I stop at the end of the lane to retrieve the day’s mail and folded around the usual stack of bills is my latest issue of TIME magazine. Before driving into the farm I take a quick look at the cover. What’s this? A package of bright red hamburger is center stage with a label across the package: “WARNING: This hamburger may be hazardous to your health. Why the American food system is bad for our bodies, our economy, and our environment- and what some visionaries are trying to do about it.” Immediately below the package in huge bold print are the words “ The Real Cost of Cheap Food”, by Bryan Walsh, Time’s  “Energy and Climate” writer. My immediate thought is “Here we go – some pseudo- expert who knows next to nothing about agriculture, has decided to trash our way of life once again”. I read the article right then and there and my first impression is certainly correct!

Yep, it’s become as predictable as fall follows summer; someone is going to bash our farming systems, especially livestock production, on a regular basis. If we may digress for just a moment, do you remember a book that came out in 1993 entitled “ Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture” by Jeremy Rifkin? It was a ridiculous account of how every problem known to mankind could be traced back to the beef industry. I remember one reviewer stating, “This book doesn’t cite a single scientific reference, not even a bad one”! Well thankfully the public seemed to recognize nonsense when it saw it, the book was soon forgotten, and Mr. Rifkin has since moved on to criticize a number of other industries.

Now I can’t say for sure if Mr. Walsh read Mr. Rifkin’s book or not but it sure follows the same old issues of the book and other more recent condemnations like the “Food, Inc” movie currently making the rounds in theaters. All the usual tirades against animal agriculture that we have come to expect from the pseudo-experts are in the article- animal confinement and cruelty, meat laced with antibiotics, meat as the cause of our human obesity and other medical problems, farm animals causing global warming and cropland fertilization and use of animal manure polluting our waterways.

Now let’s be fair, no one could expect Mr. Walsh to be an expert in all things agricultural, right? But one would think that if you knew you needed more information you would search out a knowledgeable source, correct? Well apparently not if the goal is sell magazines!! Yes, Walsh reportedly approached the NCBA for their help a few days before the deadline and was given a half-dozen beef industry experts to interview and fact sheets on modern beef production. And what was the result of all this information that would have equipped him to objectively look at both sides of the issue? A dozen words from Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for NCBA, who refuted the development of antibiotic resistance in humans from their use in farm animals. That’s right, 12 total words in an article of seven pages!! When challenged in an interview by the AgriTalk radio station as to why he chose to ignore the other side of the story Mr. Walsh noted that “this is the story we decided to do and this is the angle we’ve been taking” and that Time magazine now will “allow the writer to look at it and make some of his own judgments’”. In other words, at Time magazine, there is no longer even a pretense of balanced reporting and truthfulness!

Understandably there have been many public comments on the article from various individuals and agricultural groups since this issue reached the public. The usual sentiments expressed are 1) the story is full of bias, half-truths, and outright lies; and 2) The once proud Time Magazine publication has decided it is no longer interested in balanced reporting of the news but rather in negative sensationalism that sells magazines regardless of the truth. It occurs to me the people of this country should consider a third viewpoint: Let’s be thankful we live in a country where the majority of our people can relax on full stomachs and take the time to criticize the hands that feed us!!! That’s a luxury much of the world doesn’t have! I suspect the estimated one billion people in the world who go to bed hungry have other priorities on their minds than finding fault with the most successful agricultural system in the history of mankind.

Is this to say, “All is well” in our food system and we must not question and continually re-evaluate it? Of course not! On the livestock side, there are obviously careless farmers out there who don’t properly care for their animals or land just as there are thousands of careless pet owners!  But overall, the system is working and most thinking individuals know it. Even Mr. Walsh admits in the article, “You’ve never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966”. Of course he presents that fact as a negative, i.e., we should pay a lot more for food by demanding it be produced “organically”!

The subtitle of the article proclaims in big bold print “America’s Food Crisis and How to Fix It”. So what are Mr. Walsh’s solutions to fix it all? All we have to do is 1. Have a lot more small farmers who produce organically, and 2. Eat more greens and less meat. He notes that organic methods can produce as much yield as conventional but will take far more labor, a good thing in times of scarce jobs. More farmers and more farm labor sounds good but does anyone really think we can feed the world by returning to pre-1950’s methods? And I wonder if Mr. Walsh has seriously tried to find competent farm laborers lately? Simple solutions to complex problems; what else would you expect from someone lacking the real facts?

I carefully reviewed the letters to the editor in the two issues that followed the one containing the article. I was surprised the tally was six letters supporting today’s farmers and only one agreeing with the “down with modern agriculture” emphasis of the piece. You would have to assume this is reflective of the overall response generated from the public; it’d hard to imagine Time would selectively print responses disagreeing with the article.

So perhaps there is hope after all that most reasonable Americans see through the opinionated one-sided reporting so prevalent in our press today.

Personally I’ve always had a fondness for that cap that was popular a few years back that was inscribed with the words “If you criticize farmers don’t talk with your mouth full”.

Note: First published in the November 2009 American Agriculturist magazine.

Much has been written about the “Food System” and how we should go about feeding the world.  To put “much” into context, I ran a Google search using the phrases “food systems” or food system; got 906,000 returns for the former and 759,000 returns for the latter phrase.

Why the keen interest in the food system?  One reason is that many scientists (including me) believe we need to apply science to make new discoveries in the food system that will help meet the food needs of the growing World population.  Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate, who passed away on September 12, 2009, and who is credited for launching the “Green Revolution” to feed the World was clear about this.  He passionately believed that science should be the most important tool to solve world hunger.

There is no dispute about the need to feed the world.  Many in society understand the scale of the challenge that lies ahead to feed 10 billion people by the year 2050.

The amount of food needed to feed the world over the next 40 years is equivalent to all the food that has been produced since our existence on this planet (see Metabolic Modifiers:  Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals; National Academies Press; 1994)!

Our ability to feed the world assumes that climatic conditions will not be problematic for food production.  This is not a “given”.  In addition, not many individuals champion the idea that more wildlife habitat or tropical rain forest be destroyed to plant crops.  And, there is the assumption that a targeted bioterrorism strike on the food system will not occur with the consequences of up-heaving food production.  The latter assumption is problematic.  For example, The Lugar Survey on Proliferation Threats and Responses (Senator Lugar, 2005) estimates the probability of a major biological terrorist attack in the United States in the next 10 years to be about 33%.

Another challenge to food production and distribution is the ever-present impact of geopolitical strife.

Collectively, these issues add additional challenges to the problem of feeding the world that looms ahead.

Other Challenges

The challenge of feeding the world is one with many elements that extend beyond the application of science.  Science is important but other factors loom large.  There is the question of what countries or international agencies are going to pay for developing the science or providing the food?

Another key question is:  Will the “have” countries (i.e, developed countries) share technologies that enhance food production with developing countries?  The historical record for this is not encouraging.  Moreover, there is the question of whether the technologies be provided for free or a fee?  If the former, who “covers” the cost of research and development, as well as commercial application? The fee-based approach is daunting given that developing countries and their farmers, in many instances, can not afford the technology.

Another issue that is not discussed much in the public media relates to how will the public respond to an event where food availability is limited in grocery stores in the United States?

You might ask how could this happen?  One way would be the intentional (and targeted) release of a plant or animal pathogen (or both) that has the potential to upheave the food system.  The economic cost of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 is a good example of the impact that could occur.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has published a report (Cost-Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies) that summarized the economic impact of the outbreak…it cost about $12.3 billion!

Beyond the economic impact of a possible disease outbreak on food production, is the question:  how will the American public respond to an situation where food availability is limited?  Not well.  There very likely will be a storm of public concern that reflects the extent of food shortages.  The degree to which the public is scared will determine to what extent the fabric of civil behavior tears.  Another reminder that in the absence of food security national security can not be attained.

DNA test results and other evidence have now established that an outbreak of illness involving at least 35 people, the majority children and teens, was linked to drinking unpasteurized milk. Wisconsin food safety officials are cautioning consumers not to drink raw milk and farmers not to sell it to the public.

“Laws requiring pasteurization of milk have been on the books for more than half a century, and there are good public health reasons for that,” said Steve Ingham, head of the Food Safety Division in the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection [DATCP].

“We have very compelling evidence linking these illnesses to drinking raw milk. This is the 3rd major outbreak in Wisconsin since 2001 that has been tied to raw milk consumption. That’s not to mention a number of smaller ones in which the link was strongly suspected, but patients were unwilling to identify farms that provided the milk. So far we’ve been fortunate that the infections have not been life-threatening, but raw milk is an inherently risky food and it can lead to other, more dangerous illnesses, including E. coli 0157:H7 infection.”

An epidemiologic investigation conducted by DATCP and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services has found 35 confirmed cases of Campylobacter jejuni infection, including 21 patients under age 18. One person was hospitalized. All the patients had consumed unpasteurized milk. 30 of the patients identified Zinniker Family Farm, Elkhorn, as the source of the raw milk. The farm sells raw milk through a “cow-share” program. 27 of the confirmed cases were in Walworth and Waukesha counties; the rest were in Racine and Kenosha counties.

Additional testing showed that the C. jejuni isolated from 25 of the patients, all linked to Zinniker Family Farm, had the same DNA fingerprint. Manure samples obtained directly from milking cows on that farm also tested positive for C. jejuni with the same DNA fingerprint. Manure on the cows’ udders or in the milking barn environment can contaminate milk. Pasteurization kills C. jejuni and other disease-causing bacteria in milk.

C. jejuni is a bacterium that causes symptoms including diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, nausea and vomiting. Rarely, an infection may lead to Guillain-Barre syndrome, a nervous system disease, which may require hospitalization and artificial respiration. This generally occurs after the initial symptoms have disappeared. The infection can be transmitted by consuming food contaminated by animal feces or handled by someone with the infection who has not adequately washed his/her hands after using the bathroom.

Milk samples from the farm taken after the initial outbreak did not test positive, which is not unusual, Ingham said. Cattle shed the bacteria intermittently, so the bacteria may not have been present when the samples were taken. Changes in sanitation procedures also could explain the absence of bacteria in later milk samples, he said.

Because Zinniker Family Farm sells milk to a defined customer list, there is little risk to the general public in this case. However, the outbreak should discourage consumers from joining “cow-share,” membership, or other similar arrangements to buy raw milk, and should discourage dairy producers from adopting such an arrangement for their farms, Ingham said.

“Selling raw milk to consumers is illegal in Wisconsin. Some farmers believe that such arrangements exempt them from the law. They are mistaken. The law says that owners may consume raw milk from their farms, but those owners have to be true owners with a real financial stake in the farm. And the law clearly says that unpasteurized milk can be sold only to a licensed dairy plant or to other licensed businesses that sell to dairy plants,” he said.

Other outbreaks in Wisconsin that have been tied to raw milk include: – in December 2001, at least 30 laboratory-confirmed cases of C. jejuni were identified in northwestern Wisconsin, all tied to a cow-share program; – in June 2006, 19 laboratory-confirmed and 39 probable cases of C. jejuni infection were traced to cheese curds made from unpasteurized milk in an unlicensed facility by an unlicensed cheese maker in Ashland. The cases occurred in many Wisconsin counties and 6 other states.

Nationwide, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 45 outbreaks tied to unpasteurized milk or cheese consumption occurred from 1998 to 2005. These outbreaks occurred in 22 states, two were multi-state outbreaks, and they resulted in 1000 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.

In an article published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal in August 2000, the Wisconsin Division of Public Health reported that from 1992 to 1999, consumption of raw milk and raw milk products was one of the top three risks for E. coli 0157:H7 infection in Wisconsin. E. coli 0157:H7 infections can be fatal.

–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Susan Baekeland

Regarding whether raw milk safety and its increased nutritional value has been “adequately documented by both the USDA and the FDA, the following is from the FDA in 2004, “Got Milk? Make Sure It’s Pasteurized”:

“Pasteurization, since its adoption in the early 1900s, has been credited with dramatically reducing illness and death caused by contaminated milk. But today, some people are passing up pasteurized milk for what they claim is tastier and healthier “raw milk.” Public health officials couldn’t disagree more.

Drinking raw (untreated) milk or eating raw milk products is “like playing Russian roulette with your health,” says John Sheehan, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Dairy and Egg Safety. “We see a number of cases of foodborne illness every year related to the consumption of raw milk.”

More than 300 people in the USA got sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk in 2001, and nearly 200 became ill from these products in 2002, according to the CDC.

Raw milk may harbor a host of disease-causing organisms (pathogens), such as the bacteria Campylobacter, E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Yersinia, and Brucella. Common symptoms of foodborne illness from many of these types of bacteria include diarrhea, stomach cramps, fever, headache, vomiting, and exhaustion. Most healthy people recover from foodborne illness within a short period of time, but others may have symptoms that are chronic, severe, or life-threatening.

People with weakened immune systems, such as elderly people, children, and those with certain diseases or conditions, are most at risk for severe infections from pathogens that may be present in raw milk. In pregnant women, Listeria monocytogenes-caused illness can result in miscarriage, fetal death, or illness or death of a newborn infant. And E. coli infection has been linked to hemolytic uremic syndrome, a condition that can cause kidney failure and death.

Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonellosis, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever.

Pasteurization and Contamination

The pasteurization process uses heat to destroy harmful bacteria without significantly changing milk’s nutritional value or flavor. In addition to killing disease-causing bacteria, pasteurization destroys bacteria that cause spoilage, extending the shelf life of milk.

Milk can become contaminated on the farm when animals shed bacteria into the milk. Cows, goats, and sheep carry bacteria in their intestines that do not make them sick but can cause illness in people who consume their untreated milk or milk products.

But pathogens that are shed from animals aren’t the only means of contamination, says Tom Szalkucki, assistant director of the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Cows can pick up pathogens from the environment just by lying down, giving germs the opportunity to collect on the udder, the organ from which milk is secreted. “Think about how many times a cow lays down in a field or the barn,” says Szalkucki. “Even if the barn is cleaned thoroughly and regularly, it’s not steamed. Contamination can take place because it’s not a sterile environment.”

The Health Hype

Raw milk advocates claim that unprocessed milk is healthier because pasteurization destroys nutrients and the enzymes necessary to absorb calcium. It also kills beneficial bacteria and is associated with allergies, arthritis, and other diseases, they say.

This is simply not the case, says Sheehan. Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, he says. The caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected, and any modification in whey protein that might occur is barely perceptible.

“Milk is a good source of the vitamins thiamine, folate, B-12, and riboflavin,” adds Sheehan, “and pasteurization results in losses of anywhere from zero to 10 percent for each of these, which most would consider only a marginal reduction.”

While the major nutrients are left unchanged by pasteurization, vitamin D, which enhances the body’s absorption of calcium, is added to processed milk. Vitamin D is not found in significant levels in raw milk.

“Pasteurization will destroy some enzymes,” says Barbara Ingham, PhD, associate professor, and extension food scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But the enzymes that are naturally present in milk are bovine enzymes. Our bodies don’t use animal enzymes to help metabolize calcium and other nutrients.”

“Enzymes in the food that we eat and drink are broken down in the human gastrointestinal tract,” adds Ingham. “Human bodies rely on our own native enzymes to digest and metabolize food.”

“Most of the native enzymes of milk survive pasteurization largely intact,” says Sheehan, “including those thought to have natural antimicrobial properties and those that contribute to prolonging milk’s shelf life.” Other enzymes that survive are thought to play a role in cheese ripening.

Ingham says that pasteurization will destroy some bacteria that may be helpful in the fermentation of milk into products such as cheese and yogurt, “but the benefit of destroying the harmful bacteria vastly outweighs the supposed benefits of retaining those helpful microorganisms. Plus, by adding the microorganisms that we need for fermentation, we can assure a consistently high quality product.”

Science has not shown a connection between drinking raw milk and disease prevention. “The small quantities of antibodies in milk are not absorbed in the human intestinal tract,” says Ingham. “And there is no scientific evidence that raw milk contains an anti-arthritis factor or that it enhances resistance to other diseases.”

Fans of raw milk often cite its creamy rich taste, says Szalkucki, who adds that it may be creamier because it is not made according to the standards for processed milk. “If you go to a grocery store and buy fluid milk, it’s been standardized for a certain percentage of fat, such as 2 percent,” he says. “Raw milk is potentially creamier because it has not been standardized and it has a higher fat content.”

WASHINGTON — Despite a critical report from another agency and a fair amount of political pressure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains committed to the Manhattan, Kan., site it chose for building a new national bio-defense research laboratory and says it won’t re-open the site-selection process.

As part of the 2010 government appropriations bill, Congress asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a separate study on DHS’s recommendation to move the Level-3 laboratory at Plum Island, N.Y., to Kansas. The study was to evaluate whether it would be safe to conduct research into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) at a mainland site for the first time, rather than on the offshore island where it’s been handled for decades in an aging facility.

GAO concluded that DHS, with input from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), didn’t adequately assess the bio-security and economic risks of building the new Level-4 National Agro and Bio-Defense Facility (NABF) in Midwestern farm country, near livestock operations, where a release of the FMD pathogen by a tornado, terrorist act or other means reportedly could have a much greater economic and disease impact than in offshore New York.

Such an event on Plum island could have a $31 million economic impact, compared to a $1 billion impact in Kansas, the GAO report says, citing another study. “Given the significant limitations in DHS’s analyses that we found, the conclusion that FMD work can be done as safely on the mainland as on Plum Island is not supported,” the GAO report says.

DHS defends its choice

But DHS shot back, in a 30-page response in July, that the GAO study didn’t respond to what Congress asked. Instead of evaluating whether FMD research “can be done safely on the mainland,” the GAO instead chose to evaluate whether the research “can be done as safely on the mainland as on Plum Island.”

DHS says its own environmental-impact study took into account the GAO’s point that the water barrier around Plum Island would provide an extra layer of protection in the event of an accidental release of the FMD pathogen, but it called that scenario “extremely unlikely,” adding that “while the study of contagious diseases anywhere is not without risk, modern bio-containment technology makes the likelihood of an accidental release of a pathogen extremely low, and … has eliminated the need for locating animal-disease research on an island as was done decades ago.”

GAO should not dismiss the fact that FMD research is being performed safely on the mainland in several other countries, DHS says in its response. And it points out that there are already five BSL-4 (highest level) facilities currently operating in the United States in populated areas (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Georgia State University, both in Atlanta; U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Md.; University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston; and Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas).

In his own formal response to the GAO report, Bradley Buswell, DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology, noted strong public opposition to building a BSL-4 research lab on Plum Island but strong support for Kansas and the other locations DHS considered in Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia.

But U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), responding to GAO’s report, calls the recommendation to phase out Plum Island “essentially a rush job” and wants DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “to revisit the decision” as well as the decision to build the Kansas facility.

“This (GAO) study underscores the validity of why Plum Island was originally chosen,” Bishop says. “I’m sobered by this report. … We still have time to correct this.”

Napolitano, however, says the decision to move the lab to Kansas was properly researched and should go forward.

A group of Texas business and bioscience experts sued DHS in a federal court over the decision to locate the NABF in Kansas, but a judge dismissed the suit in July, saying it was based on hypothetical claims and thus not “ripe” for judicial review, although the suit could be re-filed later.

Kansas officials say the county in Texas where some lobbyists had wanted to bring the NABF is more tornado-prone than Kansas, and presents a hurricane risk as well. And Tom Thornton, president of the Kansas Bioscience Authority, the group that helped land the facility at the Kansas State University site, says conducting FMD research in Kansas is no different or more dangerous than conducting research in human diseases at the CDC in Atlanta.

Kansas officials expect construction of the $560 million to $650 million NABF to start in July 2010, although Congress hasn’t yet appropriated any construction funds. The facility is expected to create 1,500 jobs and pump some $3.5 billion into the local economy when it opens in about 2015.

August 27 was a day of education, exploration and enlightenment for the 55 students and staff who participated in the annual New Student Industry Tour, hosted by Penn State’s Department of Dairy and Animal Science and Department of Poultry Science.

Now in its 11^th year, the tour offers incoming freshman and other students new to the campus, a unique educational opportunity to view the diversity of Pennsylvania agriculture, from the traditional to the exotic.  It has been a big “hit” since we launched the tour.

We started our annual tour to demonstrate the diversity of Pennsylvania agriculture and to show students the many, many exciting career opportunities for graduates. It is a tremendous day of exploration. We hold it during the first week of classes, so it is an excellent way for them to meet other students and to get to know faculty on an informal basis.

With more and more students coming from non-farm backgrounds, it is increasingly important for these students to gain an  appreciation of animal science within the larger agricultural industry.

Tour organizer Jana Peters, who works in the Department of Dairy and Animal Science shared, “A lot of these students have never been on farms, so the tour gives them a close-up view of production agriculture. It is really helpful for them to meet the caretakers and learn about the responsible care of animals used in food production. It also is a great way for them to get to know their classmates.”

Industry hosts included:

• Penn National Race Course, where General Manager Paul Jenkins discussed the operation, which has hosted thoroughbred racing for 37 years. Penn National has 1,000 employees.
• Wen-Crest Farms, LLC, owned and operated by Steve and Bonnie Wenger, has a farming operation with 1500 acres planted in corn, beans, wheat and hay, 100 head of feeder steers and 600,000 turkeys in eight turkey barns.
• Furnace Hill Holsteins, a partnership with Joel Krall and Tim Crouse, with 150 cows and 120 replacement heifers. Krall and Crouse discussed their attention to detail which contributes to their success. Both graduates of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science, they encouraged students to be explore career opportunities and take advantage of learning opportunities outside the classroom during their time at Penn State.  Examples of the latter include participation in one or more of the many student clubs we sponsor.
• Zoo America at Hershey Park, home to over 200 animals from five regions of North America. Students had the opportunity to take a “behind the scenes,” look at the care of the animals, including a tour of the medical building and interaction with naturalists.

Hosts for the luncheon which was held at the Lebanon County Extension Office included Cargill, Alltech and Select Sire Power, with representatives from each speaking about career opportunities.

Peters expressed appreciation to the hosts for their time and their frank and helpful discussions of their operations. “We are very grateful for their hospitality. They provide so much valuable information, and are very encouraging to our students. It really helps get the students off to a good start as they begin classes.”

My observation is that activities like this are not only educational but have a great “ripple” effect in the communities we visit.  There is a lot of excitement about the group from Penn State coming for a visit.  Over the years, there have been many stories written about this – all a part of our effort to market the great educational opportunities that exist at Penn State.

I had a wonderful (and sweltering) time at Ag Progress Days (APD) last week.  This is an event sponsored by the College of Agricultural Sciences and attracted about 50,000 attendees over three days.

I have been asked:  what do you do out there for three days?  A lot (more about this later)!  And, the faculty and staff in the Department of Dairy and Animal Science do a great deal to put on a variety of educational and science-based programs for APD attendees.

Our faculty and staff spend a lot of time months in advance of APD planning the many educational programs we put on.  For example, our equine science group plans the 22 events that are held over three days in the large outdoor arena as part of the famous Equine Experience.  The group also plans and organizes 12 demonstrations/lectures that are held in the Equine Exhibits Building.  And this year, we held eight education programs in the Animal Science facility that addressed topics that ranged from feeding the world with technology (multiple programs with a dairy and livestock emphasis) to learning more about animal well-being (with both a pet and livestock focus).

Now to the question of what I do at APD?

Relationship building and maintenance takes up a lot of my time.

I meet with colleagues and friends from a variety of industry and commodity groups to discuss a host of topics and needs.  In many ways, these conversations are strategic planning about what to do in a variety of areas that are part of the Departments’ mission.  Since the department spans science and management practices from dogs and cats to deer, beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, sheep, horses and deer, that is a lot of turf to cover!

I also meet a lot of folks for the first time.  Parents and prospective students have questions that focus on how to get into Penn State.  It is great fun to talk with “Mom and Dad” about what major their son or daughter might pursue at Penn State.

This year I even had a chance conversation with a dairy producer who just returned from Russia – we talked a lot about the dairy industry in Russia, and that evolved to a conversation about how to bring our expertise to the dairy industry in China.  That morning I would never have thought I would have that conversation!  How this idea might play out in the future is pretty foggy right now.  However, that is the fun of building programs from ideas!

For a few years at APD I participated in a horse riding “event” with the former Dean of the College (Bob Steele) and Graham Spanier, President of Penn State.  The first point essential to the story I share below is that in my life I have not ridden horses more than 10 to 15 times–so, I am a real rookie at this. I am lucky I have not fallen off a horse!

The Story – One of the funnier horse riding “events” that I have been involved in at APD relates to a “competition” my equine science staff thought would be entertaining!  They concocted the idea that President Spanier, Dean Steele and I would ride around the outdoor arena holding a spoon with an egg atop it.  The last rider left holding the spoon with the egg “won”.  I thought this had entertainment potential until at the last second my colleagues shared they had glued my egg to the spoon, and I would be the “winner”!   Dean Steele and President Spanier did not have their eggs glued to their spoons!

As fate would have it, President Spanier is very good at riding horses!  And, the event went on and on until the announcer thought we should stop.  President Spanier still had his egg atop the spoon, as did I!  I thought it would “great fun” to wave at the crowd with the spoon and glued egg.  Everyone in the grandstands seemed amused.  I was not sure about President Spanier.  I have now retired from providing entertainment for the crowd at the Equine Experience from atop a horse.

Relationships are about people. In putting on the number of events that the Department does at APD, there is always the reality that issues and questions come up during the event.  I am fortunate to have a remarkably talented group of colleagues in the Department that manage all of this, and do a great deal to make APD a fun and educational experience for attendees.

Hong Kong’s health authorities announced Wednesday [27 Jul 2009] that a new variant of the H3N2 seasonal influenza virus has been found in the city. The Brisbane strain has been the prevalent circulator of H3N2 in the past year, and the new variant is its direct descendent, said Thomas Tsang, controller of Hong Kong’s Center for Health Protection (CHP). “However, it has some genetic changes distinguishing it from the old Brisbane strain,” he said. He said it is normal for viruses to go through changes, adding that overseas health authorities, including those in Canada, Britain and Australia, had also found the new variant.

Tsang said although vaccines provided for the northern hemisphere may not be a direct match for this new variant, they will still provide some protection against it. Noting that vaccines will be widely available in Hong Kong in a month, Tsang appealed to high-risk groups, such as those with chronic diseases, the elderly and children, to get flu shots.

According to the CHP, H3N2 accounts for 43 percent of flu viruses circulating in Hong Kong, while A/H1N1 accounts for 49 percent.

There is an ongoing overweight/obesity epidemic in the United States.  Estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics are that about 66% of Americans are either overweight of obese! This epidemic not only poses a health problem for overweight/obese individuals, but also represents a rapidly expanding burden on health care costs in America.

In a story, “Costs of Treating Obesity Soar“, published on July 28 in the Wall Street Journal it was noted that the medical costs for treating obesity-related diseases soared to about $147 billion in 2008.  By comparison, the medical costs of obesity in 1998 were about $78 billion.

Not surprisingly, overweight/obese individuals spend more on medical cost.  In fact, according to the article in the Wall Street Journal, overweight/obese individuals in the United States spend about $1400 more per year on health care costs, much of this being prescription drug costs.

It is evident that overweight/obesity reflects a gain in body weight, largely fat (adipose tissue is the scientific term).  Adipose tissue mass expansion reflects a positive energy balance, i.e., individuals either eat too much, exercise too little, or do both.  The challenge confronting the health care community is that effective intervention programs, on a population-wide scale, have not been very successful.

Encouraging individuals to eat less on a long-term basis is difficult.  In addition, portion sizes have increased dramatically in America, which contributes to increased energy intake.  To learn more about how portion sizes have changed over the years in America take a look at the Portion Distortion Quiz.  This is “neat” learning experience developed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

My observation over the past decades is that government agencies and health care organizations in the United States have spent large sums of money on obesity research and nutrition education programs designed to decrease the incidence of overweight/obesity.  Over this interval, the incidence of overweight and obesity has increased markedly.  One could conclude that this massive expenditure of money on prevention/intervention programs has increased the incidence of overweight/obesity.  This is not the point.  The important point is that successful intervention programs for combating overweight/obesity are very difficult to develop and effectively implement.

A recent outbreak of equine Herpes Virus 1 (EHV-1) in Southwest Pennsylvania has prompted many questions and concerns from horse owners. The farm has been quarantined to prevent the spread of the virus.  While there is no immediate threat outside that farm, horse owners should be vigilant and practice high levels of biosecurity.  Commonly known as Rhinopneumonitis or “Rhino,”  Equine Herpes Virus (EHV) has many different types and is best known by horse owners to cause respiratory disease and abortions.  It is important to know that EHV can cause other disease states in horses.  EHV-1 found in Southwest Pennsylvania was the cause of a neurologic form of the disease.

Horses infected with EHV-1 that causes neurologic disease occurs due to inflammation and damage to the spinal cord resulting in variable clinical signs depending on the severity of damage.  Often, horses will have a sudden onset of symptoms such as a wobbly stance, uncoordinated gate, and changes in tail movement.  Some horses will lose the ability to urinate appropriately and can become urinary incontinent.  Other signs of neurologic disease can occur and can be further identified by a veterinarian.  Since not every horse will have the same signs, a veterinarian should be consulted as early as symptoms appear.

EHV is transmitted through the respiratory secretions of infected horses or through aerosolized virus particles found in afterbirth fluids.  Direct nose-to-nose contact and sharing of feed or water troughs among horses is the primary transmission of the virus.  However, aerosolized particles can travel up to 35 feet and can cause infection.  Likewise people working around infected horses can carry the virus on their hands and clothes and can be vectors of transmission.

Because this is a viral disease, antibiotics are not useful in treatment of infected animals.  Supportive care and time are the best treatment.  It is important to contact a veterinarian at the first sign of abnormal neurologic behavior in order to properly diagnose and start supportive therapy.  Moreover, infected horses should be kept from travelling or coming in contact with other horses to prevent the spread of the virus.

Vaccines exist for EHV-1 and are effective at preventing the respiratory and reproductive diseases caused by this virus.  These vaccines , however, do not appear to be protective against the neurologic form of disease.  During an outbreak of EHV-1 causing neurologic disease, the use of vaccines is questionable.  Vaccination may reduce other forms of EHV-1 disease and reduce the presence of the virus leading to a reduction in the chances of developing the neurologic form; however, there is some evidence the vaccination may sensitize the horse’s immune system to allow the neurologic form to occur.

The use of the vaccine during an outbreak should only be used in discussions with a veterinarian.  Many vaccines can be purchased over-the counter, and it is important to discuss their use in depth with a veterinarian prior to their use as each individual case is different and may require different strategies for the health of the animal.

Reference:

Smith, B.P. Large Animal Internal Medicine. 3^rd ed. Mosby, Inc. St. Louis, MO. (2002) 885-886.

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 27, 2009

The Department of Homeland Security relied on a rushed, flawed study to justify its decision to locate a $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens in a tornado-prone section of Kansas, according to a government report.

The department’s analysis was not “scientifically defensible” in concluding that it could safely handle dangerous animal diseases in Kansas — or any other location on the U.S. mainland, according to a Government Accountability Office draft report obtained by The Washington Post. The GAO said DHS greatly underestimated the chance of accidental release and major contamination from such research, which has been conducted only on a remote island off the United States.

DHS staff members tried quietly last week to fend off a public airing of the facility’s risks, agency correspondence shows. Department officials met privately with staff members of a congressional oversight subcommittee to try to convince them that the GAO report was unfair, and to urge them to forgo or postpone a hearing. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Bart Stupa (D-Mich.), decided otherwise. It plans to hold a hearing Thursday on the risk analysis, according to two sources briefed on the plans.

The criticism of DHS’s site selection comes as the proposed research lab, the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), was expected to win construction funding in the congressional appropriations process.

“Drawing conclusions about relocating research with highly infectious exotic animal pathogens from questionable methodology could result in regrettable consequences,” the GAO warned in its draft report. DHS’s review was too “limited” and “inadequate” to decide that any mainland labs were safe, the report found. GAO officials declined to comment on the findings.

The new developments started another round of accusations that politics steered DHS’s decision in January to build the proposed lab in Manhattan, Kan. Critics of the choice argue that a Kansas contingent of Republican Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, aggressively lobbied DHS to pick their state. Records show that a DHS undersecretary and his site selection committee met frequently with the senators, one of whom is a member of an appropriations subcommittee that helps set DHS funding.

A Texas consortium that hoped to lure the DHS facility to San Antonio argues that the agency has wasted millions of dollars trying to justify its choice, and said the GAO’s findings show that the selection method was “preposterous.”

“They call it ‘Tornado Alley’ for a reason,” said Michael Guiffre, an attorney for the consortium. “This really boils down to politics at its very worst and public officials who are more concerned about erecting some gleaming new research building than thinking about what’s best for the general public.”

DHS officials and Kansas leaders say the selection system, which began in late 2006, was always fair and open. Brownback has noted that George W. Bush was president in mid-January when his home state of Texas lost the competition.

“The process involved a transparent six-year process, run by career civil servants and punctuated with multiple public meetings near each finalist location,” DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said.

The DHS lab would replace and expand upon the mission of a federal research facility on a remote island on the northern tip of Long Island, N.Y. Critics of moving the operation to the mainland argue that a release could lead to widespread contamination that could kill livestock, devastate a farm economy and endanger humans. Along with the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease, NBAF researchers plan to study African swine fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever and other viruses.

GAO’s draft report said the agency’s assessment of the risk of accidental release of toxins on mainland locations, including Kansas, was based on “unrepresentative accident scenarios,” “outdated modeling” and “inadequate” information about the sites. The agency’s analysis of the economic impact of domestic cattle being infected by foot-and-mouth disease played down the financial losses by not considering the worst-case scenario.

The agency noted that the United Kingdom’s outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001, which resulted from an accidental release at a biological research laboratory south of London. Six million sheep, cattle and pigs were slaughtered to stop the contamination, and the country’s agriculture market, comparatively a fraction of the U.S. market, lost $4.9 billion.

DHS had cited a foot-and-mouth disease facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as evidence that doing this research on the mainland is safe. But GAO said that is illogical: The NBAF would have a less sophisticated method for containing releases than the Winnipeg lab, it said, but would handle as many as 10 times the number of animals.

Selecting a spot for the lab has been rife with political battling and vigorous lobbying from five states that were finalists. Though the general public repeatedly voiced concern about the safety of such research, elected leaders were seeking the $3.5 billion jolt that the facility was expected to bring to its host’s economy.

Critics of the selection of Kansas note that DHS Undersecretary Jay Cohen and others met often with the state’s senators. Brownback said this month that he had helped add $36 million to a Senate bill to build the Kansas facility, and that he would work for the same in the House.

“We fought hard for this funding, and I’m glad my colleagues in the Senate realized the significant role this facility will play in researching emerging diseases that could endanger our food supply,” he said on his Web site.

In recent days, DHS science officials involved in choosing the Manhattan site, adjoining Kansas State University, told Secretary Janet Napolitano’s top staff members that GAO exceeded its authority in reviewing the agency’s risk assessment, according to internal correspondence shared with The Post.

Chandler confirmed that agency staff members told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee staff members in their meeting last Monday that DHS would prefer not to have a hearing now. DHS officials were not trying to avoid discussing the issue during the appropriations process, Chandler said, but wanted to avoid wasting the agency’s and committee’s time until they saw the final GAO report.

“This has nothing to do with politics,” Chandler said. “This is about logical reasoning . . . and was in the interest of everyone’s time.”