|
|
Dear Tracey:
First, what you write always make sense to me. I'm a fan.
Second, after reading what you wrote, and talking about this to some others, I think citizen inspectors might be a great idea. Obviously, a lot depends on training of interested individuals on how to take samples and what is the best and least expensive methods to use to check for contaminants of other types of meat and of different organisms and different antibiotics. Given the terrible outcomes of not having adequate testing, I would think it would not be difficult to find volunteers.
What we would need is to know what technology exists, like typing bacteria on a chip, identfying antibiotics via multiple wells for DNA. The methods don't have to be perfect or super accurate, just robust enough to alert us to potential problems that need more in depth study. Citizen inspectors could happen.
Dwight
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:51:48 -0500
From: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]>
To: Dwight Hines <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Citizen inspectors not a good idea
--
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/default.htm
Message-ID:
<CAPT_w+=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks Dwight;
In this case, I am speaking to a specific issue, which is the presence of
other types of meat in a product that may labeled as beef, as was seen in
the UK. I am also not advocating for random unskilled people to collect
this information, or for a crowd sourced citizen scientists substitute to a
well resourced government food inspection system, in fact, I am a big
advocate of government being responsible for the health and welfare of its
citizens.
My concern, is that the cut backs to the food inspection regime, may
preclude findings such as the one you mention below or the presence of
other meat where they do not belong, therefore, there is merit, to have
some sort of citizen scientists work their science to bring these issues to
light, and to pressure government with their findings in order to
strengthen a weakened institution.
Does that make sense?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dwight Hines <[hidden email]>wrote:
> Tracy & Listers:
>
> I;m not sure about the Canadian food inspections systems but to have
> citizen inspectors is likely to miss antibiotic resistance strains of
> bacteria, and will miss the amount and types of antibiotics in foods, like
> chicken.
>
> *
> http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/default.htm
> *
>
> *Kentucky Fried Chicken, which is in Canada, is still recovering from bad
> press due to the large dollops of antibiotics measured in their chickens
> being sold in China. The parent company for KFC, Yum, will have a loss in
> their earnings as a result. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a breakdown
> of chicken antibiotics by KFC or other chains in the US or any from Canada
> that I've seen.*
>
> *Please note that most physicians and researchers in the U.S. are
> reluctant to prescribe antibiotics for some illnesses because they are
> afraid of creating resistant strains of bacteria. Given that there are
> tremendously more antibiotics being pumped into animals we eat, than in
> humans, the practical fear is that large providers of edible meat are the
> larger problem.*
>
> *Let's hear from people in Canada what they are finding for antibiotics
> and resistant bacteria for different providers of edible foods.*
>
> *
> *
>
> *Dwight Hines*
>
> *IndyMedia*
>
> *Maine*
>
> USA
>
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> What is New in the NARMS Retail Meat Report for 2011
>
> In the 2012 M100-S22 document, the Clinical Laboratory and Standards
> Institute (CLSI) revised ciprofloxacin breakpoints for invasive Salmonella
> serotypes, lowering the resistance breakpoint from 4 ?g/mL to 1 ?g/mL.
> These revised breakpoints were applied to all Salmonella analyses in this
> report.
>
> In 2011, the gram negative CMV1AGNF SensititreTM plate was replaced by
> CMV2AGNF. This new panel replaces amikacin with azithromycin. Data on
> amikacin susceptibility can be found in prior NARMS Retail Meat Reports.
> Azithromycin has no CLSI approved interpretive criteria at the time of this
> report, therefore provisional NARMS breakpoints (Susceptible ??????????????????????
> were used (Table 1).
>
> Beginning in 2011, all isolates exhibiting resistance to a
> third-generation cephalosporin (ceftriaxone and/or ceftiofur) were screened
> for the presence of ESBLs and tested against other beta-lactam compounds.
> These data were added to this report in Table 13 and Table 30 of the Salmonella
> and E. coli sections, respectively. Additionally, sites began sampling
> chicken wings and thighs when chicken breast with bone in and skin on was
> unavailable. The term ?retail chicken? has replaced ?chicken breast? in
> this report to reflect this change.
>
> 7
>
> Highlights of the NARMS Retail 2011 Report
>
> Salmonella1
> o Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium, Kentucky, and Heidelberg accounted
> for 48% of
>
> retail meat isolates (Table 7). Serotype IIIa 18:z4,z23:- decreased from
> 6.3% in 2010 to 3.9% in 2011, removing it from the top 5 serotypes.
>
> o Saintpaul remained the most common serotype in ground turkey, a trend
> which was first seen in 2009.
>
> o Heidelberg prevalence among all retail meat increased from 9.5% in 2010
> to 11.2% in 2011 but remained below the 2002 to 2010 average of 19.8%.
>
> o Quinolones ? All Salmonella isolates were susceptible to nalidixic acid
> (Table 8).
>
> o Cephalosporins ? Third-generation cephalosporin resistance rose in
> retail chicken (10?33.5%) and ground turkey (8.1?22.4%) isolates from 2002
> through 2011 (p < 0.05).
>
> o Ampicillin ? There were significant increases in ampicillin resistance
> among retail chicken (16.7?40.5%, p < 0.05) and ground turkey isolates
> (16.2?58.4%, p<0.001) from 2002 through 2011.
>
> o Multidrug Resistance ? The proportion of Salmonella with no detected
> resistance declined in 2011 compared to 2010. Also in 2011, 44.9% of retail
> chicken isolates were resistant to ?? ?? ??????????????
> ???????? compared to 50.3% of ground turkey isolates. More than
> 27% of retail chicken isolates showed resistance to ??? classes (Table
> 11) with 2/3 from serotype Typhimurium (Table 9). Ground turkey isolates
> showed ?????????????????????????????????????????????
> antimicrobial classes.
>
> o No isolates displayed pheonotypes indicative of ESBL production (Table
> 13).
>
> Campylobacter2
> More than 90% of Campylobacter are recovered from retail chicken each
> year and C. jejuni was more prevalent than C. coli (Table 14).
>
> Macrolides and fluoroquinolones are used in the treatment of Campylobacter
> infections. It is well known that C. coli tend to be more resistant than C.
> jejuni regardless of source, and this is reflected in the 2011 NARMS
> retail data with the exception of quinolones and tetracycline.
>
> o Macrolide resistance in retail chicken isolates remained low at 4.3% of C.
> coli and 0.5% of C. jejuni in 2011 (Table 17).
>
> o Ciprofloxacin resistance in C. coli from retail chicken rose from 10%
> in 2002 to its highest peak of 29.1% in 2005 when fluoroquinolone use
> stopped in poultry production. Since then, ciprofloxacin resistance in C.
> coli has decreased to 18.1% in 2011 (Table 17), while resistance in C.
> jejuni significantly increased from 15.2?22.4% from 2002 through 2011
> (p<0.0001).
>
> o Tetracycline resistance increased in C. jejuni (36.3?48.4%) and C. coli (39.2?49.1%)
> compared to 2010.
>
> 1 Nearly all salmonellae were recovered from poultry. Due to the low
> recovery from ground beef and pork chops (< 2%), statistical analysis of
> trends in resistance from these sources should be considered with caution.
> 2 Ground beef and pork chop samples are no longer cultured for
> Campylobacter, due to their low recovery (<0.5%) from 2002?2007.
>
> 8
>
> o Gentamicin resistance in C. coli markedly increased from 0.7% in 2007
> when it first appeared in NARMS retail meat to 18.1% in 2011 (p < 0.0001).
>
> o Multidrug resistance is rare in Campylobacter. There were only 9 (of
> 634) Campylobacter isolates from poultry resistant to ??3 antimicrobial
> classes in 2011 (Table 18).
>
> Enterococcus
> E. faecalis (70.5%) was more prevalent than E. faecium (22.7%) in 2011
> (Table 20). Retail chicken was the only meat type where E. faecium was
> more prevalent than E. faecalis.
>
> Enterococcus is used as a sentinel for antibiotic selection pressures by
> compounds with gram-positive activity. This spectrum of activity is
> exhibited by many antimicrobials used in food animal production; and the
> same classes of antibiotics are also used to treat human infections.
>
> o No isolates were resistant to vancomycin or linezolid (Table 21). These
> classes of compounds are critically important in human medicine but are not
> used in food animal production.
>
> o Since 2002, streptogramin resistance has significantly decreased (p <
> 0.05) in retail chicken (56.3?27.1%), ground beef (46.2?8.4%), and pork
> chop (27.2?12.2%) isolates but has remained above 50% in turkey isolates
> (Table 21).
>
> o E. faecalis from poultry showed markedly higher aminoglycoside and
> macrolide resistance than E. faecium, with the exception of streptomycin. E.
> faecium had much higher resistance to nitrofurantoin, penicillin and
> ciprofloxacin from all sources compared to E. faecalis (Table 22.1-2).
>
> o The proportions of multidrug resistant poultry isolates from 2002
> through 2011 were higher in E. faecium than E. faecalis (Table 23.1-2).
>
> Escherichia coli
> E. coli are common in all retail meat products tested in NARMS. Of 1,920
> retail meats tested in 2011 55.7% were culture positive for E. coli, with
> pork chops having the lowest prevalence (30.4%) and ground turkey with the
> highest (76.7%).
>
> o Ceftriaxone resistance among E. coli isolates from retail chicken was
> consistently higher than any other retail meat tested (Table 26).
>
> o Noisolateswereresistanttociprofloxacin(Table26).
>
> o From 2002?2005, nalidixic acid resistance in E. coli from retail
> chicken increased from 2.8?6.6% and increased in ground turkey from
> 4.3?10.4%. Since 2005, resistance has decreased to 2.3% in chicken and 1.6%
> in ground turkey (Table 26). No ground beef or pork chop isolates were
> nalidixic acid resistant.
>
> o Gentamicin resistance is much higher in retail chicken and turkey
> isolates (> 20%) than ground beef and pork chop isolates (< 5%, Table 26).
>
> o A highly statistically significant trend (p < 0.0001) in ampicillin
> resistance was seen among ground turkey with 51.6% resistance in 2011, up
> from 31.3% in 2002.
>
> o Some poultry isolates exhibiting resistance to third-generation
> cephalosporins had additional co-resistances to other beta-lactam compounds
> (Table 30). No isolates displayed pheonotypes indicative of ESBL
> production.
>
> 9
>
>
> ????????????????????????????????????????????
>
--
Tracey P. Lauriault
Post Doctoral Fellow
Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
<a href="http://datalibre.ca/
613-234-2805" target="_blank">http://datalibre.ca/
613-234-2805
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20130213/4897793f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 433557 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20130213/4897793f/attachment.png>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
End of CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 15
***************************************************
|
Locked
