Experts back Contador’s claim of bad meat

By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: May 17, 2010

Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and

Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner

Children with greater exposure to organophosphate pesticides appear to have an increased risk of developing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a cross-sectional study showed.

A 10-fold increase in the concentration of the most common dialkyl phosphate metabolites — a measure of organophosphate exposure — was associated with a 1.55-fold increase in the odds of having ADHD (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.10), according to Maryse Bouchard, PhD, of the University of Montreal, and colleagues.

The relationship was not explained by gender, age, race/ethnicity, poverty to income ratio, fasting duration, or urinary creatinine concentration, the researchers reported in the June issue of Pediatrics.

“These findings support the hypothesis that organophosphate exposure, at levels common among U.S. children, may contribute to ADHD prevalence,” they wrote.

Causality could not be established, however, and it is possible that the behavior of children with ADHD increases their exposure to pesticides.

“Future studies should use a prospective design, with multiple urine samples collected over time, for better assessment of chronic exposure and critical windows of exposure, and should establish appropriate temporality.”

But John Spangler, MD, of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., said certain elements of the current study point toward a causal relationship.

Organophosphates interfere with the metabolism of acetylcholine, a key brain chemical in cognition, he said.

“If its metabolism is altered over a long period of time, brain development will change,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Nerve pathways will develop where they should not develop or fail to develop where they should.”

The strength of the association, as well as animal studies linking exposure to organophosphates and hyperactivity, also suggest causality, Spangler added.

He noted that the potential dangers from organophosphate exposure can be alleviated through population interventions.

“Just as public smoke-free laws reduce heart attacks and lung cancer, cracking down on the allowable level of residue on produce can have huge population pay-offs.”

The population is typically exposed to pesticides through food, drinking water, and residential use. Major sources of exposure for children and infants is through the diet, as some fruits and vegetables have been shown to have pesticide residue.

The potential harm from pesticide exposure is greater in children because the developing brain is more vulnerable, and doses per body weight are likely to be higher than in adults.

Although exposure to organophosphates has been associated with behavioral problems and impaired cognition, studies have generally focused on populations with high exposures, according to Bouchard and her colleagues.

To explore the issue in an average-exposure pediatric population, they looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2000 to 2004.

In this analysis, 1,139 children ages 8 to 15 who were representative of the general population were included.

Overall, 119 met criteria for an ADHD diagnosis, according to a structured phone interview with a parent. Another 29 did not meet diagnostic criteria, but were taking ADHD medications regularly in the previous year.

Pesticide exposure was assessed with a single spot urine test for six dialkyl phosphate metabolites of the chemicals, and the vast majority of children (93.8%) had at least one detectable metabolite.

A 10-fold increase in the dimethyl alkyl phosphates was associated with greater odds of meeting diagnostic criteria for ADHD. The relationship was strengthened when the children who were taking ADHD medications but did not meet diagnostic criteria were included in the analysis (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.28).

Children with levels higher than the median of the most common dimethyl alkyl phosphate — dimethyl thiophosphate — had nearly twice the odds of having ADHD (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.02) compared with children with undetectable levels.

Gender and age did not affect the associations.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations of the study, including the use of a single measurement of exposure and possible measurement error, considering the large proportion of children who had levels of some of the metabolites below the analytical limit of detection.

via Medical News: Pesticides Linked to ADHD in Kids – in Public Health & Policy, Environmental Health from MedPage Today.

All the more reason to eat natural meats.

The Spread of Superbugs

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: March 6, 2010

Until three months ago, Thomas M. Dukes was a vigorous, healthy executive at a California plastics company. Then, over the course of a few days in December as he was planning his Christmas shopping, E. coli bacteria ravaged his body and tore his life apart.

Mr. Dukes is a reminder that as long as we’re examining our health care system, we need to scrutinize more than insurance companies. We also need to curb the way modern agribusiness madly overuses antibiotics, leaving them ineffective for sick humans.

Antibacterial drugs were revolutionary when they were introduced in the United States in 1936, virtually eliminating diseases like tuberculosis here and making surgery and childbirth far safer. But now we’re seeing increasing numbers of superbugs that survive antibiotics. One of the best-known — MRSA, a kind of staph infection — kills about 18,000 Americans annually. That’s more than die of AIDS.

Mr. Dukes, 52, picked up a kind of bacteria called ESBL-producing E. coli. While it’s conceivable that he touched a contaminated surface, a likely scenario is that he ate tainted meat, said Dr. Brad Spellberg, an infectious-diseases specialist and the author of “Rising Plague,” a book about antibiotic resistance.

Vegetarians are also vulnerable to antibiotic resistance nurtured in hog barns. Microbes swap genes, so antibiotic resistance developed in pigs can jump to microbes that infect humans in hospitals, locker rooms, schools or homes.

Routine use of antibiotics to raise livestock is widely seen as a major reason for the rise of superbugs. But Congress and the Obama administration have refused to curb agriculture’s addiction to antibiotics, apparently because of the power of the agribusiness lobby.

The ESBL E. coli initially remained in Mr. Dukes’s colon, causing no particular damage. But then he suffered an inflammation that perforated his colon — and the bacteria escaped.

Mr. Dukes began suffering stomach pains and saw his doctor, who gave him Cipro, a strong antibiotic that had previously worked against the infection. This time, the pain grew worse. The next evening, he was in surgery to remove eight inches of his colon.

A culture attributed the infection partly to ESBL E. coli. Doctors inserted a tube to administer an intravenous antibiotic in an effort to save his life.

If ESBL E. coli is frightening, there are even more potent superbugs emerging, like Acinetobacter.

“We are seeing infections caused by Acinetobacter and special bacteria called KPC Klebsiella that are literally resistant to every antibiotic that is F.D.A. approved,” Dr. Spellberg said. “These are untreatable infections. This is the first time since 1936, the year that sulfa hit the market in the U.S., that we have had this problem.”

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, an organization of doctors and scientists, has been bellowing alarms. It fears that we could slip back to a world in which we’re defenseless against bacterial diseases.

There’s broad agreement that doctors themselves overprescribe antibiotics — but also that a big part of the problem is factory farms. They feed low doses of antibiotics to hogs, cattle and poultry to make them grow faster.

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that in the United States, 70 percent of antibiotics are used to feed healthy livestock, with 14 percent more used to treat sick livestock. Only about 16 percent are used to treat humans and their pets, the study found.

More antibiotics are fed to livestock in North Carolina alone than are given to humans in the entire United States, according to the peer-reviewed Medical Clinics of North America. It concluded that antibiotics in livestock feed were “a major component” in the rise of antibiotic resistance.

Legislation introduced by Louise Slaughter, a New Yorker who is the only microbiologist in the House of Representatives, would curb the routine use of antibiotics in farming. The bill has 104 co-sponsors, but agribusiness interests have blocked it in committee — and the Obama administration and the Senate have dodged the issue.

After weeks of receiving intravenous antibiotics, Mr. Dukes is now recovering at home in Lomita, Calif. He must use a colostomy bag, but he hopes to be patched up and ready to return to work next month. Still, he knows that the ESBL E. coli remains in his gut.

“As long as it’s contained in my colon, I’m a happy camper,” he said. “But if it gets out again, I’m in trouble.”

Dr. Martin J. Blaser, chairman of the department of medicine at New York University Langone Medical Center, and a former president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, agrees that agricultural use of antibiotics produces cheaper meat. But he says the price may be an enormous toll in human health.

“You could have very lethal pandemics,” he said. “We’re brewing some perfect storms.”

•

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

via Op-Ed Columnist – The Spread of Superbugs – NYTimes.com.

FDA mulling restrictions on livestock antibiotics

BLOG POST BY PHILIP BRASHER • PBRASHER@DMREG.COM • MARCH 10, 2010

The head of the Food and Drug Administration says the agency is continuing to look at possible restrictions on the use of antibiotics in livestock but pledged to consult with producers. Margaret Hamburg told a House subcommittee today that antibiotic resistance is one of the nation’s “foremost public health concerns” and there are clear linkages between the problem and the use of the drugs in farm animals.

“We are working closely with industry, listening to their concerns,” Hamburg said in response to a question from Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ia. “We are not going to move forward and institute a policy that we have not been able to base on sound science and evidence.”

She said the agency was looking at “regulatory pathways” to restrict animal antibiotic use but did not elaborate.

Last summer, an FDA official surprised the industry by calling for ending the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in livestock and requiring veterinary approval for all other uses of the drugs. Legislation pending in the House would ban the use of antibiotics for promoting growth in livestock.

“The use of antibiotics for growth promotion alone really needs to be scrutinized very, very closely,” Hamburg said.

The livestock industry argues that overuse of antibiotics in human medicine is more to blame for resistance in bacteria than feeding the drugs to livestock.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., warned that requirements for closer veterinary scrutiny of antibiotic use could be a hardship for farmers, due to the lack of veterinarians in some areas.

Latham invited Hamburg to visit his district in north central Iowa, which includes the Agriculture Department’s National Animal Disease Center at Ames as well as a huge hog industry.  “You’ll come to Iowa and find out that there are 3 million people but we have 17 to 18 million hogs,” he said. She did not immediately respond to the invitation.

via FDA mulling restrictions on livestock antibiotics | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs.

Most U. S. beef cattle are implanted with synthetic hormones in feedlots prior to slaughter.   On January 1, 1989 the European Economic Community (EEC) placed a ban on hormone-treated U. S. meat, preventing U. S. meat products from being sold in any European nations. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has challenged the ban and accused the EEC of unfair trade practices, but the action of European governments raises some important questions about American meat.

Q. Why did the Europeans (EEC) place a ban on hormone-raised meat?

A. The European Economic Community banned hormone-raised meat because of questions on the dangers of meat that has been treated with synthetic sex hormones. European consumers pressured the EEC to take this action to protect their health.

More than a decade ago, Roy Hertz, then director of endocrinology at the National Cancer Institute and a leading authority on hormonal cancers, warned of the carcinogenic risks of estrogenic additives which can cause imbalances and increases in natural hormone levels. Hertz warned against the uncontrolled use of these potent carcinogens. No dietary levels of hormones are safe and a dime-sized piece of meat contains-billions of millions of molecules.

Breast cancer has been raised as a primary concern in light of associations between breast cancer and oral contraceptives, whose estrogen dosage is known and controlled. The risk of breast and other cancers only increases with the uncontrolled use of hormones in meat.

Q. During the seven years after the EEC ban on hormone-raised meat, the U.S. beef industry has continued to use sex hormones in meat. Why?

A. Hormones can be used to stimulate growth in cattle. Because farmers are paid based on the weight of the animals they sell for slaughter, the use of hormones has been seen as a way to boost profits.

Q. Which hormones are used on feedlots?

A. Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was one of the first hormones used to fatten feedlots. It was banned in 1979 after forty years of evidence that DES was cancer-causing. In its place, sex hormones, such as estradiol and progestins (synthetic forms of the naturally occurring hormone progesterone) have been implanted to virtually all feedlot cattle. The least hazardous way to administer hormones to animals is through an implant near the animals ear. Unfortunately, many farmers inject hormones directly into the muscle tissue that will be later used to make meat products. The only USDA-imposed requirement is that residue levels in meat must be less than one percent of the daily hormone production of children. This requirement is unenforceable because there is no USDA testing for hormone residues in meat. Furthermore, hormonal residues are not practically differentiable from natural hormones created by the cow's body. As a result, the use of hormones to boost meat production is completely unregulated.

Q. What kind of policies should be in place in the U.S. to address this problem?

A. Hormonal and other carcinogenic additives (pesticides from food fed to animals, some antibiotics, etc.) should be banned immediately, as should be all additives that are not proven effective and safe. Additive use and residue levels in animal products, including milk and eggs, should be subject to explicit labeling requirements. Until then, state initiatives that establish hormone-free certification for European shipments, should be applauded and extended domestically.

Q. What can consumers do to protect themselves?

A. Consumers can boycott chemical treated meat in favor of organic meat and insist on the fight to know which additives have been used and what residues might exist. Consumers should speak with their butchers or grocers about hormone-free meat product availability.

via American Beef: Why is it Banned in Europe?.