Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts

10/14/12

CONFUSION REINS AS CANADIAN SLAUGHTER PLANTS STOP SLAUGHTERING US HORSES

    
October 12, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

John Holland, Equine Welfare Alliance
540.268.5693
john@equinewelfarealliance.org

Sinikka Crosland, Canadian Horse Defence Coalition
250.681.1408
info@defendhorsescanada.org


CONFUSION REINS AS CANADIAN SLAUGHTER PLANTS STOP SLAUGHTERING US HORSES

Chicago (EWA) – US horses are no longer being accepted by Canadian horse slaughter plants, according to multiple sources. The Shipshewana auction in Indiana confirmed reports that they have discontinued loose (slaughter) horse sales for an indefinite period of time.

A spokesperson for the Sugar Creek Ohio auction also confirmed that the kill buyers were no longer
taking slaughter horses because “the plants are shut down”. This was further confirmed by a Richelieu slaughter house official. An unconfirmed report from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) indicated it was the result of a European Union (EU) directive.

Canadian customs officials, however, knew nothing of the action. To add to the confusion, at least one driver stated that he did deliver horses to an undisclosed plant Friday afternoon.

The move came so suddenly that many trucks were already on the way when they learned of it.
According to Lambright the issue is that the EU has banned American horse meat from being shipped for consumption in Europe. EWA has yet to receive confirmation from the EU.

Following the closure of US based horse slaughter plants in 2007, the export of horses to slaughter in
Canada and Mexico increased dramatically. In 2011 the US exported over 64,000 horses to Canada and 68,000 to Mexico.

Documents showing horse meat contaminated with phenylbutazone (a carcinogen) and clenbuterol (a
steroid) surfaced recently, indicating that the CFIA and the EU were accelerating their residue testing
programs. These reports were followed by claims from some kill buyers that blood was being drawn
from as many as half their horses (an unprecedented percentage) before they were being accepted.

Since most of the meat from both the Canadian and Mexican plants is being consumed by the EU, it is reported but not confirmed that Mexico too will curtail imports of US horses.

In 2008, the EU announced that it would require third countries to come into compliance with their
standards which require horses to be micro-chipped and all their medications tracked, but few observers expected any action would come before the expiration of a July, 2013 deadline.

The most likely explanation for the sudden move is that the expanded residue testing program has
yielded worse than anticipated results.

Enhanced by Zemanta

9/22/12

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency | Horse Canada

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency | Horse Canada

As we can see, conditions in Canada are the same as in the U.S.: Denial and trivialization is serious problems involving unacceptable cruelty to the horses and unacceptable food safety issues for consumers. No wonder the European Union is planning to require the U.S., Canada, and Mexico all to implement a traceability system comparable to the passport system in use in the EU by July 31, 2013 or the horses from these countries will no longer be accepted by the EU for export for human consumption.

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Canadian Thoroughbred March 15, 2012

An Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency

March 13, 2012

Dr. Martin Appelt
National Manager
Meat Programs Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9

Dear Dr. Appelt:

In view of Dr. Brian Evans’ prolonged leave of absence, we are sending this package for your review. Enclosed please find full, unedited video footage of our investigative report “Pasture to Plate – The True Cost of Canada’s Horsemeat Industry” at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation Inc. on July 13 and 14, 2011.

(Links to the Pasture to Plate web page: http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/lpn.html and the full 88-page report: http://canadianhorsedefencecoalition.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/pasture-to-plate.pdf.)

The Canadian Horse Defence Coalition notes that the CFIA has not at any time requested full footage of the 2011 investigation but has made numerous statements to the public based on posted information only. We trust that viewing the footage in its entirety as well as the memory stick containing photographs of EID documents (matched up to horses slaughtered at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation) will dispel many of the doubts expressed and misinterpretations made by the agency, including:

“You have expressed concerns about the safety of horsemeat with respect to possible drug residues and referenced photos of Equine Identification Documents (EIDs) that are purported to be incomplete, inaccurate or falsified. All equine owners intending to sell animals directly or indirectly to Canadian meat processors must provide an EID that reports all vaccines, medications or occurrences of illness within six months of slaughter. The photographs in question have been determined to be taken at an auction in the United States. There is no indication that these documents were presented to any Canadian slaughter plant.”

“The EU has accepted the EID as an alternative to its passport system because both systems achieve a similar outcome….EIDs are checked daily by CFIA veterinarians and filed by operators at each federally registered establishment slaughtering equine….Omission or falsification of information on EIDs of horses presented for slaughter is an offence.”

“There are significant limitations to the use of video footage in the absence of eye witness testimony as the basis for enforcement or prosecution purposes.”

“This [the inability of the recently released undercover video footage to be used for regulatory enforcement purposes] can be further compounded when there is a significant time lag between the shooting of the video and its presentation to the CFIA and when the video has been edited.

“Recognized subject matter experts and international humane standards call for assessment of several critical features to affirm the effectiveness of the stun procedure that include the eye, the tongue, and the nose, which can only be determined from the front of the animal. As the video was taken from behind, it is not possible to conclusively use the video to make these assessments.”

“With respect to the large Belgian that is seen to have received multiple stuns, while its state of consciousness is unclear, nevertheless this is one area of operations being assessed.”

The CHDC would like to respond to the above points. The allegation that the EIDs presented as evidence was “determined to have been taken at an auction in the United States” is totally unfounded. Please review the photographs of the EID forms and compare them to the tattoo numbers of horses killed at the plant. Our report, Pasture to Plate: The True Cost of Canada’s Horsemeat Industry (copy enclosed), unmistakably illustrates this connection. Has our report, which has been posted on-line since release of the investigation, even been read by the CFIA? There can be no dispute that the documents photographed at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation arrived along with the horses that were slaughtered. This then begs the question, why isn’t the regulation that dictates: “Omission or falsification of information on EIDs of horses presented for slaughter is an offence” being enforced? It is very evident when reviewing the EIDs that a pattern emerges and it is very clear to see that some EIDs have obviously been “pre-written” across the top with “Drug-free six months”, and the appropriate boxes checked to agree with this information. Why did the CFIA inspectors and slaughter plant operators not flag this for concern? What remedial actions has the CFIA taken against auctions and owners that have submitted incomplete, incorrect or falsified EIDs? In addition, what actions has the CFIA taken to ensure Canadian and American horses sold at auctions have EIDs that are filled in completely, correctly and truthfully?

Why is the CFIA expending so much energy on denial, rather than enforcing legislation and regulations that already exist and simply need to be utilized?

Regarding drug residues in horsemeat, has the CFIA taken into consideration studies such as a recent one conducted by the Wild for Life Foundation that showed 70% of the annual thoroughbred foal crop in the United States are dying in slaughterhouses each year

(http://www.wildforlifefoundation.org/Case_Study_U.S._Thoroughbreds_Slaughtered_2002-2010-WFLF.pdf)

Many of these horses are shipped to Canada for slaughter. Bred for the racing industry, they have been administered drugs such as phenylbutazone, which, as you know, is listed on your website for drugs not permitted for use in equines slaughtered for food, and banned from the food chain. The CFIA may wish to deny the connection, but this will not erase what the public already knows – that the likelihood of prohibited drugs being inadvertently consumed by people in Quebec and overseas is very high. By the CFIA’s own admission, two horsemeat samples have tested positive for phenylbutazone in Canada since 2010. As the most sensitive target for this drug is kidney [Metabolism Excretion, Pharmacokinetics and Tissue Residues of Phenylbutazone in the Horse, Lees, P., Taylor, J.B., Maitho, T.E., Millar, J.D., Higgins, A.J., 1987. Cornell Vet. 77, 192–21: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3568689, and not muscle as claimed by the CFIA, one can only wonder how many more positive samples would have been found if the target tissue were the correct one. Further, in an e-mail to CHDC, the CFIA stated that only 143 samples taken from 93,812 horses in 2009 were tested for phenylbutazone - a woefully inadequate testing sample considering that most horses at some point in their lives have been administered this drug.

With regard to the statement about video footage versus eyewitness testimony, we seriously wonder how this statement would play out in court. Video is an objective accurate account of an event; eyewitness testimonies have often been found to be flawed due to human error or bias. Is the CFIA saying that video images tell lies? The public can view the stun footage online, including longer clips of just some of the ineffective stuns that we released the day this letter was mailed, captured at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation in July 2011, and decide for themselves whether an eyewitness statement would have been more accurate than real-time footage. It is truly appalling that the CFIA has chosen to trivialize evidence and to shirk its responsibilities toward suffering animals and the general public that relies on the agency to be transparent and truthful.

The CFIA states that there was a “significant time lag between the shooting of the video and its presentation to the CFIA”. The time lag of less than five months occurred because it was our duty to have the evidence thoroughly assessed by independent animal welfare professionals before handing it over to an agency that has proven itself beholden to industry. We have learned this from the three prior horse slaughterhouse cruelty cases we have brought forward since 2008, to the disturbing documents we received in response to a freedom of information request on the CFIA's botched handling of the Natural Valley Farms/Natural Meat Company cruelty case. Truly the CFIA has become the fox that guards the henhouse. The mandate of the CFIA is to ensure food safety. The mandate of those involved in animal protection is exactly that—to safeguard the well being of animals. The CFIA’s poor track record in the past concerning slaughterhouse investigations did nothing to assure us that this most recent slaughterhouse footage would be handled fairly. As expected, the agency has once again demonstrated, via a continuing stream of shockingly poor and groundless excuses, that animal welfare is not only not a concern for the agency but that it appears to be the agency's role to protect industry at all costs - especially those costs borne by the animals under its “care”.

Certainly it is true that a number of checkpoints on the head of an animal are used to determine whether stunning has been effective. However, whinnying, rearing, mouthing (visible when horses moved their heads to one side) should not be ignored and were often evident on the videotape. The sheer numbers of re-stun attempts were also indicative of horses not rendered insensible after one shot, as was the shooter "replying" to unstunned horses' whinnying. Also, the shooter's statement "Aye - you're not dead" is clearly indicative of a still-conscious horse despite numerous attempts. The shooter was clearly visible from the front, showing his repeated attempts with the captive bolt pistol. We would like the CFIA to explain, if the inspector has the authority to stop the line, why he did not do so, given that this particular shooter was clearly lacking in training? We further ask the CFIA what retribution this shooter and/or Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation, as well as the CFIA inspector, received as a result of these obvious acts of incompetence. Were these acts treated as infractions, and have any prosecutions followed? To deny the importance of these other parameters in determining sensibility is illogical and proves to the public that the CFIA is simply covering up cruelty.

Dr. Nicholas Dodman, anesthesiologist and animal behaviourist at Tufts University stated the following regarding the large Belgian whose level of consciousness the CFIA is questioning: [After five shots] “This large horse still appears to be conscious and is shot again in the forehead and even that doesn’t do it as it heaves and tries to rise again…The large size of this horse plus imprecise CBG placement probably led to this totally unacceptable and inhumane result.”

Dr. Dodman’s expert opinion on practices at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation concludes with: “…my final conclusion, after reviewing 150-plus horse slaughters in this series of videos, is that the process was terrifying for most of the horses and, in many cases, horribly inhumane. The inhumane treatment of horses at Les Viandes de la Petite Nation must be stopped immediately.”

We would also like to address our concerns regarding the design of the knock box that was raised in our report. It is plainly evident that there is no provision made, besides a flimsy plastic curtain, for horses to avoid viewing the bleed-out/butchering room. Many horses looked inside past the curtain (that was sometimes left open) and this understandably elevated their fear levels. Also evident was the fact that larger draft breeds did not fit into the small dimensions of the knock box, causing many of them to hit their heads on the overhead stanchion. It was also these large draft types that more often required multiple shots to render them unconscious. In addition, the shooter had to reach up to these larger horses, causing him to shoot at the wrong angle, which is supposed to be from the top down, not reaching up high over his head to try to obtain the right angle. We noted as well that there was no evidence of rubber matting to secure their footing. The knock box floor was not hosed down regularly to clear slippery blood, urine and manure. Finally, the decreased elevation into the stun box caused many of the horses to stumble upon entering it.

We have learned from Dr. Brian Evans that a rifle will now be the weapon of choice at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation. This decision is baffling to us as our past evidence from Bouvry Exports and Viandes Richelieu (2010) clearly illustrated blatant animal suffering when shooters were faced with moving targets, specifically the thrashing heads of terrified horses. We also recall that observers are not permitted to be in the shooting area. Who, therefore, does the monitoring, and how will oversight be achieved?

We expect to receive a detailed response within 30 days explaining how the agency will respond to the violations of the Meat Inspection Act (specifically 62. (1), 63. (2), 64, 65, 78, 79 (a) and 80); the OIE Standards of Slaughter (Chapter 7.5); the American Meat Institute Slaughter Audit standards; and the fraudulent EID activity. Specifically, we require answers to the following areas of concern:

High percentage of inaccurate stuns (40+% over two days of recording)
Use of “pithing” of horse which is known to render an animal immobile but not unconscious when stabbed for bleed-out
Length of suffering inflicted on horses repeatedly shot (up to 3 1/2 minutes for horse 33 on day 1)
Terror-filled environment
Mishandling of a “downed” animal (the downer horse shown during the walk-through who was not penned alone or euthanized)
Fraudulent EID activity
Lack of CFIA inspector presence

We also require an explanation for the agency’s choice of preference for testing muscle tissue rather than kidney for phenylbutazone. What scientific study is the CFIA relying upon when choosing muscle as the target for testing?

And, finally, Dr. Evans states in his earlier letter: “As a result of investigations and enhanced inspection activities, a number of actions have been taken, including training and certification delivered…et al.” We would like to see documentation of all corrective actions the CFIA has introduced, including monetary penalties, suspensions and/or revocation of operating licences, and/or legal charges brought against either persons or companies at any and all of the four slaughter plants operating currently in Canada.

It is not too late for the denial to stop and for truth and pursuit of justice to take its place.

Sinikka Crosland, Executive Director
Canadian Horse Defence Coalition
sinikka@defendhorsescanada.org
http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/
Enhanced by Zemanta

9/10/12

Horse Slaughter ~ Clipboard

Update ~ I just got the bright idea of putting the board on my sidebar so it would always be visible. What do you think?

This is my Horse Slaughter Board from Clipboard. The board is fully interactive. Click on it and a light-box will open and you can interact with the board just as if you were on the Clipboard site.

Be sure to check back because I will be adding to this board frequently.

Hope you enjoy it!



Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

9/6/12

HSI/Canada Renews Calls for Prohibition on Horse Slaughter as Banned Substances Found in Canadian Horse Meat

HSI/Canada Renews Calls for Prohibition on Horse Slaughter as Banned Substances Found in Canadian Horse Meat : Humane Society International
August 9, 2012
HSI/Canada Renews Calls for Prohibition on Horse Slaughter as Banned Substances Found in Canadian Horse Meat

Humane Society International/Canada

Horses slaughtered for meat in Canada are generally not raised for human consumption.

MONTREAL— Following confirmation of prohibited substances in Canadian horse meat, Humane Society International/Canada is renewing calls for a federal prohibition on the slaughter, sale, transport and export of horses for human consumption. Belgian authorities recently notified the European Commission about the reported presence of two unauthorized substances, clenbuterol and phenylbutazone, in horse meat that was imported into the European Union from Canada. Horses slaughtered for meat in Canada are generally not raised for human consumption and are commonly administered substances that are banned in food-producing animals.

Additionally, the United States Food and Drug Administration recently released a warning letter that revealed the presence of the same two banned substances in an American horse sold to a Canadian slaughter establishment. The American establishment cited in this warning letter provided false information in the Equine Information Document, which Canadian authorities rely upon to determine whether American horses exported to Canada have been administered substances not permitted for use in horses in the last 180 days prior to purchase of the animal. Specifically, this establishment “filled out and signed the producer’s name” and failed to ask the horse’s producer about its medical treatment history. Like Canadian horses, American horses are not raised for human consumption and are frequently administered substances banned for use in food animals.

“Slaughtering horses for human consumption is inherently inhumane and the recent discovery of prohibited substances in Canadian horse meat proves it may also pose a human health risk,” said Ewa Demianowicz, campaigner for Humane Society International/Canada. “Clenbuterol and phenylbutazone can be toxic to humans and have been banned from our food supply for that reason. Clearly, the horse meat protocols imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are inadequate and fail to ensure food safety.”

Humane Society International/Canada urges the Canadian government to take immediate action by enacting Bill C-322, which would amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act, prohibiting the import, export and inter-provincial transport of horses for slaughter for human consumption.

The two prohibited substances were found in chilled and frozen horse meat that was subsequently distributed to Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. EU member countries have strict food safety policies, which should prevent domestic horses that been administered with substances prohibited in food-producing animals from ever entering the food chain. In comparison, current CFIA standards are insufficient and could lead to human health threats for those consuming horse meat, the majority of which is exported.

FACTS:

In 2011, more than 90,000 horses were slaughtered in Canada.
Horses are an extreme example of a flight animal. The panic and instinctive desire to escape causes them to thrash their heads frantically in the kill chute, making it difficult to effectively stun them prior to slaughter. As a result, many horses receive several blows before they are rendered unconscious.
Horses can be transported for up to 36 hours without food, water or rest in Canada. Horses are often crammed in trailers (sometimes double-deckers) designed for shorter animals, and travel in uncomfortable positions over very long distances.
Because horses are generally not bred as food animals, they are often administered substances that are prohibited in our food supply.
In 2011, MP Alex Atamanenko introduced Bill C-322, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act to end the import and export (and transfer between provinces) of horses for slaughter for human consumption.
Enhanced by Zemanta

8/2/12

New EU Regs Spell Likely End to Euro Markets for American Horse Meat

New EU Regs Spell Likely End to Euro Markets for American Horse Meat | Horse Back Magazine
July 31, 2012

By Steven Long

HOUSTON, (Horseback) – Despite claims by pro-horse slaughter activists who would seemingly put a slaughterhouse on every rural main street, the market for American horse meat just dwindled to almost nothing. The European Union released its 2013 regulations for meat imported into the 27 countries.

Under the new regulations, all horses and burros destined for slaughter and export to Europe must have a passport that shows they are free from substances such as phenylbutazone (bute), and clenbuterol. Such substances never leave an animal’s body and are carcinogens. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration bans their use in all food animals.

Almost all U.S. horses have been administered a dose of bute during their lifetime.

“These new rules would appear to make the entire issue of horse slaughter in America moot. If these guidelines are enforced, virtually every horse in America will become ineligible for slaughter,” said John Holland, president of the Chicago based Equine Welfare Alliance, the most prominent among the groups fighting to ban slaughter in the United States.

Holland said the issue of horse slaughter to benefit a relative few American breeders and horse owners is forcing unexpected problems for the overwhelming majority of horse owners from coast to coast who have nothing to do with the meat trade.

“There has been a lot of postulating about the “unintended consequences” of the 2007 inspections ban. Now the American horse industry will realize the unforeseen consequences if we are to continue to ship our excess horses to slaughter. It will require tracking of every drug given to a horse, the loss of our most effective and inexpensive medications and hugely increased veterinary costs overall. The days of that tube of bute being stashed in the grain room will be over,” Holland said.

The EU is putting teeth into strict enforcement of regulations that began in 2010 when the European nations warned horses coming to those countries from abroad must be in full compliance within three years. That time span has nearly lapsed.

The strict new passport regulations are contained in a European Commission document titled Imports of Animals and Food of Animal Origins From Non-EU Countries.

Horse slaughter activists such as Wyoming State Rep. Sue Wallis have been ignoring the European recommendations. That will now be impossible.

As is usually the case, Wallis has not returned emails or phone calls from Horseback seeking comment on the EU developments.

In an additional blow to the budding U.S. horse meat industry, it was leaned today that the Europeans have also have found Bute and Clenbuterol in Canadian horse product exported to Europe.

“It appears the Europeans have finally awoken to the abject reality of our many warnings that they are being fed unsafe horse meat. Their recent finding of phenylbutazone in samples of frozen Canadian horse meat shows that they are beginning to perform real tests, but if they routinely tested kidneys they would be in for a real shock!” Holland said.

Note ~ These are the EU regs we have been warning everyone about for the last two years. No one listened, not even in Washington. Well, here they are. It's the passport system or nothing. We told 'em so.
 
If any trolls read this, I did not write these rules. Neither did Steven Long or R.T. Fitch - you might want to apologize to R.T. for calling him a "turd" for "making this up" which he did not do. He was just reporting the facts, just like Steven and myself. Now, I don't blame you horse eating slugs for being upset at finding out we haven't been making all this stuff up after all, but, geez, have a little class! Well, maybe that is too much to ask after all.
Enhanced by Zemanta

7/11/12

Testimony – Senate Committee - by Jerry Finch, Habitat for Horses


re-blogged from Habitat for Horses

Testimony – Senate Committee

Yesterday, myself and many others had a chance to testify before the Texas Senate Committee regarding the possibility of bringing back horse slaughter to Texas. The testimony stared at 1pm and lasted until around 6:30. If you want to watch the whole video, click here

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/

Item 4, the horse slaughter part, starts at about 1:43 – just use the slider to move it to that time. The State uses Real Video to record these sessions.

I’ll have a lot of comments to make about this session, but I wanted to get this out to you as quickly as possible.
————————————————
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Senator Craig Estes, Chairman
Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Testimony of Jerry Finch, Habitat for Horses:

Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Finch. I am President and Founder of Habitat for Horses, Inc, a Non-profit Equine Protection Organization started in 1998 here in Texas.

I have been Involved in horses since 1958

I am a Level Three Equine Cruelty Investigator – receiving my training through the University of Missouri School of Law Enforcement.

Since 1998, over 5,000 horses passed through the organization, averaging 350 incoming equine per year.

The majority of our horses come from various law enforcement agencies throughout Texas, from cases involving abuse, neglect and abandonment. Rehabilitated horses are returned to service by adoption, averaging around 340 horses per year.

Our primary goal is to provide education to horse owners on the best methods of care for their animals. By doing so, we have touched the lives of thousands of horses.

Habitat for Horses is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, an international organization that has established clear, specific standards for the humane care of equine and other species in captive facilities and for sanctuary governance and operational issues.

All of this is done on 100 acres in the Galveston area. We are in the process of purchasing an additional 600 acres to expand our operations.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

First, please note that I am not an ANIMAL RIGHTS RADICAL. I fully support the meat industry and work closely with any number of ranchers on equine welfare issues. While my organization is committed to the humane treatment of equine, the subject before this committee is about money, the dollars made from selling horses for slaughter -  nothing more, nothing less.

Those who want horse slaughter to continue, either as an outlet for the over production of horses or to rid themselves of excess horses, are in a complete panic. The reason? If nothing changes, horse slaughter for human consumption comes to an end on July 31, 2013.

On that date, the regulations of the European Union will prevent the slaughter of American horses in both Mexico and Canada because of the complete lack of traceability of the medication given to American horses.

The report from the Government Accountability Office, GAO 11-228, states “…additional certification may affect Canadian and Mexican exports of horsemeat to Europe and, in turn, may affect the future export of horses intended for slaughter from the United States to these countries.  For example, Canadian requirements went into effect on July, 2010, banning specific medications, such as phenylbutazone—the most common anti-inflammatory medication given to horses—and requiring a 180-day withdrawal period for other medications. Also, since November, 2009, Mexico has required an affidavit by transporters that horses have been free from certain medications for 180 days prior to shipment. Furthermore, effective July 31, 2013, the European Union will require lifetime medication records for all horses slaughtered in non-European Union countries before accepting imports of horsemeat from those countries.”

Translated, that means that without a complete passport system for horses in which ALL medication given to horses from birth to slaughter are entered into a massive database, the animals cannot be imported into the EU for human consumption. All EU horses sold for slaughter for human consumption now must have a passport. Without that passport, the horse will not be slaughtered.
The US has no such system in place, nor will we by July, 2013. Nor will the unsubstantiated 100,000 unwanted horses be accepted, because their history is unknown.

Currently, killer-buyers at the border are signing their own affidavits stating that the horses they present are drug free for a minimum of 180 days. Presently, 48% of those are accepted without any such statements, a violation of current EU regulations.

The establishment of a fully functional passport system in the US means that our government must spend massive amounts of taxpayer money on a National Identification System for equine, duplicating what now exist in the EU countries. I probably don’t need to remind this committee of the uproar over the Federal Government’s attempts at a National Animal Identification System. It failed when they attempted it before and it will fail again.

In that same GAO report is this recommendation:  “Congress may wish to consider instituting an explicit ban on the domestic slaughter of horses and export of U.S. horses intended for slaughter in foreign countries.”

Asking a state full of horse owners to spend hundreds of dollars per animal, to register each animal and each premises into a National Database and to fine us for any failure to comply, in addition to asking taxpayers to fund another massive government system just so three foreign companies, namely Chevidico, Bovery and Richilieu can make a profit by selling horsemeat to consumers in Europe is absolute folly.

But that is the sole purpose of horse slaughter. There is no honorable attempt to help our country rid itself of unwanted horses. The numbers of horses sold for slaughter is determined by a demand for horsemeat in other countries, not the numbers of abandoned, neglected or abused horses. There is absolutely no relation between the two.

In fact, a USDA study conducted by Dr. Temple Grandin found that 92.3% of horses sent to slaughter are healthy. Slaughterhouses do not want and will not take thin, sickly horses. At the six Mexican Border Inspection Offices involved in imports of live horses from the US, 5,336 live horses in 631 consignments were rejected out of 62,560 animals presented for import between January and October 2010.

Over 5,000 horses were rejected in a brief eight month period. What happened to these horses? Are these the “abandoned” horses that are so often thrown out as an example of the need for slaughter?

If this committee’s goal is to Review the impact of state laws relating to the closure of horse slaughter facilities across the United States and Analyze the impact on the equine industry and agricultural sector of the Texas economy, then I ask that you consider these facts:

In a recent survey, 80% of the American people are opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

In a 2005 study for the American Horse Council, Deloitte Consulting found:

The horse industry in the United States contributes $39 billion in direct economic impact to the US economy and supports 1.4 million jobs on a full-time basis. When indirect and induced spending are included, the industry’s economic impact reaches $102 billion. The study also estimates the horse population in this country has reached 9.2 million. This was 7 years ago.

The total economic value of a dead horse is zero.

The costs to the American taxpayer to establish a fully functional National Horse Identification System  will run into the millions and add another government department filled with inspectors, managers, programmers and database clerks to an already overburden budget. The return on the investment will be a few low paying jobs and a very negative environmental impact – except for the bottom line of those three foreign companies.

Those who are seeking to reverse the Texas law of 1949 forbidding the sale and transport of horsemeat are here because it means money in their pockets at the financial costs and against the wishes of those you represent.

I ask you to submit your report as finding that the re-establishment of horse slaughterhouses in Texas should not happen.

I am open to any questions either now or at any point in the future.

Thank you.

 Related Articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

5/4/12

An HSUS Report: Food Safety Risks Associated With U.S. Horse Slaughter



An HSUS Report: Food Safety Risks Associated With U.S. Horse Slaughter
April 2012
Abstract

Meat originating from U.S. horses may contain residues from substances banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Union for use in animals intended for consumption. Phenylbutazone, for example, is commonly administered to U.S. horses and has been associated with life- threatening reactions in humans. Requiring a thorough drug history for each U.S. horse intended for human consumption may help circumvent human health risks.

In t r o d u c t i o n

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of United States, an estimated 9.5 million horses reside in the United States.1 The American Veterinary Medical Association defines the horse as a "companion animal," along with dogs and cats.2 Horses are utilized for service, recreation, and competition in the United States.3 Despite their multi-faceted views of the horse, the U.S. population largely considers the consumption of horse meat taboo.4 In the state of California, for instance, eating horse meat is restricted under the state's Criminal Code5 and horse slaughter is illegal in Florida6 and Illinois.7 Given the attitude towards equids and the lack of demand for horse meat in the United States, they are defined as non-food producing animals by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).8

Despite the U.S. population's disinterest in horse meat, it remains a part of the diet of some consumers in other countries, such as France, Japan, and Italy.9 In 2007, a combination of state laws prohibiting horse slaughter and a simultaneous de-funding of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspections by Congress10 lead to the closure of the few, mainly foreign-owned, horse slaughter plants that operated within the United States.11,12,13 In November 2011, this defunding of USDA horse slaughter inspections was omitted from a spending bill signed into law. While new funds are not being provided for the USDA's resumption of horse meat inspections, the ban on domestic horse slaughter has been lifted.14

The 2007 provisions did not end the slaughter of U.S. horses for human consumption. Rather, the closing of U.S. slaughterhouses almost doubled the production of horse meat in Canada in 2007, with approximately 40% of the horses being slaughtered imported from the U.S.15 In 2012, the European
Commission released their findings of a 2011 audit which noted that 85% of the horses slaughtered in a Canadian processing plant originated from the United States.16 The United States also exports its horses to plants in Mexico for local and foreign consumption.17

Since U.S. horses are primarily used for companionship and competition rather than consumption, drugs may be administered without taking food safety implications into account. This is especially pertinent in regards to the administration of the substance phenylbutazone (PBZ). The presence of PBZ - as well as many other FDA-banned substances - in U.S. horses destined for slaughter results in the high likelihood of contaminated horse meat, which poses a potentially serious risk to the health of human consumers.18,19

Phenylbutazone

In 1949 the potent non steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) PBZ became available as a treatment in the United States for people suffering from both rheumatoid arthritis and gout. However, within three years of its availability, PBZ was linked to serious adverse reactions, including aplastic anemia, bone marrow depression, renal failure, and even death. After examining several case studies of PBZ use, the FDA banned PBZ for human use in the United States.20 According to the FDA:

“Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans. It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leucopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths. The reported adverse reactions were associated with the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day€¦.[I]t is unclear what level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted.”21

For animals, the only FDA-approved phenylbutazone use is as an oral or injectable dose in dogs and horses.22,23 As it stands, PBZ use in humans and food-producing animals alike remains unapproved.24

Phenylbutazone in Thoroughbreds Bound for Slaughter: A Case Study

There can only be one winner at the end of each horse race, and many of the horses that do not place, show signs of injury, or are past their prime are sent to auction, and ultimately end up in slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico.25 The European Union (EU) has found that horse meat originating from Mexican slaughterhouses contain harmful residues of several EU prohibited substances such as clenbuterol (bronchodilator), zilpaterol (used as a steroid substitute), and furanics (anabolic steroid).26,27 Due largely to over-breeding, the thoroughbred racing industry is one of the principal contributors to the estimated 133,241 U.S. horses slaughtered in 2011.28,29

Because of the intense training and racing endured by these horses, many develop musculoskeletal
injuries that trainers and owners treat with NSAIDs, of which PBZ is the common due to its legality in the racing industry. A study done by the Daily Racing Form found 99% of racehorses in California and 92% of horses at Suffolk Downs in Massachusetts are given PBZ on a regular basis.30 Certain racetracks allow only PBZ administration on race day, but all usage must be recorded on the horse's track record.31 This documentation requirement makes racing thoroughbreds convenient candidates for a case study of PBZ usage in U.S. horses bought for slaughter.

Nicholas Dodman of Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Nicolas Blondeau of the Institut de Pharmacologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, and Ann Marini of Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences conducted a study to investigate whether thoroughbred race horses were given PBZ prior to being bought for human consumption, and to see how widely the FDA ban on PBZ usage in horses that end up on consumers' plates is ignored. The study identified 50 thoroughbreds rescued from slaughter and 18 thoroughbreds that were sent to slaughter. Each horse's Jockey Club lip tattoo allowed the researchers to find the registered name of all 68 horses, and each horse's drug record was obtained from their race track records.32

Upon review of the records, one of the horses sent to slaughter was not documented as receiving PBZ but the drug was identified in his blood test results, and another thoroughbred was administered PBZ by a veterinarian in the same month he was sent to slaughter. The remaining 16 of the 18 horses slaughtered and all 16 of the rescued horses were recorded as receiving PBZ within 24 hours of a race. Data collected by the researchers determined that the time interval between horse's last known dose of PBZ and the date they were bought for slaughter varied from a week to four years. However, it is important to note that the FDA, the EU, the United Kingdom, and Canada do not allow any use of PBZ in horses intended for human consumption regardless of withdrawal time.33

Another important aspect in understanding the risk of PBZ contamination in horse meat is the circulation of PBZ in the bloodstream. Horses possess 1.76 times the amount of blood per pound of body weight compared to cattle. With this much blood, it is possible that high-volume slaughterhouses€”one Canadian slaughterhouse processed 100 horses a days€”do not allow sufficient time for the horse's blood to be completely drained from the muscle, increasing the risk of meat contamination.34

The findings of Dodman, et al., indicate a serious discontinuity between food safety regulations and practice. Horses with a history of PBZ use are making their way to slaughter plants despite the United States' and other countries' ban of the use of the drug in food producing animals.

The European Union's Evaluation of Imported Horse Meat

In 2010, The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) evaluated food safety standards of imported equine meat from third countries (non-members of the European Union).35 The FVO have found that many third countries - such as Mexico, Canada, and the United States - do not keep veterinary pharmaceutical treatment records for horses; and there are no systems in place to differentiate equines intended for human consumption from all other equines. The evaluations also reported that third countries tolerate the administration of substances that are prohibited or unauthorized in food-producing animals in the EU.36,37 The United States has no official controls in place to verify the authenticity or reliability of the medical records and equine documents now required for horses destined for slaughter, only records of physical identification are required.38 These discoveries prompted the European Commission to facilitate corrective measures to their own regulations regarding imported horse meat, and to require third countries to implement action plans addressing compliance with the EU's requirements regarding equine meat.39

Since 2000, the EU's regulations state that horse meat cannot contain residues of veterinary medicinal products exceeding previously set limits or residue from substances banned for use in food producing animals in the EU. These restrictions include phenylbutazone. If substances prohibited for use in food- producing animals are administered to equids, those animals must be excluded from the food chain.40 Finally, imported horse meat can only be authorized if equines are included in European Commission- approved residue control plans in third country slaughterhouses.41

Both Canada and Mexico have submitted action plans in order to comply with the EU's import requirements for equine meat, and both plans have been approved by the FVO.42

In Mexico, horses imported for slaughter are to be microchipped and border controls have been strengthened. A sworn statement on veterinary medical treatments is requested for all slaughter horses, no matter what their country of origin. United States providers of imported horses (holding facilities) have been targeted in samplings of the Mexican National Residue Monitoring Programme (NRMP). According to the NRMP nineteen samples of horse meat in 2008, nine in 2009, and six in 2010 tested positive for residues of banned substances. All of the horses who tested positive were covered by a declaration stating that no treatments were given to the horses, and all of these horses came from U.S. providers. 43

In Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has implemented the Equine Information Document (EID). The EID contains a physical description of the animal, record of the animal's medical treatment for the previous six months, and requires the signature of the animal's owner at the time of ownership transfer to verify that all information is accurate. Horses bought for intended slaughter must have their EIDs also signed by the transient agent responsible for the care of the equine from time of purchase for slaughter until arrival at the meat processing establishment. Each CFIA inspected facility engaged in equine slaughter must present an EID for all domestic and imported equines presented for slaughter. If the EID indicates a horse has been given a substance not permitted for use in equine slaughtered for food, such as phenylbutazone, the horse will not be eligible for slaughter.44 However, the 2011 FVO audit noted "for those horses imported from the United States of America for direct slaughter, the equine identification documents received were not reliable..." The audit further noted that 85% of the horses slaughtered in this Canadian processing plant originated from the U.S. and all of these horses were imported for direct slaughter.45 Considering cases such as the one above, as long as there is no identification system in place, U.S. horses will not meet the European Commission's new food safety regulations, which will become effective in July 2013.

The European Commission mandated a transitional period of three years in which third countries have to provide guarantees regarding medical and drug history for horses during their last six months before slaughter. After the three-year transition period - which ends in 2013 - guarantees must be provided for the lifetime of the horses.46 This policy would complement the EU's "horse passport" legislation, which requires records to be kept of certain medicinal products.47 This required lifetime guarantee that a horse be cleared of all EU prohibited substances for use in food-producing animals could eliminate virtually all U.S. horses from the food chain. The substances banned for use in food-producing animals routinely administered by U.S. horse owners render most American horses ineligible for foreign slaughter. 48

Conclusion

The slaughter of U.S. horses poses a potentially serious health risk to human consumers, yet thousands are still slaughtered and sold to consumers. New measures put in place in the European Union to address the human health risk associated with horse slaughter are vital steps to insure U.S. horses, who are regularly given phenylbutazone along with other EU-banned substances, are kept out of the slaughter pipeline.

Prevention needs to start within U.S. borders. The United States should look to the European Union's horse passport and Canada's Equine Identification Document (EID) benchmarks. Requiring accurate medical records and identification documents, regardless of the horse's intended use, would draw clear lines regarding each individual horse's eligibility for human consumption. Until such a system is in place, meat from American horses may pose a public health threat.
________________________________________________________________________

1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States. 2010. FAOSTAT Live Animals. faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor. Accessed April 12, 2012.
2 American Veterinary Medical Association citing U.S. pet ownership & demographics sourcebook. 2007. www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp. Accessed April 12, 2012.
3 National Economic Impact of the US Horse Industry. 2005. Deloitte Consulting, LLP.
www.horsecouncil.org/national-economic-impact-us-horse-industry. Accessed April 12, 2012.
4 Whiting, T.L. 2007. The United States' prohibition of horse meat for human consumption: Is this a good law? Can Vet Journal 48(11):1173-1180, citing: Grudzen C.R., Kerndt P.R. 2007. The Adult Film Industry: Time to Regulate? PLoS Med 4(6): e126. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040126
5 California Penal Code. Sec.598d. leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7456524612+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Accessed April 12, 2012.
6 Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments, and Solicitations. Florida Statutes. 500.451.
www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/500.451 Accessed April 12, 2012.
7 Illinois Horse Meat Act. Illinois Compiled Statutes 225 ILCS 635/1.5 www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1381&ChapterID=24 Accessed April 12, 2012.
8 Food and Drug Administration. 2005. ANADA 200-334 Equizone 100 (phenylbutazone) Powder
Horses: For oral use in horses for the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculoskeletal system. www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/FOIADrugSummaries/ucm061800.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
9 Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Health Division. 2009. Horse Meat Exports 2008.
www.agr.gc.ca/redmeat/rpt/08tbl39_eng.htm. Accessed April 12, 2012.
10 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 21 United States Code. §Â§ 601 et seq. uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=21+USC+601&fq=true&num=0&hl=true. Accessed April 9, 2012.
11 Empacadora De Carnes De Fresnillo De v. Curry. (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit) (No. 05-11499). January 19, 2007. http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/cruel/slaughterhouse.htm. Accessed April 12, 2012.
12 Illinois General Assembly. 2007. HB1711, May 24. www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0002. Accessed April 12, 2012.
13 Dodman, N.; Blondeau, N. & Marini, A.M. 2010. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk. Food Chem Toxicol 48(5):1270-1274.
14 Juozapavicius J. 2011. Horse Meat Inspection Ban Lifted in the U.S. Huffington Post, November 30. www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/horse-meat-consumption-us_n_1120623.html. Accessed April 10, 2012.
15 Alberta Farm Animal Care. 2008. The Alberta Horse Welfare Report: A report on horses as food producing animals aimed at addressing horse welfare and improving communication with the livestock industry and the public. http://equineenews.osu.edu/documents/HorseWelfareReport1-AFAC.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2012.
16 European Commission, 2011. Health and Consumers Directorate-General. Final Report of an Audit Carried Out in Canada from 13 to 23 September 2011 in Order to Evaluate the Monitoring of Residues and Contaminants in Live Animals and Animal Products, Including Controls on Veterinary Medicinal Products. ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=9456. Accessed April 12, 2012.
17 Wermund, B. 2011. Government study says more horses headed to Mexico for slaughter. Big Bend
Now July 14, 2011. www.bigbendnow.com/2011/07/government-study-says-more-horses-headed-to- mexico-for-slaughter. Accessed April 12, 2012.
18 Letter correspondance between Ann M. Marini, Department of Neurology and Program in
Neuroscience, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethseda, MD and Senator Jolie Justus, Missouri, May 3, 2010.
19 Dodman, N.; Blondeau, N. & Marini, A.M. 2010. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk. Food Chem Toxicol 48(5):1270-1274.
20 National Library of Medicine. 2010. Phenylbutazone. www.toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-
bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+50-33-9. Accessed April 12, 2012.
21 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2003. New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order of Prohibition. Docket No. 03N-0024. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-4741.htm. Accessed April 12, 2012.
22 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2003. New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order of Prohibition. Docket No. 03N-0024. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-4741.htm. Accessed April 12, 2012.
23 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approved Animal Drug Products: NADA Number: 010-987. www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/animaldrugsatfda/details.cfm?dn=010-987. Accessed April 12, 2012.
24 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2003. New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order of Prohibition. Docket No. 03N-0024. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-4741.htm. Accessed April 12, 2012.
25 Rhoden, W.C. 2011. Racing Should Care for Its Own. The New York Times, May 20, p. D5. www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/sports/racing-industry-should-care-for-its-own.html?_r=1. Accessed April 12, 2012.
26 European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate-General. 2011. Final Report of a Mission Carried Out in Mexico From 22 November to 03 December 2010 in Order to Evaluate the Operation of Controls Over the Production of Fresh Horse Meat and Meat Products Intended for Export to the European Union as Well as Certification Procedures. ec.europa.eu/foodfvorep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2639. Accessed April 12, 2012.
27 European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General. 2011. Imports of animals and their products from third countries. Sec 5.3.1.1. ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/third_countries_en.htm#5.3.1.1. Accessed April 10, 2012.
28 Rhoden, W.C. 2011. Racing Should Care for Its Own. The New York Times, May 20, p. D5. www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/sports/racing-industry-should-care-for-its-own.html?_r=1. Accessed April 12, 2012.
29 U.S. Horses Slaughtered Yearly. USDA Statistics courtesy of Darrell Charlton, Jr. www.equinewelfarealliance.org/uploads/00-Slaughter_Statistics.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
30 Brown, A. 2010. Keeping Bute Out of the Food Chain. The Paulick Report, February 28. www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/keeping-bute-out-of-the-food-chain. Accessed April 12,
2012.
31 Dodman, N.; Blondeau, N. & Marini, A.M. 2010. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk. Food Chem Toxicol 48(5):1270-1274.
32 Dodman, N.; Blondeau, N. & Marini, A.M. 2010. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk. Food Chem Toxicol 48(5):1270-1274.
33 Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2011. Ante and Post-mortem Procedures, Dispositions, Monitoring, and Controls-Red Meat Species, Ostriches, Rheas, and Emus. Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures.
www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch17/annexee.shtml. Accessed April 10, 2012.
34 Dodman, N.; Blondeau, N. & Marini, A.M. 2010. Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk. Food Chem Toxicol 48(5):1270-1274.
35 European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate-General. 2009. Imports of equine meat from third countries. www.defendhorsescanada.org/residues.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
36 European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate-General. 2009. Imports of equine meat from third countries. www.defendhorsescanada.org/residues.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
37 European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate-General. 2008. Final Report of a Mission Carried Out in Mexico from 04 September to 11 September 2008 In Order to Evaluate Public Health Control Systems and Certification Procedures Over Production of Horse Meat Intended for Export to the EU. DG(SANCO)/2008-7979.
38 United States Department of Agriculture. 2011. Animal Disease Traceability: A Guide to Identifying Horses and other Equines for Interstate Movement. www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/2011/FStrachorse.VS.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2012.
39 European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General. 2011. Imports of animals and their products from third countries. Sec 5.3.1.1. ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/third_countries_en.htm#5.3.1.1. Accessed April 10, 2012.
40 European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General. 2011. Imports of animals and their products from third countries. Sec 5.3.1.1.
ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/third_countries_en.htm#5.3.1.1. Accessed April 10,
2012.
41 Council Directive 96/23/EC On measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions
89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. European Parliament. April 1996. www.ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/council_directive_96_23ec.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
42 European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General. 2011. Imports of animals and their products from third countries. Sec 5.3.1.1.
ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/third_countries_en.htm#5.3.1.1. Accessed April 10,
2012.
43 European Commission. 2010. Final Report of a Mission Carried Out in Mexico From 22 November to 03 December 2010 In Order to Evaluate the Operation of Controls Over the Production of Fresh Horse Meat and Meat Products Intended for Export to the European Union as Well as Certification Procedures. December 2010. ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_id=2639. Accessed April 12, 2012.
44 Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2011. Ante and Post-mortem Procedures, Dispositions, Monitoring, and Controls-Red Meat Species, Ostriches, Rheas, and Emus. Chapter 17, E.2. June 2011. www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch17/annexee.shtml#e2. Accessed April 12, 2012.
45 European Commission, 2011. Health and Consumers Directorate-General. Final Report of an Audit Carried Out in Canada from 13 to 23 September 2011 in Order to Evaluate the Monitoring of Residues and Contaminants in Live Animals and Animal Products, Including Controls on Veterinary Medicinal Products. www.ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm?reptoshow=2. Accessed April 12, 2012.
46 Whitcomb R. 2010. EU standards could signal new challenges for veterinary records, horse transport, and slaughter. DVM Newsmagazine, August 1. veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+Equine/EU-standards-could-signal-new-challenges-for- veter/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/682251. Accessed April 10, 2012.
47 European Commission. 2008. Commission adopts single passport and matching chip for horses and other equidae [Press release]. europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/905&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN Accessed April 12, 2012.
48 European Commission Health & Consumers Directorate-General. 2009. Imports of equine meat from third countries. www.defendhorsescanada.org/residues.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization, backed by 10 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty. On the Web at humanesociety.org. 
  
Related Articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

4/9/12

Why The Issue With Bute?

EATING HORSES

Int'l Fund for Horses

EU Drug Regulations, Phenylbutazone and the Disquieting Truth about Toxic Horse Meat

“BUTE” is by no means the only drug under scrutiny in the sport horse and racing industry however its metabolic activity and "decay life" in animal tissue is in direct contrast to many other legally permissible medications which are transient in nature and are biologically eliminated from the system over established intervals.

Of particular note however is the fact that “bute” is the most widespread anti-inflammatory in the global horse racing industry today. It is estimated that 98% of NA professional sport and pleasure horses have received phenylbutazone at some point in their lives and is widely used in other horse industry jurisdictions around the globe.

The kinetics and drug activity of phenylbutazone and its metabolites (e.g. oxyphenbutazone) are characteristic of a bi-exponential decay rate (the sum of two single exponential decays) meaning, in theory, that regardless of the elapsed time there will always be residuals present in blood plasma (i.e. the concept of infinite division). [1]

An exponential decay rate can be expressed in terms of "half-life" where one half-life represents the amount of time it takes for the substance undergoing "decay" to decrease by one half of the original concentration. Half-lives remain constant over the decay period and as the concentration approaches zero, the time to eliminate any residuals remaining in the system approaches infinity. In other words, there will always be some residuals present regardless of the passage of time.

Table 1 and Figure 1 together illustrate a simple model of exponential decay.
Of particular note is that regardless of the number of half-lives denoted by "n", the fraction or percentage of the original concentration of the substance under analysis will always be greater than zero.
Table 1: Exponential Decay Concept


Number of Half-Lives Elapsed


Fraction of Original Concentration Remaining


Percentage of Original Concentration Remaining


0


1


100


1


1/2


50


2


1/4


25


3


1/8


12.5


4


1/16


6.25


5


1/32


3.125


...


...


...


n


1/(2n)


100/(2n)
Where n = number of half-lives
Figure 1: Exponential Decay Curve Showing Persistence of Residues
Figure 1: Exponential Decay Curve Showing Persistence of Residues
Decades ago phenylbutazone, a compound originally used in Europe as a solubilizing agent for various analgesics given by intramuscular injection, was introduced to the drug compendium in the US for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout, nonetheless with fateful brevity.
Admitted in 1949, and shortly thereafter banned by the FDA for human use, by the year 2003 the ban extended to animals intended for human consumption given that investigation by FDA and State regulatory counterparts determined that phenylbutazone residues were discovered in culled dairy cattle. [2] [3]

At the time this did not include horses or dogs as in North America neither are considered food animals.

"Phenylbutazone (PBZ) was marketed in the United States for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1952. Serious and often fatal adverse effects such as aplastic anemia and agranulocytosis appeared in the literature within three years of its use . . . . . The serious adverse effects of PBZ culminated in its unavailability for human use in the United States."
[4]
Apart from aplastic anemia (bone marrow suppression) and agranulocytosis (reduction in infection fighting white blood cells), phenylbutazone and its principal metabolite oxyphenbutazone have also been implicated in thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), leucopenia (decreased white blood cells), pancytopenia (reduced red and white blood cells and platelets), hemolytic anemia (abnormal breakdown of red blood cells) and can cause hypersensitivity reactions in the liver leading to death. [5]  Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program. [6]

Clearly there is apt rationale for banning phenylbutazone for human use as well as animals intended for human consumption both as a function of its toxicity and the causal certainty that residues will always be present to some extent in the blood and hence tissues of animals slaughtered for food.  Additionally, what is most disconcerting is that the lethal adverse effects in humans are not always dose-dependent and demonstrate unique outcomes contingent on a particular individual’s susceptibility. In essence what this implies is that even in small quantities phenylbutazone and its metabolites can have deleterious effects on human health. [7]

To this end, the FDA has banned the use of phenylbutazone in horses destined for slaughter.
Moreover, there are no farming associations that raise horses for food in North America (unless the AQHA can be considered eligible). And despite the fact that horse slaughter in the US has been outlawed since 2007, there is no pretense about what happens to more than 100,000 horses sold annually at auction who are shipped to Canada and Mexico. Once butchered, their meat is exported to European and Asian locales where it fetches top dollar and is considered a delicacy.

The fact is that the majority of these horses will be administered phenylbutazone during some point in their lives to relieve musculoskeletal pain and inflammation.
This in itself is not entirely inappropriate as there are valid reasons for its use in the treatment of lameness providing the recommended dosage is abided by, as there are also potential life-threatening side-effects to the horse (e.g. severe gastric ulceration).

Instead, the glaring inconsistency is the unmistakable fact that these horses enter the food chain; perhaps not in North America but elsewhere through export to foreign countries nonetheless. What’s more, since the residues of phenylbutazone and its metabolites reside primarily in the blood plasma of the tissues there is the complicating factor of the inherent differences between slaughtered cattle and horse carcasses.

"As stated above, almost all of the PBZ remains in the bloodstream. . . . To provide a point of comparison, a 1400 lb cow has 60 ml/kg body weight or almost 10 gallons or 0.71 gallons per 100 lbs of cow. The ratio is 1.25/.71 = 1.76:1. Thus, a horse has 1.76 times as much blood per pound of body weight compared to a cow." [8]

Potentially this means that there is a calculated measure of risk of the presence of higher concentrations of toxic residues in horse meat than in beef. In actual fact there is no "risk" of higher concentrations in horse meat in light of the fact that the drug has been banned in other animals, such as cattle for example, intended for human consumption since 2003:  the residues are undeniably higher in horse meat. Still the quandary exists.

"The FDA, like the EU and UK, specifically bans the use of PBZ in any horse destined for slaughter for human consumption. Yet, this ban is being circumvented because there is no pre-slaughter mechanism to determine and remove horses that receive PBZ during their lifetime. This is because horses are not regarded as or treated as food-producing animals in the United States and there are no USDA regulations to prevent them from being given banned substances like PBZ." [9]

Horses may not be perceived as food-producing animals in the US, but they are certainly treated as if they are in the same appalling manner.
Continue reading >>


Enhanced by Zemanta
"From my earliest memories, I have loved horses with a longing beyond words." ~ Robert Vavra