Food Safety and Antimicrobial Residues in Food Animals

1
Food Safety and Antimicrobial Residuesin Food
Animals

• B. P. Dey. DVM, Ph.D.
• USDA, FSIS, AEPFS Washington, D.C.
  

• Edna Negron, Ph.D.
• University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

2
Food Safety (Definition)

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Public Health Service
• Food and Drug Administration
• 1999 Food Code
• (27) "Food" means a raw, cooked, or processed
  edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient
  used or intended for use or for sale in whole or
  in part for human consumption, or chewing gum.

3
Food Safety (Definition)

• A suitable product which when consumed orally
  either by a human or an animal does not cause
  health risk to consumer.

4
How Safe is Food (Meat)

• Increased Food Borne Illnesses of 1980s
• National Research Council (Food Nutrition
  Board)
• Scientific Basis of the USDAs Meat and Poultry
  Inspection Program (Risk Assessment Approach)

5
Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Points System

• PR/ HACCP Final Rule
• (9 CFR Chapter III)
• July 1996

6
PR/HACCP Preamble

• Overall Food Safety Strategy
• Regulatory Reform
• Flexibility and Encourage Industry
• Involvement
• Farm-To-Table Approach

7
Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Points System

• 1. Standard Sanitation Operating Procedure (SSOP)
• 2. Pathogen Reduction
• a. E.coli Testing
• b. Salmonella (Performance Standard)
  Testing
• 3. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
• (HACCP)

8
Food Safety Hazard

• (Unsafe for Human Consumption)
• Biological (Bacteria, Viruses, Protozoa, BSE
  (?))
• Physical
• Chemical (Agricultural Chemicals /Animal Drugs
  and Environmental Contaminants )

9
Food Safety Problem

• Farm -To-Table Continuum
• Hazard at Production, Distribution or Consumption

10
Concept of Farm-to-Table Food Safety.

• IN
• Safe Raw Food Product for Production
• OUT
• Safe Processed Food Product
• Result
• Safe Food On Table

11
Challenges

• Adulteration
• Organoleptic Examination
• Farm-To-Table Strategy
• 
  

12
Chemical Residues

• Growth Promotants
• Arsenicals , Antibiotics, Clenbuterol
• Drugs
• Antimicrobials (Antibiotics, sulfonamides,
  coccidiostat, anthelmentics, carbadox,
  phenylbutazone , Halafuginone
• Insecticide
• Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and organophosphates

13
Antibiotics

• Antibiotics are chemicals substances which has
  the capacity to inhibit the growth of
  microorganism or destroy them
• Bacitracin Hygromycin Streptomycin
  Chlortetracycline Neomycin Tetracycline
  Erythromycin Novobiocin Tilmicosin
  Flavomycin Oxytetracycline Tylosin Gentamycin
  Penicillin
• FSIS analyzed 7,834 Domestic monitoring Special
  project samples in 2000

14
SULFONAMIDES

• Sulfonamides are drugs with bacteriostatic
  activity used as feed additives and for treating
  infections.
• Sulfabromomethazine Sulfaguanidine Sulfaphenazole
  
• Sulfacetamide Sulfamerazine
  Sulfapyridine
• Sulfachlorpyridazine Sulfamethazine
  Sulfaquinoxaline
• Sulfadiazine Sulfamethizole
  Sulfasalazine
• Sulfadimethoxine Sulfamethoxazole
  Sulfathiazole
• Sulfadoxine
  Sulfamethoxypyridazine Sulfatroxazole
• Sulfaethoxypyridazine Sulfanilamide
  Sulfisoxazole
• FSIS analyzed 6,623 Domestic Monitoring and
  Special Project samples in 2000

15
Why Prevent Antibiotic Residue in Meat?

• Immediate Effect
• - Anaphylactic reaction
• - Allergy
• Delayed Effect
• -Drug resistant organism
• -Therapy failure
• -Economics
• -Impact on immune response

16
Why Antimicrobial Residue Occurs

• 1. Shot gun Therapy
• 2. Illegal Use
• 3. Excess Use
• 4. Improperly Prepared/labeled Feed
• 5. Non Observance of Drug Withdrawal time

17
FSIS Regulated Product Action

• Violative Illegal Drugs and Chemicals
• Processor held Responsible for Chemicals
• Processor Asking Producer to Supply th Risk-free
  Raw Product

18
Screen Tests For Detecting Antibiotics in Animal
products

• Meat
• 1. Swab Test on Premises (STOP)
• 2. Calf Antibiotic and Sulfonamide Test (CAST)
• 3. Fast Antibiotic and SulfonamideTest (FAST)
• Milk
• 1. Charm Test
• Live Animals
• 1. None

19
Antibiotic Violations in Meat 2000 FSIS
Domestic Residue Plan

• Monitoring Enforcement
• ProductionClass Violations Violations
• Bulls 0.0 12
• Beef cows 0.3 10
• Dairy cows 1.0 19
• Bob veal calves 1.9
  NS Heifers 1.9 8
• Steers 0.8 11
• Roaster pig 3.2 NS
• Market Hog 0.8 5
• Sows 2.1 11
• Boar /stags 1.6 NS

20
Sulfonamide Violations in Meat

• Monitoring Enforcement
• Production Class Violations Violations
• Bulls 0.0 12
• Beef cows 0.3 10
• Dairy cows 1.0 19
• Bob veal 1.9 0
• Market Hog 0.8 5
  Bora/Stags 1.6 NS
• Roaster Pig 3.2 NS
• Sows 2.1 11

21
Rate of Residue Violations In Puerto Rico

• Total Samples Violations/ Rate()
• Year Cattle Calves Swine Cattle Calves
  Swine
• 1999 141 164 19 32 (23) 0 0
• 2000 150 147 11 43 (29) 1 (1)
  0
• 2001 99 130 14 18 (18) 0
  0
• _________
• Total Violations Cattle 70 (Antibiotics-68
  Sulfonamide-1 CHC-1)
  
  Calf-1 (Antibiotics)

22
Approach Concerns in Residue Control

• Rethinking in a HACCP environment
• Sample for certain chemicals in certain
  establishment
• Verification

23
Food Safety Organizations

• American Food Safety Institute Training in food
  safety handling. Arcoplast Contamination
  control training for industry.
• Environmental Outcomes Training for foodservice
  and hospitality industries. Food Chemical
  News Newsletter for food safety
  regulations/legislation/ enforcement etc.
• Food Safety 2000 Multimedia-based training
  program.
• Food Safety Resources Information training on
  FDA food code.
• Hi-Tech Detergents Ltd - manufacturer/designer
  of detergents, sanitisers, and animal
  remedies.

24
Residue Avoidance Activity

• Food Safety and Inspection Service
• State
• Producer Groups
• Universities
• Industrial Organizations
• Consumer Group

25
Residue Control in HACCP Environment

• FOLLOW NAS GUIDELINE
• Frame work for control of chemical hazard
• Consideration of management of chemical hazard
  HACCP

26
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 1

• Keep medication record for at least 12 months
  following marketing of any medicated livestock
• How?
• -Individually -By Group -By Pen
• Tool for Identification
• -Sow Card -Paint -Ear Tags
• -Ear Notch -Tatoo -Micro(Bio) Chips -

27
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 2

• Maintain Medication and Production Records
• 1. Routine Vaccination Protocol
• 2. Use of Medication to prevent Disease
  (Shipping, Change in Weather) and Stress of
  Mixing
• 3. Use of Animal Health products in breeding herd
• 4. Use of feed additive in finisher unit
• 5. Routine Treatment Plan -

28
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 3

• Properly Store , Labels, and Account for All
  Drugs Products and Medicated Feed.
• Follow labels directions for storage and use
  Effectiveness (dose) - Storage Temperature
  (refrigeration) - Administration (Route) -
  Precaution
• - Warning (Withdrawl time to market) -
  Expiration Date
• Inventory Control and Storage
• - Storage of Feed and water additives, use of
  syringes
• - Separation of medication from Farm Chemicals
• - Condition of a medicant

29
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 4

• Valid Veterinarian/ Client / Patient
  Relationship
• 1. Who is responsible for making medical
  judgement?
• 2. Regular visits by a veterinarian
• 3. Commitment by veterinarian

30
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 5

• Administering Medications
• a. Injection
• Routes (IM /SQ /IP/ IV/ IN)
• Needle Usage
• b. Water ( Availability of non medicated water
  after administration of medicated water)

31
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 6

• Commercial Feed processors Procedure
• Feed Manufacturer
• Meet specification for nutritional composition
• Meet desired medication level
• Free of contamination

32
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 7

• On Farm Feed Processing
• Buildings and Grounds (House keeping, space,
  preventive maintenace and storage of medicated
  feed)
• Equipment (Suitable, Capable, Cleaning, Accuracy)
  
• Work Space and Storage Area (work place and
  storage design, and separation areas)
• Product Quality Assurance (Laboratory assay,
  Equipment Cleaning)
• Labeling (Proper handling and storage of
  medications and labels)
• Record Keeping( Visual inspection, Written
  records, Retain records, storage of sample of
  finished feed for 6 months)

33
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 8

• Drug Residue Testing When Appropriate
• a. Culled Animal For Sale
• b. Animal received extra label treatment
• c. Roaster Pigs/ Steers
• d. Exhibiting at Livestock Stock Shows and
  Fairs
• e. Other special situations (Accidental
  spill/Exposure)

34
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 9

• Establish and Implement Effective Herd Health
  management plan
• Check for Disease
• Observe herd with veterinarian
• Perform test for disease exposure
• Conduct Post Mortem following diagnostic
  procedure
• Conduct Slaughter Checks
• Review Production record
• BIOSECURITY

35
HACCP Compatible Production Practice 10

• Code of Practice for Food Animal producers
• Proper Facility to Protect and Shelter Animals
• Well Kept facility to allow Safe, Humane and
  efficient Movement of Animals
• Trained personnel to take proper care of animals
• Provide clean water and nutritionally balanced
  feed
• Follow herd health program with Veterinarian
  advice
• Provide prompt veterinary care
• Humane method for euthanasia
• Safe movement/ transportation of animals

36

Conclusion

• Support and promote the FSIS effort to
• create an environment for Farm-to-Table
  Food Safety Concept.

37
References

• PR/ HACCP Final Rule,(9 CFR Chapter III) July
  1996.
• Residue Control in a HACCP Environment. Federal
  Register. 5(229) 70809-70815 , Nov 28, 2000.
• Quality Assurance -A Program for Pork
  Producers,Level iii, National Pork Board, 1997.
• USDA, FSIS, Domestic Residue Data Book, National
  Residue Program 2000.
• Farm to Fork Critical Control Points for Food
  Safety, J. Nutrition Menu Development, Vol.
  3(2), 2001
• Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Program
  Milk and Dairy Beef Residue Prevention Protocol
  -1996 Producer Manual
• Human Heal Impact and Regulatory Issues Involving
  Antimicrobial Resistance in Food Production
  Environment. Regulatory Research Perspectives.
  Vol. 1, Issue 1, July 2001