Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA)approved “Enlist Duo” herbicide for use in Canada, making
it the first country to authorize the new herbicide.

U.S.-based Dow AgroSciences’ Enlist herbicide is designed to
be used alongside new biotech crops for which Dow is seeking
approval. These biotech crops are able to tolerate Enlist
herbicide, which helps farmers more easily treat fields for
problem weeds.

Millions of acres of weeds throughout North America have
become resistant to the popular Roundup herbicide, which is used
in conjunction with “Roundup Ready” herbicide-tolerant crops.
Dow sees its Enlist system as an alterative.

“Managing hard-to-control and resistant weeds is one of the
biggest problems farmers are facing, and Enlist is a solution
they need to continue moving farming forward,” Stan Howell, vice
president, North America, Dow AgroSciences, said in a statement.

Dow said the new crops and herbicide are safe and effective.
But critics contend that Dow’s plans will only add to weed
resistance problems, and the 2,4-D chemical component in the
Enlist herbicide is unsafe for humans and animals as well as the
environment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture surprised Dow
AgroSciences on Friday when it said it wanted to further
scrutinize Dow’s proposed new Enlist crops, a move that delays
Dow’s commercialization plans in the United States.

Canadian regulators have already approved Enlist corn and
soybeans and Dow said it will speed up seed production for a
commercial launch.

The first, a precision planting product called
“FieldScripts,” is being rolled out for beta testing this year
to more than 150 farmers in the U.S. Midwest.

The company is still not sure how it will price the product
or license it to rivals as it does its seed technology, but has
high hopes for commercialization in the next two to three years
and strong long-term growth.

“What we are building right now is based on the strength of
our germplasm and our breeding. That is the key engine,” said
Monsanto Chief Financial Officer Pierre Courduroux in an
interview.

“When you get to the next layers of growth, that is where
you’ll start getting into those new platforms we’re building. We
are putting the base in place so that it is the next layer of
growth. We’ve got high hopes regarding those products.”

FieldScripts is a precision planting tool that will be sold
alongside Monsanto seed products at dealers and is based on soil
data, slope, organic matter and other information gathered from
individual farmer fields.

The data is translated to an individualized prescription for
the farmer that recommends what type of seed, what density and
spacing a farmer should use and what type of fertilizer will
work best. Lower seeding rates might be used in parts of one
field and higher rates suggested in another based on the data
gathered.

Certain equipment will be required to implement the product,
but farmers should see a gain of 5-10 bushels per acre, said Pam
Strifler, Monsanto’s vice president of integrated farming
systems.

The second new platform seen as having high potential
involves new biological research. Monsanto’s “biodirect”
research is aimed at developing products that use molecules
found in nature as topical applications for crop protection.

The company is accelerating work to screen and test
micro-organisms to find ways to use the bacteria and fungi to
optimize the performance of crops and protect them from weeds
and pests.

“It is an interesting time in the company as we look at some
of these new opportunities,” said Monsanto Chairman Hugh Grant.

The core business of providing seeds and chemicals to
farmers remains the top priority as Monsanto see increasingly
strong growth internationally, said Chairman Hugh Grant. Latin
America is seeing fast expansion, and Eastern Europe holds
particular future appeal, as do areas in seeds business.

“That is a big change for us,” said Grant. “We’ve seen a
business movement from really domestically based to more and
more … a global business.”

U.S.-based Monsanto is setting up 20 field locations
around the United States to test and market its “Xtend” soybean
product at the same time that company officials said they would
be working quickly to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture
with additional study data to show the product’s safety. The
company continues to have a goal of securing regulatory approval
by 2015 or shortly after, Monsanto Chief Technology Officer
Robert Fraley said in an interview.

“We’ll put the additional studies in and we’ll move through
it as quickly as we can,” he said.

Monsanto’s new soybeans are genetically altered to tolerate
dousings of a herbicide concoction of glyphosate and dicamba
chemicals. Monsanto developed the biotech crop in conjunction
with BASF to address an explosion of crop-choking
weeds around the U.S. that have become resistant to glyphosate,
which is the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s popular Roundup
herbicide.

The company was surprised on Friday when USDA regulators
said they wanted to conduct a full environmental impact
statement (EIS) after receiving an onslaught of opposition to
the company’s plans from critics who say the new chemicals will
only further weed resistance and have other harmful impacts.

Monsanto had not expected to go through that process before
receiving regulatory approval, and said it could take an
additional 15 months.

Still, Fraley said the delay would give them extra time to
expose farmers and retailers to the product and acquaint them
with how to use the genetically altered beans in conjunction
with the Xtend herbicide. And it should allow Monsanto to come
to market with a better seed supply if and when regulators grant
approval, said Fraley.

The move by USDA to require more scrutiny comes after it
lost court challenges to previous approvals it granted for
biotech sugarbeets and alfalfa. Courts said the USDA broke the
law by failing to do an EIS for each.

In its decision announced Friday, the USDA also said it
would require an EIS for new herbicide-tolerant corn known as
Enlist developed by Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical
.

Critics contend the new Monsanto and Dow crops will
accelerate herbicide use and further weed resistance problems.
They also warn that increased use of the new herbicides that
would come with the new crops would cause damage to fruits,
vegetables and other crops as dicamba and 2,4-D have been known
to travel on the wind far from the fields where they are
sprayed. Many also worry that the new biotech crops will
contaminate conventional and organic crops and potentially harm
human and animal health.

But Monsanto and Dow say the chemicals and the crops are
proven safe and the best hope for farmers who are suffering
reductions in crop production due to weeds.

A review of 926 diplomatic cables of correspondence to and
from the U.S. State Department and embassies in more than 100
countries found that State Department officials actively
promoted the commercialization of specific biotech seeds,
according to the report issued by Food & Water Watch, a
nonprofit consumer protection group.

The officials tried to quash public criticism of particular
companies and facilitated negotiations between foreign
governments and seed companies such as Monsanto over issues like
patents and intellectual property, the report said.

A U.S. State Department official said it routinely
coordinates trade and investment matters to support U.S. firms,
including “providing assistance in opening markets, leveling the
playing field, protecting intellectual property rights, and
resolving trade and investment disputes.”

Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said Monsanto believes it is
critical to maintain an open dialogue with government
authorities and trade groups in other countries.

“We remain committed to sharing information so that
individuals can better understand our business and our
commitments to support farmers throughout the world as they work
to meet the agriculture demands of our world’s growing
population,” he said.

The cables show U.S. diplomats supporting Monsanto, the
world’s largest seed company, in foreign countries even after it
paid $1.5 million in fines after being charged with bribing an
Indonesian official and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act in 2005.

One 2009 cable shows the embassy in Spain seeking
“high-level U.S. government intervention” at the “urgent
request” of Monsanto to combat biotech crop opponents there,
according to the Food & Water Watch report.

The report covered cables from 2005-2009 that were released
by Wikileaks in 2010 as part of a much larger release by
Wikileaks of a range of diplomatic cables it obtained.

Food & Water Watch said the cables it examined show the
government going to great lengths to support and promote the
interests of the agricultural biotech industry, which has had a
hard time gaining acceptance in many foreign markets.

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry
and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of
Food & Water Watch.

U.S. officials, Monsanto and many other companies and
industry experts routinely say that biotech crops are needed
around the world to increase global food production as
population expands. They maintain that the crops are safe and
make farming easier and more environmentally sustainable.

PROMOTION THROUGH PAMPHLETS, DVDs?

The State Department also produced pamphlets in Slovenia
promoting biotech crops, sent pro-biotech DVDs to high schools
in Hong Kong and helped bring foreign officials and media from
17 countries to the United States to promote biotech
agriculture, Food & Water Watch said.

Genetically altered crops are widely used in the United
States. Crops spliced with DNA from other species are designed
to resist pests and tolerate chemical applications, and since
their introduction in the mid 1990s have come to dominate
millions of acres of U.S. farmland.

The biotech crops are controversial with some groups and in
many countries because some studies have shown harmful health
impacts for humans and animals, and the crops have been
associated with some environmental problems.

They also generally are more expensive than conventional
crops, and the biotech seed developers patent the high-tech
seeds so farmers using them have to buy new seed every season, a
factor that makes them unappealing in some developing nations.

Many countries ban planting of biotech crops or have strict
labeling requirements.

(Reuters) – U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for overseas lobbying that promotes controversial biotech crops developed by U.S.-based Monsanto Co and other seed makers, a report issued on Tuesday said.

A review of 926 diplomatic cables of correspondence to and from the U.S. State Department and embassies in more than 100 countries found that State Department officials actively promoted the commercialization of specific biotech seeds, according to the report issued by Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer protection group.

The officials tried to quash public criticism of particular companies and facilitated negotiations between foreign governments and seed companies such as Monsanto over issues like patents and intellectual property, the report said.

The cables show U.S. diplomats supporting Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, in foreign countries even after it paid $1.5 million in fines after being charged with bribing an Indonesian official and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 2005.

One 2009 cable shows the embassy in Spain seeking “high-level U.S. government intervention” at the “urgent request” of Monsanto to combat biotech crop opponents there, according to the Food & Water Watch report.

The report covered cables from 2005-2009 that were released by Wikileaks in 2010 as part of a much larger release by Wikileaks of a range of diplomatic cables it obtained.

Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said Monsanto believes it is critical to maintain an open dialogue with government authorities and trade groups in other countries.

“We remain committed to sharing information so that individuals can better understand our business and our commitments to support farmers throughout the world as they work to meet the agriculture demands of our world’s growing population,” he said.

State Department officials had no immediate comment when contacted about the report.

Food & Water Watch said the cables it examined provide a detailed account of how far the State Department goes to support and promote the interests of the agricultural biotech industry, which has had a hard time gaining acceptance in many foreign markets.

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

But U.S. officials, Monsanto and many other companies and industry experts routinely say that biotech crops are needed around the world to increase global food production as population expands. They maintain that the crops are safe and make farming easier and more environmentally sustainable.

PROMOTION THROUGH PAMPHLETS, DVDs?

The cables show that State Department officials directed embassies to “troubleshoot problematic legislation” that might hinder biotech crop development and to “encourage the development and commercialization of ag-biotech products”.

The State Department also produced pamphlets in Slovenia promoting biotech crops, sent pro-biotech DVDs to high schools in Hong Kong and helped bring foreign officials and media from 17 countries to the United States to promote biotech agriculture, Food & Water Watch said.

Genetically altered crops are widely used in the United States. Crops spliced with DNA from other species are designed to resist pests and tolerate chemical applications, and since their introduction in the mid 1990s have come to dominate millions of acres of U.S. farmland.

The biotech crops are controversial with some groups and in many countries because some studies have shown harmful health impacts for humans and animals, and the crops have been associated with some environmental problems.

They also generally are more expensive than conventional crops, and the biotech seed developers patent the high-tech seeds so farmers using them have to buy new seed every season, a factor that makes them unappealing in some developing nations.

Many countries ban planting of biotech crops or have strict labeling requirements.

“It’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their (the biotech seed industry’s) goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of nonprofit organization Organic Consumers Association.

“American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

(Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Created by a U.S. program aimed at boosting the use of
renewable fuels such as ethanol in domestic motor fuel,
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) have until recently been
regarded as a somewhat untamed backwater of U.S. energy and
agricultural markets, where trading is unregulated and pricing
is sometimes hard to peg.

But ethanol RIN values have recently skyrocketed in price
and volume has spiked as speculators join oil refiners, gasoline
importers and others in a scramble for the credits, which are
critical for oil companies to meet U.S. mandates for renewable
fuels.

A 20-fold surge in prices this year has roiled Washington as
oil industry leaders warn that consumers could get hit with
higher gasoline prices if Washington does not step in.

In an effort to capitalize on the market interest, CME Group
Inc., owner of the world’s largest futures exchange,
will launch futures contracts for ethanol credits and other
renewable fuels on May 13, allowing users to trade them
alongside its benchmark crude and gasoline products. The
IntercontinentalExchange launched its own on April 29.

“There is a lot of interest building around it,” said Dan
Brusstar, senior director of energy research for CME Group.
“Right now you don’t have good transparency. A lot of companies
are leery of trading physical RINs. It (futures contracts) will
bring some transparency to the market.”

But some market experts say many more steps are needed to
bring transparency to the $9 billion ethanol credit market.

“It’s so new and it’s such a volatile market. It is really
messy,” said Jeff Hove, vice president of RinAlliance, an
Iowa-based aggregator and trader of RIN credits who handles RIN
trades for more than 200 clients.

38 DIGITS

A RIN is actually a 38-digit number created for each gallon
of renewable fuel. Typically the biofuel is then sold – together
with the attached RIN – to an oil company that needs the fuel in
order to blend with regular gasoline or diesel to meet the U.S.
Renewable Fuel Standard.

Refiners and other so-called “obligated parties” that
produce or import gasoline and diesel are required to present a
certain number of RINs to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as proof of compliance with the RFS mandate. The policy
is aimed at reducing the nation’s reliance on oil.

But some companies may have more RINs than they need, and
some may have less – hence the evolution of a secondary market
where the credits can be traded.

Without a central platform, packages of the ethanol credits
are peddled by brokers who mostly rely on email and instant
messaging exchanges with interested parties. Price discovery is
often difficult, making some participants wary. Regulation is
still evolving, spurring fears about fraud and pricing bubbles.

This March, prices for ethanol RINs shot up to about $1.04 a
gallon, from only five cents four months earlier, fueling a
debate about the knock-on impact for domestic fuel prices and
the impact of speculation on the nascent, shadowy market.
Ethanol RINs for 2013 were trading at about 78 cents a gallon on
Friday.

HIGHER PRICES?

Refiners have been lobbying Washington lawmakers and EPA
officials to roll back renewable fuel mandates, claiming they
are limited in how much they can blend and how much they can
afford to spend on credits.

They say the price spike was due to the abrupt realization
that there may be a shortage of RINs next year, when oil
companies may be required to increase use of renewable fuels to
the equivalent of more than 10 percent of the nation’s gasoline.
The companies, however, may not be able to sell it all at gas
stations, most of which are so far unwilling to sell a higher
ethanol mix than E10.

Consumers will pay the price, they say.

“The surprise is over and, like every other manufacturing
cost, it must be passed on,” Tom O’Malley, chairman of New
Jersey-based refiner PBF Energy, said on a recent conference
call with analysts.

Ethanol proponents say it is the oil industry, which is
fighting efforts to blend more ethanol into gasoline, that is
responsible for driving up RIN values. They argue that use of
ethanol in gasoline has overall reduced pump prices.

Whatever the forces and factors, many of those participants
in the market say growing volume and more volatile pricing for
the credits means tighter regulation and more standardization is
needed, and soon.

“RIN trading is still in its infancy,” said Progressive
Fuels Limited analyst David Dunn, whose company is partnering on
development of an electronic trading platform for RINs.

(Reuters) – The Department of Agriculture said Friday it will extend its scrutiny of controversial proposed biotech crops developed by Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical, and Monsanto Co. after receiving an onslaught of opposition to the companies’ plans.

The news frustrated Dow officials who had hoped to have secured regulatory approval and have their new herbicide-tolerant corn called “Enlist” on the market by 2013 or 2014 at the latest. But 2015 is now likely the best hope for commercialization, said Dow AgroSciences spokeswoman Kenda Resler Friend. Farmers need the new technology to better manage weeds, she said.

“They (regulators) have had a long time to look at the information,” said Friend. “This is something that farmers are going to lose from.”

USDA said it will conduct two separate environmental impact statements “to better inform decision-making” on the approvals sought by Dow and Monsanto.

Critics applauded the move. Many have warned that both the new crops planned by Dow and Monsanto, and the new herbicide use tied to the crops, will cause a range of problems for farmers and rural communities.

“USDA is taking the issue…seriously,” said Paul Towers, a spokesman for the Pesticide Action Network. “We’re hoping that a thorough review… will ultimately result in denials.”

Monsanto issued a statement calling the development “unexpected,” and saying it would cooperate with the government in the assessment. The company said farmers need its new technology to maximize crop production.

Dow AgroSciences is hit the hardest by the USDA decision as it had hoped to have approval by now, while Monsanto has been aiming for “the middle of the decade.”

Dow wants to roll out Enlist corn, and then soybeans and cotton to be used in combination with its new Enlist herbicide that combines the weed-killers 2,4-D and glyphosate.

The Enlist crops are genetically altered to tolerate treatments of the Enlist herbicide mixture. Dow says Enlist will help combat an explosion of crop-choking weeds around the United States that have become resistant to glyphosate, which is the chief ingredient in the popular Roundup herbicide.

Likewise, Monsanto, in conjunction with BASF, want regulatory approval for new genetically altered soybeans and cotton that resist a new dicamba-based herbicide.

Both the Enlist system and the dicamba system are seen as replacements for the combination of Roundup herbicide used on Roundup-resistant crops that now dominates U.S. agriculture.

The USDA has received thousands of comments on both of the new cropping systems that laid out a variety of concerns. In addition to increasing weed resistance, many farmers fear increased use of the new herbicides that would come with the new crops would cause damage to fruits, vegetables and other crops as dicamba and 2,4-D have been known to travel on the wind far from the fields where they are sprayed.

Many also worry that the new biotech crops will contaminate conventional and organic crops.

And Dow’s Enlist herbicide is also controversial because 2,4-D, or 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the Vietnam War defoliant that was blamed for numerous health problems suffered during and after the war.

Although the main health effects of Agent Orange were blamed on the other component of the mixture (2,4,5-T) and dioxin contamination, critics say 2,4-D has significant health risks of its own.

The Center for Food Safety had threatened to sue the government if it approved Enlist.

Center for Food Safety attorney Andrew Kimbrell said he thought the USDA had little choice but to conduct environmental impact statements given USDA has lost court challenges to its approvals for biotech sugarbeets and alfalfa for failing to conduct such assessments for those crops.

“I think they were between a rock and a hard place,” Kimbrell said of USDA. “They were going to be forced to do this anyway. The rush to judgment here has been halted.”

Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant cropping system is of particular concern to farmers, said Steve Smith, chairman of the Save Our Crops farming interest coalition.

The group petitioned USDA last month to prepare just such an EIS because of the concerns about dicamba’s potential to drift and do damage to other crops.

But Cathleen Enright, executive vice president at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), said the USDA’s action sets a “bad precedent for future consideration of safe and beneficial genetically engineered plant products.”

“The U.S. regulatory system for biotech products remains unnecessarily burdensome and unpredictable, and American farmers are paying the price,” Enright said.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid)

Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half
were found to be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90
percent were contaminated with one or more types of
disease-causing organisms, many of which proved resistant to one
or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports found.

The non-profit, independent product-testing organization
said in the June issue of its magazine that the sampling marked
the first time it had conducted a laboratory analysis of ground
turkey, a popular consumer alternative to hamburger. It was
alarmed by the results.

“Some bacteria that end up on ground turkey, including E.
coli and staph aureus, can cause not only food poisoning but
also urinary, bloodstream, and other infections,” said a
Consumer Reports statement on its findings.

The group said it samples ground turkey from 27 different
brands including major and store brands.

Turkeys, like other livestock in the United States, are
commonly given repeated low doses of antibiotics in an effort to
keep the animals healthy and help promote growth. But there has
been growing concern that widespread use of antibiotics in
animals that are not sick is speeding the development of
antibiotic resistance.

The National Turkey Federation said the findings were
sensationalized on a sampling that was “extremely small,” and
said that blaming use of antibiotics in animals was
“misleading.”

“There is more than one way they (harmful bacteria) can wind
up on food animals,” said National Turkey Federation vice
president Lisa Picard. “In fact, it’s so common in the
environment, studies have shown that generic E.coli and MRSA
(Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can even be found
on about 20 percent of computer keyboards.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also found widespread
contamination, discovering antibiotic resistant E coli,
salmonella and other harmful bacteria in turkey, ground beef,
pork chops and chicken in sampling done in 2011.

The food safety regulator says resistance of bacteria to
antibiotics is “a major public health threat,” and last year
issued voluntary guidelines for animal health and animal
agriculture industries aimed at limiting the antibiotic use in
livestock.

The agency has rebuffed efforts to mandate reduced usage but
says the voluntary route is faster.

“FDA believes these drugs should be used only in situations
where they are necessary for ensuring animal health, and done so
under the oversight of a veterinarian,” FDA said in a statement.

It added the Consumer Reports findings were misleading and
said antimicrobial resistance is a “complex issue with many
causes.”

U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, last month
reintroduced legislation that would ban non-therapeutic uses of
eight types of antibiotics in food animal production.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has
issued a warning about antibiotic resistance infections, saying
they are becoming increasingly difficult to treat and more
infected people are likely to die.

“Humans don’t consume antibiotics every day to prevent
disease and neither should healthy animals,” said Dr. Urvashi
Rangan, Director of the Food Safety and Sustainability Group at
Consumer Reports. “Prudent use of antibiotics should be required
to stem the public health crisis generated from the reduced
effectiveness of antibiotics.”

(Reporting By Carey Gillam; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half were found to be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90 percent were contaminated with one or more types of disease-causing organisms, many of which proved resistant to one or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports found.

The non-profit, independent product-testing organization said in the June issue of its magazine that the sampling marked the first time it had conducted a laboratory analysis of ground turkey, a popular consumer alternative to hamburger. It was alarmed by the results.

“Some bacteria that end up on ground turkey, including E. coli and staph aureus, can cause not only food poisoning but also urinary, bloodstream, and other infections,” said a Consumer Reports statement on its findings.

The group said it samples ground turkey from 27 different brands including major and store brands.

Turkeys, like other livestock in the United States, are commonly given repeated low doses of antibiotics in an effort to keep the animals healthy and help promote growth. But there has been growing concern that widespread use of antibiotics in animals that are not sick is speeding the development of antibiotic resistance.

The National Turkey Federation said the findings were sensationalized on a sampling that was “extremely small,” and said that blaming use of antibiotics in animals was “misleading.”

“There is more than one way they (harmful bacteria) can wind up on food animals,” said National Turkey Federation vice president Lisa Picard. “In fact, it’s so common in the environment, studies have shown that generic E.coli and MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can even be found on about 20 percent of computer keyboards.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also found widespread contamination, discovering antibiotic resistant E coli, salmonella and other harmful bacteria in turkey, ground beef, pork chops and chicken in sampling done in 2011.

The food safety regulator says resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is “a major public health threat,” and last year issued voluntary guidelines for animal health and animal agriculture industries aimed at limiting the antibiotic use in livestock. The agency has rebuffed efforts to mandate reduced usage, however.

U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, last month reintroduced legislation that would ban non-therapeutic uses of eight types of antibiotics in food animal production.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has issued a warning about antibiotic resistance infections, saying they are becoming increasingly difficult to treat and more infected people are likely to die.

“Humans don’t consume antibiotics every day to prevent disease and neither should healthy animals,” said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of the Food Safety and Sustainability Group at Consumer Reports. “Prudent use of antibiotics should be required to stem the public health crisis generated from the reduced effectiveness of antibiotics.”

(Fixes headline to show turkey is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria)

(Reporting By Carey Gillam; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

Of the 257 samples of ground turkey tested, more than half
were found to be positive for fecal bacteria and overall, 90
percent were contaminated with one or more types of
disease-causing organisms, many of which proved resistant to one
or more common antibiotics, Consumer Reports found.

The non-profit, independent product-testing organization
said in the June issue of its magazine that the sampling marked
the first time it had conducted a laboratory analysis of ground
turkey, a popular consumer alternative to hamburger. It was
alarmed by the results.

“Some bacteria that end up on ground turkey, including E.
coli and staph aureus, can cause not only food poisoning but
also urinary, bloodstream, and other infections,” said a
Consumer Reports statement on its findings.

The group said it samples ground turkey from 27 different
brands including major and store brands.

Turkeys, like other livestock in the United States, are
commonly given repeated low doses of antibiotics in an effort to
keep the animals healthy and help promote growth. But there has
been growing concern that widespread use of antibiotics in
animals that are not sick is speeding the development of
antibiotic resistance.

The National Turkey Federation said the findings were
sensationalized on a sampling that was “extremely small,” and
said that blaming use of antibiotics in animals was
“misleading.”

“There is more than one way they (harmful bacteria) can wind
up on food animals,” said National Turkey Federation vice
president Lisa Picard. “In fact, it’s so common in the
environment, studies have shown that generic E.coli and MRSA
(Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can even be found
on about 20 percent of computer keyboards.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also found widespread
contamination, discovering antibiotic resistant E coli,
salmonella and other harmful bacteria in turkey, ground beef,
pork chops and chicken in sampling done in 2011.

The food safety regulator says resistance of bacteria to
antibiotics is “a major public health threat,” and last year
issued voluntary guidelines for animal health and animal
agriculture industries aimed at limiting the antibiotic use in
livestock. The agency has rebuffed efforts to mandate reduced
usage, however.

U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, last month
reintroduced legislation that would ban non-therapeutic uses of
eight types of antibiotics in food animal production.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has
issued a warning about antibiotic resistance infections, saying
they are becoming increasingly difficult to treat and more
infected people are likely to die.

“Humans don’t consume antibiotics every day to prevent
disease and neither should healthy animals,” said Dr. Urvashi
Rangan, Director of the Food Safety and Sustainability Group at
Consumer Reports. “Prudent use of antibiotics should be required
to stem the public health crisis generated from the reduced
effectiveness of antibiotics.”

(Reporting By Carey Gillam; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)