular event (including death, myocardial infarction and stroke) by up to 50 percent.
Savella also puts patients at risk for other disorders, including seizures, addiction, excessive bleeding, mood disorders, fractures, glaucoma and gastrointestinal effects such as nausea and vomiting. In pregnant women, the drug also can lead to hazards for fetuses, newborns and nursing infants. Additional risks for men include testicular pain and problems with ejaculation.
The director of the FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Rheumatology Products stated that although the dominant symptom of fibromyalgia is pain, the drug did not relieve patients’ pain in the clinical trials.
Fibromyalgia is a chronic disease, but neither of the drug’s trials showed any statistical effectiveness beyond three months. And even within the trials’ three-month duration, more than 90 percent of users in the trial received no benefit from the drug at all.
Although not marketed as an antidepressant in the U.S., Savella is sold in Europe and Japan as such. The drug is required in the U.S. to have the “black box” warning for antidepressants, which points out an increased risk of suicide in children, adolescents and young adults. Manufactured by Cypress Bioscience Inc. and Forest Laboratories Inc., Savella has been sold in the U.S. since May 2009.
Click on title above for petition.
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit public interest organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click on to the title above;
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3029
My Mother was on this drug for years before she died of a sudden stroke.
-----------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The fibromyalgia drug Savella should immediately be taken off the market because its dangers outweigh its benefits, Public Citizen said today in a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The European regulatory authority, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), rejected the drug’s approval for fibromyalgia in July 2009, stating that its benefits were “marginal” and “did not outweigh its risks.” This was shortly after the FDA approved the drug in January 2009. Since the drug went on the market in the U.S., approximately 250,000 prescriptions have been filled, with doctors writing more prescriptions every month.
In two randomized clinical trials, Savella, also known by its generic name milnacipran, was found to increase blood pressure, heart rate and suicidal thoughts, Public Citizen’s petition said. Among patients who had normal blood pressure at the beginning of the study, 19.5 percent of those who took Savella developed hypertension, compared to 7.2 percent of those on a placebo.
“Because Savella is a drug that produces only a marginal effect on pain, the main problem for which patients seek treatment, and has the potential to be quite dangerous, it is clear that it should not be sold,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “The FDA never should have approved Savella for fibromyalgia and should now immediately order the drug company to remove it from the market before large numbers of people suffer serious harm,” Wolfe said.
Based on the extent of increased blood pressure caused by Savella, the FDA medical officer who reviewed the drug estimated that persistent blood pressure hikes could increase the risk of a cardiovascular event (including death, myocardial infarction and stroke) by up to 50 percent.
Savella also puts patients at risk for other disorders, including seizures, addiction, excessive bleeding, mood disorders, fractures, glaucoma and gastrointestinal effects such as nausea and vomiting. In pregnant women, the drug also can lead to hazards for fetuses, newborns and nursing infants. Additional risks for men include testicular pain and problems with ejaculation.
The director of the FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Rheumatology Products stated that although the dominant symptom of fibromyalgia is pain, the drug did not relieve patients’ pain in the clinical trials.
Fibromyalgia is a chronic disease, but neither of the drug’s trials showed any statistical effectiveness beyond three months. And even within the trials’ three-month duration, more than 90 percent of users in the trial received no benefit from the drug at all.
Although not marketed as an antidepressant in the U.S., Savella is sold in Europe and Japan as such. The drug is required in the U.S. to have the “black box” warning for antidepressants, which points out an increased risk of suicide in children, adolescents and young adults. Manufactured by Cypress Bioscience Inc. and Forest Laboratories Inc., Savella has been sold in the U.S. since May 2009.
Click on title above for petition.
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit public interest organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click on to the title above;
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3029
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pigs Possible Hendra Vectors, New Report Warns
HENDRA VIRUS, SWINE VECTOR POTENTIAL
************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Tue 2 Feb 2009
Source: Horsetalk [edited]
Pigs identified as possible vector for Hendra virus
---------------------------------------------------
Pigs are susceptible to the deadly Hendra virus and could potentially
transmit it to humans, Canadian researchers have discovered.
The virus occurs only in Australia and is carried by native fruit
bats. However, horses can catch the virus, most probably from
ingesting secretions from infected bats.
There have been 7 cases where the virus has been transferred from
horses to people, 4 of which proved fatal.
The 2 most recent fatalities involved equine veterinarians.
The research in Canada has shown that pigs are susceptible to the
virus. Two Landrace pigs, commonly used in the pork industry, and 5
Gottingen minipigs were inoculated with the virus, as well as half a
dozen guinea pigs, 2 of which died.
All test animals developed fever and depression. One of the 2 Landrace
pigs developed respiratory signs after 5 days and 1 of the Gottingen
minipigs developed not only respiratory signs but also mild
neurological signs. Virus was detected in all infected pigs at 2-5 days.
Clinical signs in the 2 infected Landrace pigs were more severe
compared to those observed in minipigs, the authors said. The Landrace
pigs were very sick at 5 days, with 1 developing severe depression,
respiratory distress, and possible neurological signs, requiring
euthanasia.
"Since infected pigs may shed virus through oral, nasal, and rectal
excretions, possible transmission through close contact with these
excretions may occur," the authors said. "This new finding indicates
that pigs are susceptible to Hendra virus infections and could
potentially play a role as an intermediate host in transmission to
humans."
The authors noted that a serological survey of 100 swine herds in
Queensland had found no antibodies against Hendra virus among 500
samples. "Lack of evidence for Hendra infection in domestic swine
stresses the importance of heightened on-farm biosecurity," they said.
"However, our findings may reinforce the concern about Hendra virus
infecting feral pigs if they are forced to share the same habitat as
fruit bats. This concern is based on the fact that Australia has over
23 million feral pigs living in Queensland, New South Wales, and the
Northern Territory, according to reports by Animal Control
Technologies."
The virus was first identified in 1994 as the cause of respiratory
illnesses in 13 horses and 2 people in the Brisbane suburb of Hendra.
The 1st fatality was a horse trainer.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[These pigs were injected with the virus, but the real question is
whether they are susceptible by inhalation or ingestion of the virus?
It is possible to transmit many diseases through direct inoculation
that may not transfer in the real world.
This novel work shows pigs are clearly susceptible, but their role in
transmission of the disease has not been proven by this work, only
theorized. If the work is repeated hopefully the diligent researchers
will take the next step and place non-infected pigs into the same
locality and see if there is natural transmission. - Mod.TG]
[The reference for the study mentioned above is
Li M, Embury-Hyatt C, Weingartl HM: Experimental inoculation study
indicates swine as a potential host for Hendra virus, Vet. Res. (2010)
41: 33; available at
. -
Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]
[see also:
2009
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (05): (QL) 20090910.3189
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (04): (QL) fatal 20090903.3098
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (03): (QL) 20090830.3052
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (02): (QL) 20090826.2998
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia: (QL) 20090821.2963
Hendra virus, equine - Australia (02): (QL), RFI 20090820.2943
Hendra virus, equine - Australia: (QL) 20090811.2862
2008
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (07): (QLD) 20080821.2606
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (06): (QLD) 20080820.2592
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (05): (QLD) 20080816.2548
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (04): (QLD) 20080725.2260
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (03): (QLD) 20080720.2201
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (02): (QLD, NSW) 20080717.2168
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia: (QLD) 20080715.2146
Hendra virus, equine - Australia: (Brisbane) 20080708.2076
2007
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (04): 2nd corr. 20070903.2903
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (04): 2nd corr. 20070903.2902
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (03): corr. 20070903.2897
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (03): corr. 20070903.2896
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (02): not 20070831.2871
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD): RFI 20070830.2851]
........................................tg/mj/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at.
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
####################################
************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
Date: Tue 2 Feb 2009
Source: Horsetalk [edited]
Pigs identified as possible vector for Hendra virus
---------------------------------------------------
Pigs are susceptible to the deadly Hendra virus and could potentially
transmit it to humans, Canadian researchers have discovered.
The virus occurs only in Australia and is carried by native fruit
bats. However, horses can catch the virus, most probably from
ingesting secretions from infected bats.
There have been 7 cases where the virus has been transferred from
horses to people, 4 of which proved fatal.
The 2 most recent fatalities involved equine veterinarians.
The research in Canada has shown that pigs are susceptible to the
virus. Two Landrace pigs, commonly used in the pork industry, and 5
Gottingen minipigs were inoculated with the virus, as well as half a
dozen guinea pigs, 2 of which died.
All test animals developed fever and depression. One of the 2 Landrace
pigs developed respiratory signs after 5 days and 1 of the Gottingen
minipigs developed not only respiratory signs but also mild
neurological signs. Virus was detected in all infected pigs at 2-5 days.
Clinical signs in the 2 infected Landrace pigs were more severe
compared to those observed in minipigs, the authors said. The Landrace
pigs were very sick at 5 days, with 1 developing severe depression,
respiratory distress, and possible neurological signs, requiring
euthanasia.
"Since infected pigs may shed virus through oral, nasal, and rectal
excretions, possible transmission through close contact with these
excretions may occur," the authors said. "This new finding indicates
that pigs are susceptible to Hendra virus infections and could
potentially play a role as an intermediate host in transmission to
humans."
The authors noted that a serological survey of 100 swine herds in
Queensland had found no antibodies against Hendra virus among 500
samples. "Lack of evidence for Hendra infection in domestic swine
stresses the importance of heightened on-farm biosecurity," they said.
"However, our findings may reinforce the concern about Hendra virus
infecting feral pigs if they are forced to share the same habitat as
fruit bats. This concern is based on the fact that Australia has over
23 million feral pigs living in Queensland, New South Wales, and the
Northern Territory, according to reports by Animal Control
Technologies."
The virus was first identified in 1994 as the cause of respiratory
illnesses in 13 horses and 2 people in the Brisbane suburb of Hendra.
The 1st fatality was a horse trainer.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[These pigs were injected with the virus, but the real question is
whether they are susceptible by inhalation or ingestion of the virus?
It is possible to transmit many diseases through direct inoculation
that may not transfer in the real world.
This novel work shows pigs are clearly susceptible, but their role in
transmission of the disease has not been proven by this work, only
theorized. If the work is repeated hopefully the diligent researchers
will take the next step and place non-infected pigs into the same
locality and see if there is natural transmission. - Mod.TG]
[The reference for the study mentioned above is
Li M, Embury-Hyatt C, Weingartl HM: Experimental inoculation study
indicates swine as a potential host for Hendra virus, Vet. Res. (2010)
41: 33; available at
Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]
[see also:
2009
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (05): (QL) 20090910.3189
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (04): (QL) fatal 20090903.3098
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (03): (QL) 20090830.3052
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (02): (QL) 20090826.2998
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia: (QL) 20090821.2963
Hendra virus, equine - Australia (02): (QL), RFI 20090820.2943
Hendra virus, equine - Australia: (QL) 20090811.2862
2008
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (07): (QLD) 20080821.2606
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (06): (QLD) 20080820.2592
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (05): (QLD) 20080816.2548
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (04): (QLD) 20080725.2260
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (03): (QLD) 20080720.2201
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (02): (QLD, NSW) 20080717.2168
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia: (QLD) 20080715.2146
Hendra virus, equine - Australia: (Brisbane) 20080708.2076
2007
----
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (04): 2nd corr. 20070903.2903
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (04): 2nd corr. 20070903.2902
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (03): corr. 20070903.2897
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (03): corr. 20070903.2896
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD) (02): not 20070831.2871
Hendra virus, human, equine - Australia (QLD): RFI 20070830.2851]
........................................tg/mj/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
####################################
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
