Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Dairy industry, FDA spar over tests for milk

Responding to fears that high levels of antibiotics in dairy cows may contaminate milk, the Food and Drug Administration planned to begin testing milk from farms that repeatedly sold cows tainted by drug residue. "But the testing plan met with fierce protest from the dairy industry, which said that it could force farmers to needlessly dump millions of gallons of milk while they waited for test results," William Neuman of The New York Times reports. "Industry officials and state regulators said the testing program was poorly conceived and could lead to costly recalls that could be avoided with a better plan for testing." (Photo by Dennis Curran for The New York Times)

FDA relented to industry criticisms and postponed the testing. Now the groups are debating "how much danger the antibiotics pose and the best way to ensure that the drugs do not end up in the milk supply," Neuman writes. John J. Wilson, a senior vice president for Dairy Farmers of America, the nation’s largest dairy cooperative, told Neuman: "What has been served up, up to this point, by Food and Drug has been potentially very damaging to innocent dairy farmers." Wilson says the nation's milk supply is safe, and that antibiotic tests from slaughterhouses offer little reason to worry tests would be replicated in milk.

Still food safety advocates worry livestock overloaded with antibiotics may undermine effectiveness of drugs used to combat illness in humans. "Consumers certainly don’t want to be taking small amounts of drugs every time they drink milk," Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group, told Neuman. "They want products that are appropriately managed to ensure those drug residues aren’t there, and the dairy farmer is the one who can control that." FDA said in a statement it is conferring with the industry about how to proceed, and "the agency remains committed to gathering the information necessary to address its concern with respect to this important potential public health issue." (Read more)

No comments: