Publication discusses drug residues in food animal products and food safety concerning drug residues

Bagley, Clell V., DVM

English

DigitalCommons@USU

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Archived Food and Health Publications Archived USU Extension Publications 10-1991 Drug Residues and Food Safety Clell V. Bagley DVM Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/extension_histfood  Part of the Food Science Commons, and the Nutrition Commons Warning: The information in this series may be obsolete. It is presented here for historical purposes only. For the most up to date information please visit The Utah State University Cooperative Extension Office Recommended Citation Bagley, Clell V. DVM, "Drug Residues and Food Safety" (1991). Archived Food and Health Publications. Paper 27. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/extension_histfood/27 This Factsheet is brought to you for free and open access by the Archived USU Extension Publications at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Archived Food and Health Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu. EL 250.1FOOD SAFETYFACTSUEETFOOD SAFETY SERIESCieRI V. Bagley. DVM. JExtension VeterinarianDRUG RESIDUES AND FOOD SAFETYComplaints and de-mands from consumersconcerning a product usu-ally occur after an incidentinvolving injury, illness ordeath. However, this wasnot the case with the Alarscare with apples and it isnot the case with the con-cern for drug residues infood animal products.There has been no increasein drug residues; in fact therate of violation has steadilydecreased. Neither hasthere been any outbreaksof illness, allergic reactions,or deaths related to resi-dues, nor has there been adecrease in the quality offood animal products.There has been increasedconcern among consumersabout antibiotic and otherdrug or chemical residues.There has also been in-creased emphasis from theregulatory agencies tomonitor and prevent resi-dues.These changes havecome about because of anincrease in the sensitivity ofthe tests available and theresultant enforcementactions and penalties forviolations by regulatoryagencies. They are not dueto any associated humanhealth problems. There arefew, if any, documentedcases of illness, injury ordeath resulting from drugresidues in food animalproducts. One sourceclaims there has "been noevidence of a single serioushealth effect from residuesin meat or poultry in thelast 20 years." There havebeen foodborne illnessoutbreaks but these haveresulted from microbiologi-cal agents (bacteria, etc.),not from residues of antibi-otics or other drugs. But inthe marketplace, percep-tion has greater influencethan fact. And the currentperception is that if a drugresidue can be detected,regardless of what the drugis and even if present inonly parts per billion (dropsin a swimming pool), it maysomehow pose a potentialrisk to someone, some-place, sometime.The potential problemsassociated with antibioticresidues may be classed intwo broad categories. First.aesthetics; consumers (allof us) don't like the idea offoreign substances beingpresent in food. The sec-ond problem is that ofpotential health risks. Asindicated above, these haveseldom if ever been identi-fied, but some claim theyare present and are justunrecognized. These po-tential health problemsinclude allergic reactions,cjirect toxic effects, and aIssued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Depart~ment of Agriculture. R. Paul Larsen, Vice President and Director, Extension Service, Utah State University, (10-91)The Utah Cooperative Extension Service, an equal opportunity employer, provides programs and services to all personsregardless of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion, or handicap.Production agriculturehas recognized that it cando a better job in prevent-ing residues. The mistakesdetected in the future willbe so costly they will putsome producers out ofbusiness because of oneminor error. Contaminatedmilk from one cow couldresult in residue detectionand cause the condemna-tion of mixed milk from1,000 to 60,000 othercows. The regulationscould force a producer topay for that contaminated,discarded milk. Few pro-ducers could afford it andthey would be forced out ofbusiness.portant to recognize thatproduction agricUlture isdoing this in response toincreased sensitivity oftesting, not because therehave been human healthproblems. Wouldn't it begreat if other areas of poli-tics, government, industry,finance and society wouldrespond so quickly andpositively to their potentialproblems?are the tissues tested forresidues but the content inred meat is less by manytimes. There is also a greatdilution factor, either fromthe mixing of milk from onecow with that of manyothers, or in the eating ofmeat products. We do noteat the whole cow at onceand most people wouldseldom get more than oneor two servings from thesame animal. There is alsoa reducing effect on manydrugs from the processingof the product (washing,freezing, cooking). All ofthese factors combine toresult in a risk factor that isinfinitesimally small for anyproblems of human illhealth due to drug residuesfrom food animals.Each of the food animalindustries have respondedto consumer and regulatoryconcerns by establishingquality assurance programsto help their producersinsure improved quality offood products. It is impera-tive that food animal pro-ducers utilize these pro-grams to improve theircontrol on the use of antibi-otics and drugs. This willhelp prevent any erosion ofconfidence in the milk andmeat they produce andmarket. But it is also im-m1888change in the resistancepatterns of bacteria ex-posed to antibiotics. Thereis still debate in the scien-tific community aboutwhether these hazards arereal or just theoreticaL so itis not surprising that con-sumers are confused aboutthis issue.There are a number ofsafeguards to reduce therisk of problems, both inthe animals and in the foodprocessing system. Evenwith increased surveillance,the rate of detection ofresidues is small and theactual rate of violation ofthe permissible levels isvery low. Extensive testinghas proven the safety andefficacy of approved prod-ucts. The drug is metabo-lized in the animal's bodyand broken down or ex-creted, within the directedwithdrawal time. Organs,such as the kidney andliver, remove residual drugand greatly reduce thecontent present in the redmeat or milk. These organs

Drug Residues and Food Safety

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&amp;context=extension_histfood

Drug Residues and Food Safety

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU