Additives in pet food: are they safe?

A good, nutritious diet is essential for the health and well-being of our domestic pets. Today, most pet dogs and cats are fed highly processed food bearing little resemblance to canine and feline ancestral diets. Additives are included in processed pet food to provide nutritional benefits, ensure food safety, and maintain the desirable features of colour, flavour, texture, stability and resistance to spoilage. This paper reviews the safety of various additives in processed pet food. Labelling, safety assessment, and ethical concerns regarding existing toxicity testing procedures are also considered. The adequacy of testing for many additives and the scientific basis for determining safety are questioned. Additives can be synthetic or ‘natural’ although the distinction can be blurred when naturally derived substances are synthesised in the laboratory, or extracted using a high level of physical and chemical processing. Although additives play important roles in processed food production, updated strategies and technologies may be required to establish their safety in the pet food industry.     

BSE, feed and cattle in Switzerland: is there a spatial relation?

Cross-contamination of cattle feed with meat and bone meal (MBM) allowed in feed for other species is regarded as the current hypothesis for the infection pathway of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) cases occurring after the implementation of a ban on feeding MBM to cattle. This study was aimed at establishing a spatial relation between BSE cases in Switzerland and the findings of MBM in cattle feed. A cluster analysis and a cohort study were performed. Two hundred sixteen BSE cases born after December 1990 and detected until August 1st 2005, screening data of 504 feed producers between 1996 and 2001 and population data from the Swiss 2001 cattle census were included. The cluster analysis showed feed producer, positive for MBM contaminations in cattle feed, as possible cluster centres for BSE cases. In the cohort study, farms within a radius of 2 and 10 km around positive feed producers showed significantly higher odds to have a BSE case than the control group. The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were 2.23 (1.26-3.93) for the 2 km radius and 1.38 (1-1.9) for the 10 km radius. The results provide evidence for a spatial relation between cross-contamination and BSE occurrence. These findings support the hypothesis of cross-contamination to be an important route for BSE transmission after a feed ban.     

BSE: milk and risk potential?

A potential BSE risk for milk and milk products has to be evaluated by means of risk analysis, especially risk assessment. The 3rd element of risk assessment--hazard exposition--is of decisive significance. In 1997, the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Commission has categorized risk materials in 4 classes. Colostrum, milk and tissues of the mammary gland have been classified in category 4, i.e. "infectivity not detected". A secondary contamination of the milk can be excluded (living animals). However, the term "not detected" refers also to the low sensitivity of the mouse test, which has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, in 2000 investigations started in Great Britain to test milk fractions, especially the fraction of somatic cells, for the possible occurrence of prions, using newly developed and highly sensitive methods. Results can not be expected before 2003 at the earliest. In case prions would be detected, their biological activity has to be demonstrated in order to develop an appropriate risk assessment for the consumer. Investigations in Great Britain in the early nineties of the last century with suckling cows under practical conditions have shown no indications of a BSE transfer via the milk to the calves. Therefore, the statement of national and international organizations is still valid, that milk can be regarded safe according to the present state of scientific knowledge.     

Modernizing the animal science curriculum: is change needed?

To identify an animal science curriculum is difficult because it is a "moving target" due to changing needs and demands of our society and, more specifically, to changes in the backgrounds and interests of students. Therefore, animal science curriculums not only should change, but must change, if they are to succeed. With new technological innovations and discoveries that either modify, supplement, or change basic concepts and approaches, it is paramount that changes in courses as well as in the curriculum conform. Because of the applied nature of animal science and because of the many unknowns yet to be discovered, the curriculum should be under continual scrutiny. However, we must not fix something when it is not broken. For all practical purposes, a curriculum reflects a philosophy of what subjects should be included to complete a plan of study. After a philosophy has been established the base curriculum will seldom change significantly. When it does, it will be the result of a change in people's philosophies rather than a reflection of industry needs or student interests. Teachers should not forget how to teach most effectively the material and must never lose sight of their goal of molding students into knowledgeable, wise, and responsible citizens in our society.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Where are the food animal veterinarian shortage areas anyway?

In 2010 the United States implemented the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) to address perceived regional shortages in certain veterinary occupations, including food animal practice. With county as the unit of analysis, this paper describes a pair of models to evaluate factors associated with being designated a private practice shortage area in 2010. One model is used to explain food animal veterinarian location choices so as to provide an objective evaluation of comparative shortage. The other model seeks to explain the counties chosen as shortage areas. Model results are then used to evaluate the program. On the whole the program appears to perform quite well. For several states, however, VMLRP shortage designations are inconsistent with the food animal veterinarian location model. Comparative shortage is generally more severe in states that have no VMLRP designated private practice shortage counties than in states that do.     

A free ride: Is long-term omeprazole therapy safe and effective?

Omeprazole has been widely used in the horse for nearly 20 years. Yet, to date, few studies have evaluated its safety with specific regards to the adverse effects reported in human medicine. Recent studies on omeprazole in the horse have highlighted the potential for rebound gastric hyperacidity at the time of discontinuation of therapy, for decreased calcium absorption during administration and for disruption to hindgut function when administered alongside non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Unlike human medicine, no clear evidence exists for a link between omeprazole administrations and an increased risk of fractures in the horse. However, evidence exists that the proposed pathophysiological pathways for increased fracture risk which are present in human medicine are also present in the horse. Limited evidence suggests that decreased efficacy may occur over time with long-term omeprazole administration.     

Twelve years experience in Switzerland: Quo vadis BSE?

When the first BSE case in Switzerland became public in 1990, it precipitated a chain of events with many diverse consequences. During this time, we continued to gain knowledge, implement new measures, and make practical recommendations in order to attempt to control the disease. This was made possible by the establishment of a huge data base containing information on all cases of BSE that had been diagnosed in Switzerland, as well as by the use of information from experiences in other countries. Analysis of these data allowed the sequence of events to be described temporally and spatially and an epidemiological evaluation to be made. These data also allow predictions to be made regarding the future of BSE in Switzerland, although these predictions must be interpreted cautiously.     

Bioethics Symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?

Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that people's beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.     

Veterinary authorities and animal welfare organizations--is cooperation possible?

Veterinarians and private animal welfare workers both work for the importance of animal welfare in our society. Although both work for a common cause, co-operation and communication between the veterinary administration and animal welfare members is often difficult. This paper will demonstrate the cause of problems between the two bodies and the benefits of co-operation will be assessed. Strategies to optimise the co-operation between the veterinary administration and animal rights organisations will be described using the local district Kleve as an example. Experiences with the animal welfare societies in this region will be illustrated with the aim to show the important supporting possibilities of the animal rights organisations to back the official authorities activities. Also the need to encourage the partly disappointing co-operation between these two bodies with the exchange of information would be beneficial for both bodies.     

What is normal? A field approach to characterizing health and management of the nation's animal populations

There is a growing demand for information about the health and well-being of animals on farms. Such information has many uses. In some instances such information is used locally by livestock owners and producers to gauge their position relative to their peers. In other instances the information can be used at a national or international level by policy makers and trade negotiators. Animal health companies use such information to target research and product development. Academicians and other educators use information on animal health to teach future members of the agricultural industries. In addition, consumers are asking more questions about the manner in which animals are raised and cared for on farms. With so many stakeholders with an interest in such information there is a need for objective data collected with credible methods covering a substantial proportion of the population of interest. Such efforts are unlikely to be accomplished by entities other than a nationally focused unit in the government. The United States Department of Agriculture's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) has been providing management and health-related data on the United States livestock and poultry populations for nearly 20 years.