Who cares about benefit to the animals?

On Feb 23, 2012 a great leader in veterinary medicine, my father-in-law, and best friend of 36 years passed away. Dr. C Don Van Houweling was director of FDA’s Bureau  of Veterinary Medicine from 1967 to 1978. His office is in charge of all new animal drug approvals including antibiotics. Even in 1975  he was in the midst of the still raging debate about the human health risk of livestock antibiotic use (Grooters 2012). My first encounter with Dr Van Houweling was on the front of the Washington Post, where his public grilling by Senator Ted Kennedy was reported. His daughter and I spent many hours in the Union at Virginia Tech, and occasionally we read the newspaper.

Recently, I had asked Dr. Van Houweling how he had stopped the pressure to ban antibiotics in animal feed generated by the Swann Report (Swann et al. 1969).  He answer was immediate and definitive, “we showed the benefit to the animals. (Van Houweling 1977a, 1977b.) Today, if I ask FDA regulators about any analysis that might compare the risk of resistant bacteria to the animal benefit, they reply that they are not allowed to look at the benefit.  So in this ongoing effort to ban production and preventive antibiotics and to raise livestock without any antibiotics, I scratch my balding head and wonder, “Who cares about benefit to the animals now?”

References

Swann MM, Baxter KL, Field HI. 1969. Report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antiobiotics in Animal Husbandry and Antibiotics. Published by HMSO.
Grooters S.V. 2012. Antibiotic Resistance: An Emerging Food Safety Concern. Food Safety Magazine.
18(1):36-45.

Van Houweling C.D. 1977a. Tetracycline (chloratetracycline and oxytetracycline containing premixes: Opportunity for hearing. Federal register 42:56264-89.

Van Houweling CD. 1977b. Penicillin containing premixes: Opportunity for hearing. Federal Register 42:43772-93.

Campylobacter and raw milk

Over 30 years ago as a young dairy veterinarian, I rambled through the Cumberland valley, near Chambersburg, PA, caring for cows in dairies such as the “The Family Cow”. Recently, this Southern Pennsylvania farm was linked to over 75 cases of campylobacteriosis in four states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and New Jersey.  The outbreak ranks as one of Pennsylvania's three most severe raw milk outbreaks in the past five years.  This farm and many others in the area symbolize the local family farm ideal. So how can it be responsible for so much suffering?

Campylobacter is not the fault of the dairy farmer or the cow. Studies have shown that,on average 30%of fecal samples (Sato et al. 2004) and 9% of bulk tank samples test positive for Campylobacter (Jayaro and Henning, 2001). The bacterium lives happily in cattle, dogs and many other animals. However, in humans Campylobacter causes diarrhea (often bloody), abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and occasionally typhoid-like symptoms, including fever, anorexia, and headache. After infection, long term effects may include Guillian-Barré syndrome (which can cause paralysis) and arthritis (Heyman, 2004).

It boggles my mind that people come from Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and out of state to get their dose of diarrhea from the “Family Cow”. This farm sells 130,000 servings of raw (unpasteurized) milk per month, likely at a premium price. Pasteurization was/is one of the greatest food safety interventions ever implemented, besides cooking. Pasteurization would have prevented these and many other unreported illnesses.

My grandpa had a milk cow and I LOVED raw milk!  I likely was exposed to Campylobacter, but became accustomed to those particular strains. Thankfully, I never got tuberculosis, which was once the number one killer of young adults at the turn of the 20^th century (Cramer and Frey, 2006). It was stopped by pasteurization, followed by the testing and removal of TB positive cattle. Many many years of research have gone into making the pasteurization process so that it does not alter the nutritional content of the milk, unless of course you want to keep the fecal bacteria.

Food safety officials and inspectors work constantly and frantically to prevent illness from a wide variety of bacteria and food sources. Why does society not let them solve this problem by requiring pasteurization In Pennsylvania, raw milk is labeled with a warning. But, I suppose anyone who is craving a good case of diarrhea will not take time to read the warning label. 

Additional reading and references

Campylobacter blog
http://www.campylobacterblog.com/campylobacter-outbreak/76-cases-counted-in-your-family-cow-dairy-campylobacter-outbreak/

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Campylobacter
http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/campylobacter/

Cramer, D., Frey, R. 2006. Tuberculosis. Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3^rd edition. Available online at:
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/tuberculosis.aspx>

Food and Drug Administration. The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized milk can pose a serious health risk.  <http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516.htm>

Heyman, D. 2004. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. p. 81.

Jayaro, B.M, Henning, D.R. 2001. Prevalence of foodborne pathogens in bulk tank milk. J Dairy Sci. 84(10):2157-2162. Available online at: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Jayaro%20and%20Henning%202001>
Sato, K., Bartlett, P.C., Kaneene, J.B., Downes, F.P. 2004. Comparison of prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter spp. isolates from organic and conventional dairy herds in Wisconsin.
Appl Environ Microbiol 70(3): 1442-1447. Available online at: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15006764>