Concerns with the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production came up long before the group released its report and recommendations on antibiotics last April.
More recently, the Commission, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, took on an advertising campaign in D.C. in its push to eliminate the use of antibiotics in animals via the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA). (See this photo from @TopProducerMag for a quick example, or visit the link below for more).
The Commission operates the SaveAntibiotics website, which contains information on PAMTA that it supports and is pushing via the ad campaign and an e-mail campaign to members of Congress.
The American Veterinary Medical Assn. (AVMA), however, has provided a scientific report to Congress as a response to Pew. AVMA disputes many of Pew's findings and recommendations - in an easy-to-follow, practically statement-by-statement form.
The full AVMA response is here (.pdf)
Below are two paragraphs (emphasis added) from AVMA's executive summary:
Both in substance and in approach, therefore, the Pew report contains significant flaws and major dalliances from both science and reality. These missteps lead to dangerous and under-informed recommendations about the nature of our food system – and shocking recommendations for interventions that are scarcely commensurate with risk. The report is, in many ways, a prolonged narrative designed to romanticize the small, independent farmer, while vilifying larger operations, based simply upon their size.
The suggestions presented in the following analysis of the Pew Commission's report offer thoughtful insight into what we, as veterinarians, assert are critical research and programmatic needs as next steps in promoting the optimal health and welfare of our nation's animals and people. As always, we believe it is imperative to base our decisions on evidence and research that is grounded in the basic principles of scientific inquiry. By disregarding these elementary guidelines of thought, the Pew Commission's report is based on what is possible, rather than what is probable. The following analysis cautions against the propagation of these untruths, which could easily scare the American public and, ultimately, compromise the safety of our nation's food supply.
Dr. Ron DeHaven, AVMA's CEO, has also recorded a video response, which you can find here. And an audio podcast, which is here.
He explains some of the problems with the Pew report and recommendations, including that Pew showed bias by not incorporating findings and suggestions from some participants.
He also, rightly, asks Congress to reject PAMTA.
A full article on the subject also appears in the JAVMA, which you can find here.
This article contains a lot of good information, including the response by DeHaven to Pew's advertising campaign.
Dr. David R. Smith, a professor and the extension dairy and beef veterinarian for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said in the article that it is important for AVMA to provide veterinarians' perspective on the Pew's conclusions.
Smith is one of the AVMA volunteer leaders who read the Pew report, evaluated the commission's recommendations and crafted the AVMA's response.
From the JAVMA article (emphasis added):
Smith said the Pew report lacks insight into animal health issues, why antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals, and the regulation of those antimicrobials. He hopes the AVMA report provides people with a critical look at the Pew Commission's recommendations and "whether acting on those recommendations would make the world a better place."
"Largely, our conclusions were that the Pew report was a superficial look at animal agriculture, and the recommendations lacked deep understanding of the issues involved," Dr. Smith said.
No comments:
Post a Comment