What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health

OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases. DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents “from farm to fork.” CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary and human health surveillance systems and increased collaboration among feed professionals, animal producers, and veterinary and public health officials is necessary to effectively address these issues

Automated postural responses are modified in a functional manner by instruction.

Contains fulltext : 70025.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)The restoration of upright balance after a perturbation relies on highly automated and, to a large extent, stereotyped postural responses. Although these responses occur before voluntary control comes into play, previous research has shown that they can be functionally modulated on the basis of cognitive set (experience, advanced warning, instruction, etc.). It is still unknown, however, how the central nervous system deals with situations in which the postural response is not necessarily helpful in the execution of a task. In the present study, the effects of instruction on automated postural responses in neck, trunk, shoulder, and leg muscles were investigated when people were either instructed to recover balance after being released from an inclined standing posture [balance recovery (BR) trials], or not to recover at all and fall onto a safety mattress in the most comfortable way [fall (F) trials], in both backward and leftward directions. Participants were highly successful in following the instructions, consistently exhibiting stepping responses for balance recovery in BR trials, and suppressing stepping in the F trials. Yet EMG recordings revealed similar postural responses with onset latencies between 70 and 130 ms in both BR and F trials, with slightly delayed responses in F trials. In contrast, very pronounced and early differences were observed between BR and F trials in response amplitudes, which were generally much higher in BR than in F trials, but with clear differentiation between muscles and perturbation directions. These results indicate that a balance perturbation always elicits a postural response, irrespective of the task demands. However, when a specific balance recovery response is not desired after a perturbation, postural responses can be selectively downregulated and integrated into the motor output in a functional and goal-oriented way