At the annual meeting of the Manitoba Vegetable Growers, directors complained about lack of co-operation from the provincial government in setting up compulsory inspection stations in Winnipeg. Past president W.E. Kroeker also asked why the province did not support a marketing board, and reportedly said that “growers could not understand why a board should be so repulsive to the government when similar boards were accepted not only in Manitoba but other parts of Canada.” He also criticized the government for not enforcing laws controlling the collection of municipal taxes from market gardeners.

At the annual meeting of the Canadian Meat Council, it was reported that there was record Canadian meat production of almost two billion pounds in 1956. The meeting also heard that no less than 400 chemical food preservatives were under consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, because of the “gross inadequacy of refrigeration facilities presently available.”

A report from the Brandon Experimental Farm said that it had been found that mixtures of grasses and alfalfa were preferable to grasses alone, with 1956 yields of 0.7 ton of dry matter for grasses alone and 3.5 tons for a grass-alfalfa mix.

The post The “one and only disker” for what the farmer wants! appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Lately, you might have heard or read about a recall of cucumbers imported from Mexico that reached various U.S. restaurants and retail stores. At the time of this column, 341 people in 30 states were sickened and two deaths were linked to cucumbers contaminated with salmonella poona.

This strain of bacteria can cause vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and fever, and the symptoms may appear within three days of eating the food. It is especially hazardous to young children, older adults and people with a compromised immune system.

This recall does not mean that all cucumbers could make you ill, but you should not consume the recalled food.

For nutrition educators who promote eating more fruits and vegetables, foodborne illness outbreaks linked to fresh produce can make our jobs a little tricky.

Depending on what is going on in the news, people might give you a leery look when you suggest they have a spinach salad or add some sliced cucumbers or peppers to their sandwich.

Adults, on average, need about 4.5 cups of fruits and vegetables to meet the daily recommendation. Fruits and vegetables provide vitamins A and C, along with fibre and antioxidants linked to health benefits. Eating more fruits and vegetables may reduce your risk of getting chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease.

However, we need to handle fruits and vegetables safely so we get the benefits without the flu-like or worse symptoms.

How do “germs” get on the vegetables or fruits, anyway? Harmful bacteria can be in the soil or in the water used to water the produce. Bacteria and other organisms can hitch a ride on equipment such as knives, on produce-handlers’ hands or the packing containers used to ship the vegetables. Investigating the source of the problem sometimes is very complicated.

No matter what growers and food processors do, consumers also have a major responsibility in keeping food safe for themselves, their families and friends.

Even if the growers and processors do all the right steps, contamination can happen in your grocery cart, in your car or in your refrigerator.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has provided several tips for keeping fruits and vegetables safe, which I have arranged into questions for you to ask yourself. If you answer “yes” to these questions, you are taking steps to keep fruits and vegetables safe.

• Do you purchase produce that is not bruised or damaged? Fresh produce does not have to be “picture perfect” in size or colour, but remember that bacteria and other organisms often thrive in the bruised areas.
• When you purchase precut produce, do you choose items that are in the refrigerator section? If the cut produce is not in the refrigerator section, do you choose precut produce in containers surrounded by ice?
• At the grocery store, do you separate fresh produce from fresh meat, seafood or poultry? Juices from meat can contaminate your produce.
• At home, is your refrigerator set to maintain your food at 40° or below? If you do not have a thermometer in your refrigerator, you might want to purchase a portable one.
• At home, do you keep precut produce in the refrigerator? Precut produce is perishable. Whole fruit, such as apples, are safe in a bowl on your counter.
• Do you always wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before beginning food preparation? Handwashing plays a valuable role in keeping you healthy, too.
• When preparing food, do you take steps to avoid cross-contamination? Be sure that you wash cutting boards and knives thoroughly. Even better, have a dedicated cutting board for cutting produce. Many restaurants use yellow cutting boards for chicken, red for meat, green for produce, etc.
• Do you scrub and rinse firm produce such as cantaloupe and cucumbers with a clean produce brush?
• Do you eat prewashed salad greens right out of the bag? If you answered “yes,” that’s OK. If the package says the lettuce or other food is “ready to eat,” you do not need to rewash it. If you prefer to rewash, remember to avoid cross-contamination. In fact, have a good-size portion of salad because dark-green, leafy vegetables are healthful foods.

Here’s a pair of recipes where you could incorporate some fresh produce.

Asian-style Cobb Salad

• 5 c. chopped romaine lettuce (or your favourite lettuce)
• 1 (11-oz.) can mandarin oranges in light syrup, drained
• 1/3 c. cooked chicken, shredded
• 1/3 c. grated carrots
• 1 avocado, halved, seeded, peeled and diced
• 2 hard-cooked eggs, diced
• 1/4 c. green onions, sliced

Sesame Vinaigrette

• 1/4 c. plus 2 tbsp. rice wine vinegar
• 1 clove garlic
• 1 tbsp. sesame oil
• 1 tbsp. sugar
• 1 tsp. ground ginger
• 1 tsp. soy sauce

Cook chicken or use leftover grilled or roasted chicken. To cook eggs, place in a small saucepan with cold water. Heat water just until boiling. Remove from heat and cover; let stand for 12 minutes. Drain water and eggs into a colander.

Rinse eggs with cold water to stop cooking. Prepare Sesame Vinaigrette by whisking together all ingredients in a small bowl; set aside. Assemble salad by placing greens in a large bowl; top with mandarin oranges, chicken, carrots, avocado, eggs and green onion. Serve immediately with Sesame Vinaigrette.

Makes four servings. Each serving has 250 calories, 14 grams (g) fat, 8 g protein, 26 g carbohydrate, 5 g fibre and 160 milligrams sodium.

B.L.A.T. Wrap with Bacon Mayo

Bacon Month is over but never our love of bacon. On Manitoba Pork’s website you can find cooking segments starring bacon, more bacon recipes, bacon facts and cartoons and even a 15-second video that, well, even Manitoba’s Golden Boy is better with bacon.

• 4 large flour tortillas
• 8 green lettuce leaves
• 2-3 large Roma tomatoes, sliced
• 1 avocado, peeled, seeded and sliced
• 12 slices bacon, cooked crisp and drained

Bacon Mayo

• 3 slices thick or extra-thick-cut bacon
• 1/2 c. mayonnaise
• 2 tbsp. sour cream
• 1 tbsp. thinly sliced green onion
• Salt and freshly ground black pepper

For the Wrap:

Spread tortillas with a dollop or two of bacon mayo (recipe below). Top each with 2 lettuce leaves, a few tomato and avocado slices, and 3 strips of bacon. Fold or roll up tortillas as desired. Arrange on a plate or platter and serve.

For the Bacon Mayo:

In skillet, over medium heat, fry bacon until crispy. With slotted spoon, transfer bacon to paper towel to drain fat. Dice bacon; set aside. In small bowl, whisk together mayonnaise and sour cream. Add bacon and green onion. Stir to combine. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Cover. Refrigerate until ready to use. Bacon Mayo may be made up to one day ahead. Use as a condiment on sandwiches, wraps and burgers.

Makes 3/4 cup. Serves 4. Recipe courtesy of Manitoba Pork

The post Are you taking steps to ensure safe fruits and vegetables are in your kitchen? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Late on April 17, the Department of Health issued a press release saying it would propose regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to end growth-promoting claims and bulk imports. It didn’t provide any details on the contents of the regulations.

“There’s a lot of detail in it that needs to be fleshed out,” Jim Fairles, past president of the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association, said in an interview after participating in a recent workshop with Health Minister Rona Ambrose and her officials on the plan. “Along with the farm commodity groups, we discussed the steps we’ve already taken and what more we need to do. We’ll need a lot more discussion on human and livestock medicines.”

Back in 2008, the veterinary association and the Canadian Animal Health Institute (CAHI), which represents drug manufacturers, launched a prudent use campaign to teach farmers about the appropriate use of antibiotics to control sickness in their animals without jeopardizing their effectiveness in treating humans. The program was embraced by the major livestock associations and is included in their sustainable agriculture guidelines.

The issue gained a higher profile last year when U.S. President Obama announced a $44-million program to combat antimicrobial resistance, which he said causes at least two million illnesses and 23,000 deaths in the U.S. annually. Comparable numbers for Canada are not available.

The Ontario Medical Association last year called for tighter controls over the use of medicines in livestock production to prevent a worsening AMR situation.

CAHI president Jean Szkotnicki said in an interview that Canada needs to “harmonize its antimicrobial-resistance (AMR) policies with the rest of the world. Otherwise we could lose trade opportunities.”

Last year, her association voluntarily offered to stop labelling about 60 medicines for use as livestock growth promoters, which comes into effect next year. It also urged the federal government to stop allowing farmers to import medicines from the U.S., which they can administer without veterinary supervision.

It now is urging Health Canada to end the import of bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are unregulated. “There are no controls on where these products come from or on the quality of the ingredients.” The own-use and bulk imports account for about 30 per cent of the antibiotics used on farms.

The veterinary association agrees that both types of imports should be ended.

At the workshop, Ambrose acknowledged that AMR is a global challenge and said Canada will contribute US$250,000 to support a World Bank study of the economic impacts of AMR. Health Canada will work closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on an AMR approach “given the high degree of integration of the meat and livestock production markets in both countries.”

Health Canada and the Public Health Agency will begin a project to collect data to create “an integrated, national picture of antimicrobial use and resistance across Canada.”

As well, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture Canada will develop a plan for monitoring antibiotic use in livestock production.

The Public Health Agency says that more than three-quarters of antimicrobials are administered in Canada, mostly to promote growth by reducing illness. “Using antibiotics in animals should be limited to treating infection.”

The post Federal government unveils plans to tackle drug resistance appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But it doesn’t want the public to know what that means — and it certainly doesn’t want the public to hear what its scientists and veterinarians have to say about what many are calling a “crisis” in modern agriculture and public health.

“They muzzled people,” said Dr. James Hutchinson, medical director of the Vancouver Island Antimicrobial Stewardship Program.

Previously, Hutchinson chaired the Canadian Committee on Antibiotic Resistance. He has also contributed to the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) and currently co-chairs the Antimicrobial Stewardship Working Group for the International Society of Chemotherapy.

He believes the Canadian government has failed to take the threat of antibiotic resistance seriously.

“I think the feds have done an extraordinarily bad job on this file, so they’re just now getting to the point of enough embarrassment to do some acting,” Hutchinson said, following a presentation at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture’s symposium on antibiotic use and resistance in Atlanta, Georgia.

In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that medically important antimicrobials used as growth promotants would be phased out by 2016 — on a voluntary basis. In April of this year, Health Canada quietly made a step in the same direction, issuing a vague notice to stakeholders indicating growth promotions and production claims may be removed from labels for antimicrobial drugs used in livestock production that are also used in human medicine.

The notice does not say if this measure — should it be taken — will be voluntary or mandatory, or what type of oversight might be required. Nor does Health Canada indicate how the removal of these claims will actually reduce antibiotic use, or what stakeholder consultations might look like.

The Manitoba Co-operator attempted to clarify Health Canada’s position, requesting an interview with someone in the department in early July, but for the next 10 weeks we were told that no one was available to speak to us.

Health Canada responded to a list of six emailed questions by returning three answers. Those three answers made use of the phrase “prudent use” four times, while providing no new information.

Hutchison said there is a lack of both public knowledge and media coverage when it comes to antibiotic use and resistance in Canada, and it’s not by accident.

It’s the product of limited media access — the result of tight controls put in place by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), he said.

“The actual questions are vetted through the PMO, the questions are vetted, then the answers are vetted throughout the PMO… people don’t get that it’s really bad, it’s the worst it’s ever been, and we’ve got to step up and say we need information,” he said.

Some information on the Canadian situation can be gleaned from a report issued by the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council in September, titled Antibiotic Use and Antimicrobial Resistance: strategies for animal agriculture.

The report contains several recommendations, including that industry stakeholders follow the lead of the poultry sector and end the extra-label use of Category 1 drugs, which are considered essential to human health, as preventive measures in animal agriculture.

The council also recommended that CIPARS make its data available to the public.

Dr. David Leger, a veterinary epidemiologist with the Public Health Agency of Canada was one of the report’s authors and a speaker at the National Institute of Animal Agriculture’s symposium.

But as a federal employee, Leger said he was not permitted to speak to the media unless approval was received from media relations.

Patrick Girard, senior media relations officer, for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, denied that approval. “Dr. Leger is there to participate in the symposium,” Girard said, but not to speak to the media.

Many American doctors, epidemiologists and veterinarians taking part in the wide-reaching symposium spoke highly of the work being done on antibiotic resistance in Canada, particularly around the issue of resistant salmonella Heidelberg found in Quebec poultry operations.

“I know we’ve worked with Canada and its CIPARS program for years; there are some stellar people up there,” said Dr. Tom Chiller, a medical doctor with the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention and former chief of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for enteric bacteria.

“I think you guys have some of the best data out there to show that antibiotic use can directly affect human health… they’re able to look at this and generate really good data, so I think it’s a matter of communicating that data to policy-makers and others to say here’s the issue.”

But without access to information, how much data is reaching policy-makers and whether it’s being acted upon remains unknown.

Further complicating the issue of antibiotic resistance is that while the federal government does monitor antimicrobial resistance, it does not control production, distribution or use of veterinary drugs in Canada. That role belongs to the provinces.

And currently, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development does not track antimicrobial resistance in the province, nor does Manitoba Health, although some human pathogens are reportable if found to be drug resistant, including methicillin-resistant staphylococcus.

The World Health Organization warned three years ago that civilization is on the cusp of losing its “miracle cures” to the development and spread of drug-resistant diseases, while the World Organization for Animal Health identified antimicrobial resistance as its top priority in 2012 in a bid to spur action.

Hutchinson said statements like these have grabbed the public’s attention, but added that people need more information in order to make informed decisions.

“We’ve gotten to the place where people could say, ‘yeah, I’m worried about this,’ but they can’t say why,” he said, adding that kind of public education would take leadership on the part of government, along with access to information.

And as long as the current government is in power, Hutchinson doesn’t see that happening. Its policy is driven by political ideology, not reason, he said.

“Information gets in the way of their policy, you believe something because you believe it… but the information doesn’t support it.”

The post Federal scientists muzzled by PMO appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“The announcement was really a surprise,” Dave Lehman, managing director of commodity research and product development for the CME Group in Chicago, Illinois, said at the Cereals North America global grain conference in Winnipeg last week. “I saw that bean oil (on the Chicago Board of Trade) was down 40 points (yesterday).”

The sell-off of CBOT soyoil continued through Nov. 8, as prices were down over 40 points at mid-morning.

If the plan does go into effect, other oil markets like canola, palm and rapeseed could see increased demand with them possibly serving as replacements for soyoil.

Lehman said the announcement should have “rapeseed and canola folks feeling pretty good.”

The timing was good for Nicholas Kennedy of NYSE Liffe, who made a big announcement regarding a new contract.

“We’re launching as soon as next year a rapeseed oil and meal contract,” he said. “That will be sometime in 2014.”

The FDA did not announce a timeline for their plan to phase out trans fats from processed foods.

The post FDA’s trans fat ban could boost demand for non-soybean oils appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Redenbacher’s, a division of ConAgra Foods Inc., spent six years changing its leading line of popcorn, company scientists said Nov. 8, a day after the FDA made its proposal, which the government said would save 7,000 lives a year.

The Popcorn Board, an industry trade group, said Americans munch 16 billion quarts of popped popcorn a year, and more than two-thirds of that is eaten in the home. $985.7 million worth of unpopped kernels were sold in 2010, down 2.2 per cent from five years earlier. Popcorn also is the source of a substantial amount of the trans fats consumed by Americans.

Diamond Foods Inc. — owner of Pop Secret — and American Pop Corn Company — owner of Jolly Time — still use the suspect fat in some products. Diamond Foods fell 4.6 per cent from its open on the news , but pared losses before the following day’s close. American Pop Corn Company is not publicly traded.

Redenbacher’s ditched the fats in all of its products starting in 2006, because of the health concerns.

Initial research and development of switching to a trans fat-free oil was four years. It took two years more to change the entire product line.

“We’ve mastered it, and I’m not going to tell you how we did it,” laughed Pamela Newell, a senior director of product development at ConAgra. It took “a lot of money,” she added, since many replacement oil blends limited or reduced the flavour of the popcorn.

Partially hydrogenated oils, the primary source of the fats in foods, have long been prized by microwavable popcorn companies for their high melting point. The fat keeps oil solid until the package is heated, so unpopped bags don’t ooze.

It also provides a taste and texture in the mouth which isn’t easy to replicate, popcorn makers say. But when consumed, trans fats increase bad cholesterol, a leading cause of coronary artery disease.

Since 2005, trans fat usage has fallen precipitously — the Grocery Manufacturers Association said manufacturers have voluntarily lowered the amounts of trans fats in their food products by more than 73 per cent. But further reduction could prevent 20,000 heart attacks as well as the 7,000 deaths from heart disease a year, the FDA said.

Sales from ConAgra’s consumer food segments rose eight per cent in fiscal 2013, due in part to Redenbacher’s, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

Diamond Foods’ Pop Secret still produces a half-dozen products — including the Movie Theatre Butter and Homestyle varieties — that carry between 4.5 and five grams of the harmful fat per serving.

The brand, which was purchased from General Mills in 2008, has been central to the company’s 3.3 per cent growth in its core snack sales segment, said Diamond CEO Brian Driscoll during the most recent quarterly conference call.

The ban would follow more limited restrictions across the country. New York City banned the use of trans fats in restaurants, including their use for deep frying foods, and many restaurants and fast-food chains, including McDonald’s Corp., have eliminated their use.

The post Popcorn makers could face long, expensive road to lose trans fats appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

No one in Congress claims ownership of Section 735 of a recent spending bill, but the 22-line provision has blown up a storm of opposition to what is being dubbed by critics as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

The legislation is lauded by some farm groups, who have vowed to try to extend the life of the statute beyond its Sept. 30 expiration at the end of the fiscal year.

Food safety advocacy groups frequently ask for a temporary injunction against sale of seeds when they challenge U.S. approval of genetically modified crops. So Section 735 would benefit biotech seed companies such as Monsanto Co. and Dow Chemical Co.

“We’ll certainly try to get that language put into the Farm Bill,” Mississippi farmer Danny Murphy, president of the American Soybean Association, told Reuters.

He said lawsuits have delayed farmer access to profitable biotech varieties for years at a time. “We think it’s important farmers have the certainty once they plant a crop they would be able to harvest it.”

Lawmakers aim to pass a new farm policy law by this fall.

Only one variety, a genetically modified alfalfa developed by Monsanto, is under court review at present.

Biotech foe Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, called Section 735 a back room deal that muzzles the power of federal judges to prevent the cultivation of inadequately reviewed biotech crops.

Opponents range from organic food advocates and small-farm activists to environmentalists, consumer groups and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The language was tucked into the 240-page government funding bill in the Senate with no indication of its author. Even the groups who support the provision say they do not know who got it into the sure-to-pass bill. No one claimed credit during debate.

The bill was passed on March 22 and signed by President Barack Obama on March 28 — even after thousands signed petition opposing the so-called biotech rider.

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, is often a focal point for opposition by those who oppose genetically engineered crops or want more labelling of genetically modified foods. The company on April 3 announced a 22 per cent rise in quarterly earnings.

A pro-labelling/anti-Monsanto demonstration is planned for Monday at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration offices in College Park, Maryland.

Senior members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate pointed at each other when asked who was behind Section 735. Two senators said the House panel was responsible because it backed the idea last year, albeit in a bill that failed to advance.

A spokesman for Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, tabbed as the 2012 sponsor, said Kingston had no role this year.

Speculation has since centred on Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, Monsanto’s home state. His aides did not respond to queries.

Senate Appropriations chairwoman Barbara Mikulski “didn’t put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it either,” said spokeswoman Rachel MacKnight. She said Section 735 was an unavoidable carry-over from House-Senate negotiations last fall.

Mikulski has supported labelling of genetically modified foods and will fight for “valuable priorities, including food safety,” said MacKnight.

The post U.S. courts helpless to stop biotech crops while being reviewed appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The United States is the world’s largest market for foods made with genetically altered ingredients. Many popular processed foods — including soy milk, soup and breakfast cereal — are made with soybeans, corn and other biotech crops whose genetic traits have been manipulated, often to make them resistant to insects and pesticides.

Whole Foods said the prevalence of GMOs in the United States, coupled with a lack of labelling requirements, has made it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to identify them.

“We are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain,” Walter Robb, co-chief executive of Whole Foods, said in a statement.

The United States does not require safety testing for genetically modified ingredients before they go to market. The food industry says the products are safe, but critics say there is a not enough independent research to make that determination.

“We’re responding to our customers, who have consistently asked us for GMO labelling and we are doing so by focusing on where we have control: in our own stores,” Robb said.

The announcement from Whole Foods comes as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration appears to be on the path to approving genetically engineered salmon.

At the same time, consumer groups are working at the state and federal level to require labels on products that contain GMOs.

Dozens of countries already have genetically modified food labelling requirements, with the European Union imposing mandatory labelling in 1997. Since then, genetically modified products and crops have virtually disappeared from those markets.

Whole Foods in 2009 began putting its 365 Everyday Value product line through non-GMO verification. The chain currently sells 3,300 non-GMO Project verified products, such as its organic tofu, and plans to increase that number.

The post U.S. food retailer to require GMO disclosure labels appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“These proposed regulations are a sign of progress,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a critic of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The new law should transform the FDA from an agency that tracks down outbreaks after the fact to an agency focused on preventing food contamination in the first place.”

Roughly one in six Americans suffers from a foodborne illness each year, and about 3,000 die. The usual culprits are salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

Food sickness has been linked to lettuce, cantaloupe, spinach, peppers and peanuts.

Under the new rules, makers of food to be sold in the U.S., whether produced at a foreign- or domestic-based facility, would have to develop a formal plan for preventing their products from causing foodborne illness. They would also need to have plans for correcting any problems that arise.

Companies will be required to document their plans and keep records to verify that they are preventing problems. Inspectors will be able to audit the program to enforce safety standards, which should “dramatically” improve the effectiveness of inspections, the FDA said.

A second rule proposes safety standard requirements for farms that produce and harvest fruits and vegetables. Farms would be required to meet national standards for the quality of water applied to their crops, as water is often a pathway for pathogens.

The post Washington demands better food safety practices appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Without action, patients could soon face a time when antibiotics are powerless to treat many of the most common infections, said CDC experts and the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, a public health research group.

“How we use and protect these precious drugs must fundamentally change,” Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for health-care-associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said in a conference call with reporters on Nov. 13.

Dr. David Relman, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which is part of the effort, said doctors are already seeing patients with bacterial infections resistant to “every antibiotic we have left.”

“It will take all of us — consumers, health-care providers, researchers, policy-makers, industry, and others — to tackle this problem,” he said.

A statement signed by organizations ranging from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Consumer’s Union, an advocacy group, stressed the need for policies that conserve and protect antibiotics, ensuring that patients get the right antibiotics at the right time, and for the right amount of time.

They also called for curbs on the use of antibiotics in food animals, recommending their use by veterinarians only when they are needed to ensure the animal’s health.

Food producers do not have to consult veterinarians because common antibiotics have long been available to farmers without a prescription.

The position on antibiotic use in food animals echoes efforts by U.S. regulators urging food producers to stop using antibiotics in livestock for non-medical uses.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April said antibiotics should only be used under the supervision of a veterinarian to prevent or treat illnesses in animals, and has asked companies to start phasing out their use for purposes such as promoting growth, a process that could take three years.

The move to limit the drugs could affect large meat producers like Tyson Foods Inc., Cargill Inc. and Hormel Foods Corp.

Gail Hansen, a public health veterinarian for the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the amount of antibiotics used in the United States for food animals far outstrips the amount used for people.

Some 30 million pounds of antibiotics are sold each year for animals, compared to seven million pounds for humans, she said.

Srinivasan of the CDC said the problem cannot be addressed simply by curbing antibiotic use in food animals.

“This is a joint problem,” he said.

The post U.S. government, health groups sound alarm on antibiotics appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.