Like many Asian cities, Beijing is a city of towers, and the stands at VIV China seem to be trying to rival their more permanent counterparts in terms of scraping the sky. For a European, these stands are high, and any exhibitor unprepared for this has found their exhibtion space somewhat dwarfed.
The show opened Monday morning with a 14-person line-up on a bright red podium, a military band, and flashing cameras. Flowers and a dramatic ribbon cutting, all seemed rather redolenet of earlier days, and something much more official.
The event has attracted 370 exhibitors, 268 of which are from China, and has drawn companies from a total of 67 countries.
Visitors were welcomed to the exhibition by China's chief national veterinary officer, who described the exhibition as China's "golden autum" and pointed out that the country had been the world's largest producer of meat for the last 20 consecutive years, and had been consecutively ranked as the world's largest poultry meat and egg producer for the last 25 years.
And for anyone overawed by the scale of this achievement, he reassured that the growth of China's agricultural production whould not be seen in isolation, but rather viewed as an increase in overall world production.
But despite the grand-scale of the event, VIV China is not without its share of fun. Like most shows, it has its fair share of animal costumes, but seeing a fluffy coe or a bipedal pig walking unaccompanied across the exhibition floor does not take me by surprise in the same way it once did.
What did grab my attention, however, along with that of many other visitors, was the Moba dancing screen. Attached to a robotic arm, the screen moved in all directions, and the visuals it displayed reacted to the various movements of the supporting arm.
Ningxia Eppen Biotech Co Ltd also did well in capturing visitor attention. With a stand designed as a cross between a log cabin and a bar, and with staff dressed as thigh-slapping cowgirls, the company certainly managed to put the fun back into biotech.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Brazil and EU, one more 'chicken battle' round soon
The Brazilian Association of Poultry Producers and Exporters – UBABEF, expects that in a month-time the Brazilian government opens a new panel at World Trade Organization - WTO against EU for a recent set of rules governing the importation of frozen chicken meat into the block.
UBABEF claims it is fully against the new definition for "fresh meat" adopted by the EU last May. As per the new definition, interpreted by UBABEF as protectionist, the chicken meat exported frozen into EU is allowed to be sold frozen, only, as well.
According to Mr. Francisco Turra, president of UBABEF, the problem is that from the 500 thousand tones of frozen chicken meat exported to EU annually, some 200 thousand are reprocessed and re-frozen by the local food processing industries.
Mr. Turra cannot still envision the impact f this measure on the shipments of the Brazilian chicken meat to the EU, but anticipated that it has contributed to reduce to 257.2 thousand tones, or 14.7% less by volume, the chicken meat exports to the block over the first seven months of 2010, when compared to same period of last year. "The European officials alleged the measure aims at protecting their consumers, but we have science-based documentation stating chicken meat re-freezing is not risky to health", said Mr. Turra.
Meanwhile, the total Brazilian chicken meat exports between January and July 2010 grew 2% by volume, to 2.165 million tones, and 16.6% by value, to US$ 3.756 billion, thanks to the increase of average price per ton in the international market.
UBABEF claims it is fully against the new definition for "fresh meat" adopted by the EU last May. As per the new definition, interpreted by UBABEF as protectionist, the chicken meat exported frozen into EU is allowed to be sold frozen, only, as well.
According to Mr. Francisco Turra, president of UBABEF, the problem is that from the 500 thousand tones of frozen chicken meat exported to EU annually, some 200 thousand are reprocessed and re-frozen by the local food processing industries.
Mr. Turra cannot still envision the impact f this measure on the shipments of the Brazilian chicken meat to the EU, but anticipated that it has contributed to reduce to 257.2 thousand tones, or 14.7% less by volume, the chicken meat exports to the block over the first seven months of 2010, when compared to same period of last year. "The European officials alleged the measure aims at protecting their consumers, but we have science-based documentation stating chicken meat re-freezing is not risky to health", said Mr. Turra.
Meanwhile, the total Brazilian chicken meat exports between January and July 2010 grew 2% by volume, to 2.165 million tones, and 16.6% by value, to US$ 3.756 billion, thanks to the increase of average price per ton in the international market.
Associations urge FDA to make changes to veterinary feed directive
The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) and National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) have released a joint statement calling for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make "much-needed improvements" to its current regulatory procedures, in particular the veterinary feed directive (VFD).
The VFD is a regulatory program whereby a licensed veterinarian issues a written statement that authorizes the use of a VFD drug to treat a client's animals, but only in accordance with the directions for use set forth by the FDA. The FDA is considering expanding the program to apply to more than the current two approved drugs as a means to increase veterinary oversight. The AFIA and NGFA, however, said they were "extremely concerned about, and would oppose" such expansion. "This regulatory burden is substantial, both in terms of time and cost, with feed mills being the focal point for inspection when regulatory officials seek to determine compliance with the current VFD regulations," the associations said. Limiting more drugs to approval via the VFD process would only cause more paperwork burdens and regulatory compliance costs for feed manufacturers, the NGFA and AFIA said.
In addition, the AFIA and NGFA listed several proposed improvements to the current VFD process:
• Eliminate the requirement that veterinarians calculate the quantity of feed required to treat targeted animals.
• Eliminate the requirement that VFD orders disseminated by fax or e-mail be followed up with an original copy within five business days.
• Change the records-retention requirement for VFD orders to one year, rather than the current two years.
• Amend existing medicated feed regulations to avoid automatically classifying VFD drugs as Category II, Type A medicated articles.
• Increase educational and training efforts among veterinarians to reduce problems associated with incomplete or inaccurate VFD orders.
The VFD is a regulatory program whereby a licensed veterinarian issues a written statement that authorizes the use of a VFD drug to treat a client's animals, but only in accordance with the directions for use set forth by the FDA. The FDA is considering expanding the program to apply to more than the current two approved drugs as a means to increase veterinary oversight. The AFIA and NGFA, however, said they were "extremely concerned about, and would oppose" such expansion. "This regulatory burden is substantial, both in terms of time and cost, with feed mills being the focal point for inspection when regulatory officials seek to determine compliance with the current VFD regulations," the associations said. Limiting more drugs to approval via the VFD process would only cause more paperwork burdens and regulatory compliance costs for feed manufacturers, the NGFA and AFIA said.
In addition, the AFIA and NGFA listed several proposed improvements to the current VFD process:
• Eliminate the requirement that veterinarians calculate the quantity of feed required to treat targeted animals.
• Eliminate the requirement that VFD orders disseminated by fax or e-mail be followed up with an original copy within five business days.
• Change the records-retention requirement for VFD orders to one year, rather than the current two years.
• Amend existing medicated feed regulations to avoid automatically classifying VFD drugs as Category II, Type A medicated articles.
• Increase educational and training efforts among veterinarians to reduce problems associated with incomplete or inaccurate VFD orders.
China imposes anti-subsidy levy on US chicken
China imposed an anti-subsidy ranging from 4% to 30.3% on chicken meat products imported from USA, as of August 30, 2010, according to the recent announcement made by Ministry of Commerce of China. It exceeds the previous levy range of 3.8% to 31.4% set preliminarily last April.
According to Ministry of Commerce of China, Tyson and Pilgrim’s, two US poultry processing giants, must pay duties of 5.1% and 12.5%, respectively, on their chicken products imported into China. Dozens of other US poultry companies will have to deal with levies that can vary up to 30.3%, added the Chinese organ. The new measure against the US poultry products, along with the recently imposed anti-dumping levy, will be valid for the next five years.
According to Ministry of Commerce of China, Tyson and Pilgrim’s, two US poultry processing giants, must pay duties of 5.1% and 12.5%, respectively, on their chicken products imported into China. Dozens of other US poultry companies will have to deal with levies that can vary up to 30.3%, added the Chinese organ. The new measure against the US poultry products, along with the recently imposed anti-dumping levy, will be valid for the next five years.
International Bioenergy Days 2010 to be held in IL
International Bioenergy Days 2010 will be held on Sept. 26 through 29 in Rockford, Ill.
The annual conference, which will be attended by industry experts and Sweden's Ambassador to the United States Jonas Hafström, will focus on the commercialization of bioenergy and the latest technologies. Three program tracks will be offered to attendees: best practices and new technology; political issues, economic resources and public policy; and applying and implementing bioenergy technologies. Each track is designed to meet the conference objective of educating industries on the latest advances in bioenergy, as well as provide networking opportunities for public policy specialists, commercial business leaders, academic experts and key influencers with interests in promoting the development of bioenergy processes and technologies.
The annual conference, which will be attended by industry experts and Sweden's Ambassador to the United States Jonas Hafström, will focus on the commercialization of bioenergy and the latest technologies. Three program tracks will be offered to attendees: best practices and new technology; political issues, economic resources and public policy; and applying and implementing bioenergy technologies. Each track is designed to meet the conference objective of educating industries on the latest advances in bioenergy, as well as provide networking opportunities for public policy specialists, commercial business leaders, academic experts and key influencers with interests in promoting the development of bioenergy processes and technologies.
Two editors join Industria Avicola
Two editors, both based in Latin America, have joined the staff of Industria Avicola. Benjamin Ruiz, based in Mexico City, has been named editor. He has a degree in Nutrition and Foods from the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, has a Masters in Animal Science (Poultry) from Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, USA and has worked in marketing, tech service and sales in Latin America for the American Soybean Association, Novus International, National Renderers Association and Wenger Manufacturing.
For the past 18 years, he has been a translator of the animal agriculture sector, with studies also in Translation and Terminology. He founded the agency Fabulare, SC and for the last 5 years he has worked as a freelance, in addition to being a translator of Industria Avícola over the past 18 years.
He can be reached at bruiz@wattnet.net
María de los Ángeles Gutierrez, based in Santiago, Chile, has been named managing editor. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Economics from the Universidad Católica de Chile, has a vast experience of more than 14 years as a journalist in Reed Business' magazine,
Avicultura Profesional, geared exclusively to the poultry area for the global and Latin American markets. She will focus on news and covering the South American markets. She can be reached at magutierrez@wattnet.net.
The two editors are supported by Kayla Kling, who began work for WATT on as an intern in 2009 while a student at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, with a double major in Spanish and Journalism. She now works for the Egg Industry, Feed Management and Industria Avícola from the company’s U.S. headquarters.
The increased staff will allow Industria Avicola to improve its coverage the entire continent both in the printed and electronic versions, with new features and means of communicating the latest news and developments in the poultry industry.
For the past 18 years, he has been a translator of the animal agriculture sector, with studies also in Translation and Terminology. He founded the agency Fabulare, SC and for the last 5 years he has worked as a freelance, in addition to being a translator of Industria Avícola over the past 18 years.
He can be reached at bruiz@wattnet.net
María de los Ángeles Gutierrez, based in Santiago, Chile, has been named managing editor. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Economics from the Universidad Católica de Chile, has a vast experience of more than 14 years as a journalist in Reed Business' magazine,
Avicultura Profesional, geared exclusively to the poultry area for the global and Latin American markets. She will focus on news and covering the South American markets. She can be reached at magutierrez@wattnet.net.
The two editors are supported by Kayla Kling, who began work for WATT on as an intern in 2009 while a student at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, with a double major in Spanish and Journalism. She now works for the Egg Industry, Feed Management and Industria Avícola from the company’s U.S. headquarters.
The increased staff will allow Industria Avicola to improve its coverage the entire continent both in the printed and electronic versions, with new features and means of communicating the latest news and developments in the poultry industry.
The SE recall: Inevitable or accidental?
It was considered prudent to refrain from commenting on the August recall following the SE traceback to Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa until more facts emerged. As a cynical observation, the HSUS was not as restrained since its publicity immediately implicated intensive cage housing with an unjustified and unsubstantiated epidemiological relationship between SE infection in consumers and commercial production systems — but I digress.
Let us return to what we do know from the FDA reports on its initial findings.
The outbreak appears to be associated with a single source comprising what is essentially a contiguous biological unit of 5 to 6 million hens in Wright County in North Central Iowa. This complement of hens represents approximately 2% of the nation’s flock of 280 million laying birds. No other farms, cooperatives, integrations or companies with an aggregate of 275 million hens have been identified as producing contaminated product as of the end of August.
Despite initial concerns, the incidence rate of egg-borne salmonellosis in consumers due to the specific strain of Salmonella enteritidis typed by PFGE, has declined as the implicated eggs, dating back to June have been either consumed or destroyed.
This outbreak was detected by traceback confirming the capabilities of FoodNet and PulseNet to identify foodborne disease in diverse populations in many states.
The CDC and FDA clearly have the ability to determine the source of an infection based on diligent patient interviews, using data on carton labels, wholesale and retail invoices and documentation with coordination among metropolitan, county and state public health investigators.
The extent of sale and transport of nest run eggs for packing and distribution can result in multistate outbreaks of SE. Traceback is obviously complicated by the profusion of brands and packs and packing plant imprints on cartons which do not necessarily relate to flock of origin.
In contrast to previous SE episodes, the FDA as the principal federal agency has acted forcefully and expeditiously to investigate the source and to motivate the recall and diversion of eggs to pasteurization. The quantity involved probably exceeds 12,000 cases per day unless affected flocks, farms or in-line units are depleted.
Now that the FDA has identified the source of infection and knowing the past history of the ownership of the enterprise concerned, it would be productive to consider the following questions to ascertain what procedures and accepted industry standards were ignored and disregarded and which otherwise may have averted the episode:
What SE detection program was followed and for how long? Most of the industry has subscribed to the UEP 5-Star program, which only requires one environmental drag swab assay within 2 weeks of depletion with obvious implications for the duration of possible vertical transmission to consumers in the event of infection of a flock. In contrast the most stringent EQAP, applied in Pennsylvania since the mid 1980s requires four assays during egg production extending over two cycles. Some producers satisfying customer requirements monitor all units on a complex, irrespective of flock age for environmental SE at quarterly intervals. A nationally distributed Brand has required their Franchisees to monitor flocks at four ages during production for the past five years.
What vaccination programs were followed and for how long? Did management of the affected complexes commence vaccination only when environmental positives were detected when testing was initiated within months of promulgation of the FDA Final Rule? It is a matter of record that for many years prudent producers have carried out programs of administering two or three successive doses of live mutant Salmonella typhimurium vaccine to pullets. In addition many operations also have administered inactivated emulsion vaccines prior to onset of production. Vaccination may be regarded as a cornerstone of an SE prevention program and as such is basically an industry standard. The FDA erred in not mandating this effective modality in their Final Rule for reasons that are inexplicable.
To what extent did the affected complexes apply appropriate biosecurity procedures with respect to parent flocks, their hatchery, rearing pullets and laying hens? Of obvious concern are precautions to prevent introduction and dissemination of SE during movement of flocks, equipment and personnel. Exclusion and baiting of rodents and especially mouse populations, which serve as reservoirs of SE, are critical components of an integrated control program.
What role did contaminated feed ingredients, especially animal proteins, play in either introduction of infection or subsequent propagation of SE? Did their common contaminated feed mill, delivery vehicles or personnel contribute to an ongoing cycle of infection? Was byproduct derived from ruminants and supplied by one or more rendering plants contaminated?
From the initial reports and comments by FDA officials and applying accepted knowledge within the industry we can immediately consider the following approaches to alleviation:
Disabuse ourselves of the incorrect notion that “SE is everywhere; it’s just a matter of looking”. In fact all the complexes I have been associated with as an auditor and consultant are free of SE environmental contamination. The “universal infection” point of view is flat wrong, self serving and anachronistic in the face of the FDA Final Rule.
We have sufficient knowledge of the epidemiology of SE in commercial flocks to implement successful and effective programs of prevention and monitoring given commitment and resources, which will add only fractionally to the cost of eggs. Programs must include biosecurity, vaccination, rodent suppression, placement of SE-free chicks, all vegetable diets and effective QC and monitoring at all levels of production. The legal implications and costs associated with persistent SE infection will be untenable in the future.
Unless the industry commits to rigid and effective control, consumer confidence will be eroded and SE will become the “new cholesterol” as a restraint to consumption
Purchase of nest run eggs should be supported by documentation of freedom from SE in all supply flocks. Did any of the companies taking advantage of the cheap price of the approximately 10,000 cases traded daily ever question the SE status of the implicated supplier?
An attitude of “lowest cost-whatever it takes” and disregard for the safety of product is intolerable. The “bad eggs” will have to adapt to acceptable practices or be “culled” by rejection of their products, lawsuits and regulatory action. Certainly condoning the deficiencies of irresponsible producers and receiving support from industry organizations is counterproductive and ultimately damaging to our image.
The final question arises as to how the industry will be affected by this outbreak and recall?
If we experience a subsequent recall from another source there may well be a marked erosion of confidence in shell eggs, a decline in consumption and further reduction in margins. The present “U-B windfall” may well be transitory as supply and demand attain equilibrium.
The trend towards a lower proportion of breaking noted during the past three years will be reversed and more pasteurized further-processed consumer and food service products will become available in response to consumer demand
Supply of in-shell pasteurized product will increase at a slow pace unless innovative technology such as microwave processing is introduced or more effective thermal immersion units are developed.
The need to counteract negative and distorted publicity from the opponents of intensive livestock production will be intensified. It will be critical to characterize the SE outbreak as a result of mismanagement if the facts support this contention. Complexes with cages demonstrated to be free of SE do not represent a risk to consumers. Intuitively, free-range and floor systems must have a greater potential for SE contamination than well managed cage units with belt manure removal.
The FDA will attempt to recover their tattered image by applying a zealous approach to otherwise compliant producers, citing technicalities and deficiencies in documentation. Ultimately a lack of understanding and resources will overwhelm the agency. The entire food industry will ultimately fall under the purview of a consolidated food safety agency paralleling changes in the UK and the EU where departments of agriculture have been discredited as protectors of consumer interests.
Let us return to what we do know from the FDA reports on its initial findings.
The outbreak appears to be associated with a single source comprising what is essentially a contiguous biological unit of 5 to 6 million hens in Wright County in North Central Iowa. This complement of hens represents approximately 2% of the nation’s flock of 280 million laying birds. No other farms, cooperatives, integrations or companies with an aggregate of 275 million hens have been identified as producing contaminated product as of the end of August.
Despite initial concerns, the incidence rate of egg-borne salmonellosis in consumers due to the specific strain of Salmonella enteritidis typed by PFGE, has declined as the implicated eggs, dating back to June have been either consumed or destroyed.
This outbreak was detected by traceback confirming the capabilities of FoodNet and PulseNet to identify foodborne disease in diverse populations in many states.
The CDC and FDA clearly have the ability to determine the source of an infection based on diligent patient interviews, using data on carton labels, wholesale and retail invoices and documentation with coordination among metropolitan, county and state public health investigators.
The extent of sale and transport of nest run eggs for packing and distribution can result in multistate outbreaks of SE. Traceback is obviously complicated by the profusion of brands and packs and packing plant imprints on cartons which do not necessarily relate to flock of origin.
In contrast to previous SE episodes, the FDA as the principal federal agency has acted forcefully and expeditiously to investigate the source and to motivate the recall and diversion of eggs to pasteurization. The quantity involved probably exceeds 12,000 cases per day unless affected flocks, farms or in-line units are depleted.
Now that the FDA has identified the source of infection and knowing the past history of the ownership of the enterprise concerned, it would be productive to consider the following questions to ascertain what procedures and accepted industry standards were ignored and disregarded and which otherwise may have averted the episode:
What SE detection program was followed and for how long? Most of the industry has subscribed to the UEP 5-Star program, which only requires one environmental drag swab assay within 2 weeks of depletion with obvious implications for the duration of possible vertical transmission to consumers in the event of infection of a flock. In contrast the most stringent EQAP, applied in Pennsylvania since the mid 1980s requires four assays during egg production extending over two cycles. Some producers satisfying customer requirements monitor all units on a complex, irrespective of flock age for environmental SE at quarterly intervals. A nationally distributed Brand has required their Franchisees to monitor flocks at four ages during production for the past five years.
What vaccination programs were followed and for how long? Did management of the affected complexes commence vaccination only when environmental positives were detected when testing was initiated within months of promulgation of the FDA Final Rule? It is a matter of record that for many years prudent producers have carried out programs of administering two or three successive doses of live mutant Salmonella typhimurium vaccine to pullets. In addition many operations also have administered inactivated emulsion vaccines prior to onset of production. Vaccination may be regarded as a cornerstone of an SE prevention program and as such is basically an industry standard. The FDA erred in not mandating this effective modality in their Final Rule for reasons that are inexplicable.
To what extent did the affected complexes apply appropriate biosecurity procedures with respect to parent flocks, their hatchery, rearing pullets and laying hens? Of obvious concern are precautions to prevent introduction and dissemination of SE during movement of flocks, equipment and personnel. Exclusion and baiting of rodents and especially mouse populations, which serve as reservoirs of SE, are critical components of an integrated control program.
What role did contaminated feed ingredients, especially animal proteins, play in either introduction of infection or subsequent propagation of SE? Did their common contaminated feed mill, delivery vehicles or personnel contribute to an ongoing cycle of infection? Was byproduct derived from ruminants and supplied by one or more rendering plants contaminated?
From the initial reports and comments by FDA officials and applying accepted knowledge within the industry we can immediately consider the following approaches to alleviation:
Disabuse ourselves of the incorrect notion that “SE is everywhere; it’s just a matter of looking”. In fact all the complexes I have been associated with as an auditor and consultant are free of SE environmental contamination. The “universal infection” point of view is flat wrong, self serving and anachronistic in the face of the FDA Final Rule.
We have sufficient knowledge of the epidemiology of SE in commercial flocks to implement successful and effective programs of prevention and monitoring given commitment and resources, which will add only fractionally to the cost of eggs. Programs must include biosecurity, vaccination, rodent suppression, placement of SE-free chicks, all vegetable diets and effective QC and monitoring at all levels of production. The legal implications and costs associated with persistent SE infection will be untenable in the future.
Unless the industry commits to rigid and effective control, consumer confidence will be eroded and SE will become the “new cholesterol” as a restraint to consumption
Purchase of nest run eggs should be supported by documentation of freedom from SE in all supply flocks. Did any of the companies taking advantage of the cheap price of the approximately 10,000 cases traded daily ever question the SE status of the implicated supplier?
An attitude of “lowest cost-whatever it takes” and disregard for the safety of product is intolerable. The “bad eggs” will have to adapt to acceptable practices or be “culled” by rejection of their products, lawsuits and regulatory action. Certainly condoning the deficiencies of irresponsible producers and receiving support from industry organizations is counterproductive and ultimately damaging to our image.
The final question arises as to how the industry will be affected by this outbreak and recall?
If we experience a subsequent recall from another source there may well be a marked erosion of confidence in shell eggs, a decline in consumption and further reduction in margins. The present “U-B windfall” may well be transitory as supply and demand attain equilibrium.
The trend towards a lower proportion of breaking noted during the past three years will be reversed and more pasteurized further-processed consumer and food service products will become available in response to consumer demand
Supply of in-shell pasteurized product will increase at a slow pace unless innovative technology such as microwave processing is introduced or more effective thermal immersion units are developed.
The need to counteract negative and distorted publicity from the opponents of intensive livestock production will be intensified. It will be critical to characterize the SE outbreak as a result of mismanagement if the facts support this contention. Complexes with cages demonstrated to be free of SE do not represent a risk to consumers. Intuitively, free-range and floor systems must have a greater potential for SE contamination than well managed cage units with belt manure removal.
The FDA will attempt to recover their tattered image by applying a zealous approach to otherwise compliant producers, citing technicalities and deficiencies in documentation. Ultimately a lack of understanding and resources will overwhelm the agency. The entire food industry will ultimately fall under the purview of a consolidated food safety agency paralleling changes in the UK and the EU where departments of agriculture have been discredited as protectors of consumer interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
