[FDA Press Release] Why Are Jerky Treats Making Pets Sick? – FDA asking consumers to report illnesses

From the 22 October 2013 FDA press release

If you have a dog or cat that became ill after eating jerky pet treats, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would like to hear from you or your veterinarian.

The agency has repeatedly issued alerts to consumers about reports it has received concerning jerky pet treat-related illnesses involving 3,600 dogs and 10 cats in the U.S. since 2007. Approximately 580 of those pets have died.

To date, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has conducted more than 1,200 tests, visited jerky pet treat manufacturers in China and collaborated with colleagues in academia, industry, state labs and foreign governments. Yet the exact cause of the illnesses remains elusive.

To gather even more information, FDA is reaching out to licensed veterinarians and pet owners across the country. “This is one of the most elusive and mysterious outbreaks we’ve encountered,” says CVM Director Bernadette Dunham, DVM, Ph.D. “Our beloved four-legged companions deserve our best effort, and we are giving it.”

In a letter addressing U.S. licensed veterinarians, FDA lists what information is needed for labs testing treats and investigating illness and death associated with the treats. In some cases, veterinarians will be asked to provide blood, urine and tissue samples from their patients for further analysis. FDA will request written permission from pet owners and will cover the costs, including shipping, of any tests it requests.

Meanwhile, a consumer fact sheet will accompany the letter to veterinarians so they can alert consumers to the problem and remind them that treats are not essential to a balanced diet. The fact sheet also explains to consumers how they can help FDA’s investigation by reporting potential jerky pet treat-related illnesses online or by calling the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator for their state.

 

What to Look Out For

Within hours of eating treats sold as jerky tenders or strips made of chicken, duck, sweet potatoes and/or dried fruit, some pets have exhibited decreased appetite, decreased activity, vomiting, diarrhea (sometimes with blood or mucus), increased water consumption, and/or increased urination.

Severe cases have involved kidney failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and a rare kidney disorder. About 60 percent of cases involved gastrointestinal illness, and about 30 percent involved kidney and urinary systems.

The remaining cases reported various symptoms, such as collapse, convulsions or skin issues.

Most of the jerky treats implicated have been made in China. Manufacturers of pet foods are not required by U.S. law to state the country of origin for each ingredient in their products.

A number of jerky pet treat products were removed from the market in January 2013 after a New York State lab reported finding evidence of up to six drugs in certain jerky pet treats made in China. While the levels of these drugs were very low and it’s unlikely that they caused the illnesses, FDA noted a decrease in reports of jerky-suspected illnesses after the products were removed from the market. FDA believes that the number of reports may have declined simply because fewer jerky treats were available.

Meanwhile, the agency urges pet owners to be cautious about providing jerky treats. If you do provide them and your pet becomes sick, stop the treats immediately, consider seeing your veterinarian, and save any remaining treats and the packaging for possible testing.

 

What FDA Is Doing

More than 1,200 jerky pet treat samples have been tested since 2011 for a variety of chemical and microbiological contaminants, from antibiotics to metals, pesticides and Salmonella. DNA testing has also been conducted, along with tests for nutritional composition.

In addition to continuing to test jerky pet treat samples within FDA labs, the agency is working with the Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN), an FDA-coordinated network of government and veterinary diagnostic laboratories across the U.S. and Canada. (A summary of the tests is available on Vet-LIRN’s webpage.)

Inspections of the facilities in China that manufacture jerky products associated with some of the highest numbers of pet illness reports did not identify the cause of illness. However, they did identify additional paths of investigation, such as the supply chain of some ingredients in the treats. Although FDA inspectors have found no evidence identifying the cause of the spate of illnesses, they did find that one firm used falsified receiving documents for glycerin, a jerky ingredient. Chinese authorities informed FDA that they had seized products at the firm and suspended its exports.

To identify the root cause of this problem, FDA is meeting regularly with regulators in China to share findings. The agency also plans to host Chinese scientists at its veterinary research facility to increase scientific cooperation.

FDA has also reached out to U.S. pet food firms seeking further collaboration on scientific issues and data sharing, and has contracted with diagnostic labs.

“Our fervent hope as animal lovers,” says Dunham, “is that we will soon find the cause of—and put a stop to—these illnesses.”

This article appears on FDA’s Consumer Updates page, which features the latest on all FDA-regulated products.

Oct. 22, 2013

 

For More Information

• Animal & Veterinary
• Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network
• Pet Food
• Jerky Pet Treats
• FDA Facts: Jerky Pet Treats (PDF – 216KB)
• FDA Voice Blog: Help Us Find Out Why Jerky Treats Are Making Pets Sick

Related Consumer Updates

• Caution to Dog Owners About Chicken Jerky Products
• Dog Treats May Present Health Hazard [ARCHIVED]
• No Bones About It: Bones Are Unsafe for Your Dog

Related articles

• Hundreds Of Dogs Dead From Eating Jerky Treats; FDA Isn’t Exactly Sure Why (huffingtonpost.com)
• Help Us Find Out Why Jerky Treats Are Making Pets Sick (scienceblog.com)
• Jerky treat mystery: Nearly 600 pets dead; still no source, FDA says (nbcnews.com)

 

[Repost] Is ‘Patient Capitalism’ The Answer To Poverty?

From the 18 October 2013 NPR story

Part 5 of the TED Radio Hour episode Haves And Have-Nots.

About Jacqueline Novogratz’s TEDTalk

Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO of Acumen Fund, shares stories of how “patient capitalism” can bring sustainable jobs, goods, services and dignity to the world’s poor.

About Jacqueline Novogratz

Jacqueline Novogratz is redefining the way problems of poverty can be solved around the world.

She is a leading proponent of financing enterprises that can bring affordable clean water, housing and health care to poor people so that they no longer depend on traditional charity and aid.

The Acumen Fund, which she founded in 2001, has an ambitious plan: to create a blueprint for alleviating poverty using market-oriented approaches.

Rather than handing out grants, Acumen invests in fledgling companies and organizations that bring products and services to the world’s poor.

Novogratz places a great deal of importance on identifying solutions from within communities rather than imposing them from the outside.

In her book, The Blue Sweater, she tells stories which emphasize sustainable bottom-up solutions over traditional top-down aid.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_on_patient_capitalism.html

Related articles

• Is ‘Patient Capitalism’ The Answer To Poverty? (wnyc.org)
• Dignity, not dependence (aiddebate.wordpress.com)
• Acumen’s Jacqueline Novogratz: making sustainability profitable (theguardian.com)
• Haves And Have-Nots (wnyc.org)
• Book Giveaway: The Blue Sweater by Jacqueline Novogratz (beth.typepad.com)
• Inspiring a life of immersion: Jacqueline Novogratz on TED.com (ted.com)
• The Blue Sweater 500 (bethkanter.org)

 

Early Benefit Assessment for Pharmaceuticals in Germany: Lessons for Policymakers

From the overview (abstract) at the 16 October 2013 Commonwealth Fund posting

Since 2011, Germany’s Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act has mandated that all newly introduced drugs are subject to an assessment of their benefits in relation to a comparator, typically the current standard treatment. For drugs found to have some additional benefit, the manufacturer and the statutory health insurers negotiate a price. For drugs found to have no additional benefit, their price is set in reference to the price of the comparator. This new system is intended to reduce spending on expensive new drugs that are no more effective than existing treatments, while encouraging pharmaceutical companies to invest in innovative drugs that improve health outcomes. The German experience provides lessons for the United States, where comparative effectiveness research is publicly funded but public insurance programs are limited in their ability to use its findings to make coverage or pricing decisions.

Related articles

• Should U.S. Import U.K. Model For Medicare And Medicaid? (forbes.com)
• FDA to get tough on drug importers, manufacturers (modernghana.com)

[Reblog] News coverage of peanut butter Alzheimer’s test doesn’t stick

Studying Alzheimer’s disease at the APS (Photo credit: Argonne National Laboratory)

 

From the 14 October 2013 HealthNewsReview.org item

 

CBS News online actually asked whether a scoop of peanut butter and a ruler could become the “elusive”…”single..definitive test” that could determine whether a person has Alzheimer’s disease.

I was away when this was published, but Ivan Oransky was all over it on MedPageToday.com.  Excerpts of his analysis:

Reading CBS News’s headline, “Cheap Alzheimer’s Test Made From Peanut Butter and Ruler, Researchers Report,” reminded me of the old adage “Fast, good, or cheap: Pick two.”

A couple things made me wonder just how much of an advance this was:

• The study was small, fewer than 100 people all together, divided into four groups ranging from probable Alzheimer’s to healthy controls.
• The journal — which is not exactly a core clinical title — is ranked in the bottom third of neuroscience journals by Thomson Scientific’s impact factor, 162 out of 252. Wouldn’t the researchers have tried for a more prestigious, and clinical, journal first?

So we asked a range of Alzheimer’s researchers what they thought. Here’s a sampling:

Richard Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale: “I don’t think anyone will feel comfortable diagnosing AD on the basis of a smell test.”

Samuel Gandy, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine: “Smell tests for dementia screening have been proposed for years, but the lack of specificity has repeatedly undone the early claims. Ditto for eye tests. This might be the exception, but I would urge caution pending independent replication on larger numbers and diversities of subjects.”

George Bartzokis, MD, UCLA: “Do not dismiss the study. What is new here is simply what they used to test it out — peanut butter. The principal problem with smell tests is that they are nonspecific and therefore only one small piece of the diagnostic puzzle. Not only can you have some congestion in your nasal cavities that can reduce your smell on a temporary basis but a past head trauma, severe past sinus infections, etc. can do so on a permanent basis. Individuals may not even remember these past events or be aware of current sinus problems that could interfere with their ability to smell.”

I wouldn’t suggest that anyone dismiss the study. But I would suggest that they dismiss much of the news coverage of the study.  Sampling of other headlines:

• Atlanta Journal Constitution: Peanut butter and a ruler: Keys to Alzheimer’s diagnosis?
• Daily Beast: Peanut Butter Can Detect Alzheimer’s
• Discover Magazine: Peanut Butter Test Could Help Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease

But the NPR Shots blog headlined it,  Why A Peanut Butter Test For Alzheimer’s Might Be Too Simple.

 

 

 

 

[Reblog] Canadian journalist: every cancer cure claim needs scrutiny (with related critical thinking resources)

From the 17 October 2013 item at HealthNewsReview.org

Carly Weeks of The Globe and Mail, based in Toronto, writes, “Why every claim of an exciting new cancer cure needs close examination.” She begins:

“The Internet loves a good conspiracy.

Have you heard the one about scientists finding a cure for cancer, but it being blocked from the public because Big Pharma can’t make a cent off it?

Those sensational accusations appear on multiple websites and YouTube videos that purport to expose the “truth” about how a cheap and safe drug that has been around for decades is actually an expert cancer-cell killer. They claim that because the drug, called dichloroacetic acid or dichloroacetate (DCA), is a widely available chemical compound and can’t be patented, drug companies aren’t interested in pursuing it as a cancer treatment. Some conspiracy theorists take it a step further, saying that health organizations and cancer charities are in on the plot to keep this miracle drug out of sight because they have ties to drug firms and want to keep money flowing their way.

It reads like the plot of a cheesy gift-shop thriller.

However, the idea that DCA may be used to eradicate cancer cells originated in respected medical journals, not the bowels of the Internet. Subsequent media attention painted a glowing picture of DCA as a cancer treatment, which led to a frenzy among patients and family members desperately hoping for a cure.

The true picture, however, is far less clear.”

That’s the hook.  Now please read the rest of her analysis.  But note how she describes media coverage through the years that referred to the drug as “a potentially life-saving treatment” that “astounded” researchers….and “a miracle drug” (including in her own newspaper). She concludes:

“Every week, dozens of press releases cross the news wires, alerting editors and readers to a new “breakthrough” or “landmark discovery” that may forever change the way a disease is treated.

What is often missing from those announcements is that those discoveries may just as likely change nothing. True breakthroughs are rare and the development of important new treatments takes years – decades, even – of rigorous research and study. Overzealous reporting of preliminary findings may generate positive publicity for researchers and institutions, but it does patients no favours.”

Earlier this week I wrote about a fresh New York Times story that referred to a line of cancer research as ““amazing…game-changer…watershed moment.”

Canadians Weeks, her colleague Andre Picard at the same newspaper and rising star Julia Belluz (now on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT) seem to scrutinize evidence in media messages and even criticize news coverage more often than any of their U.S. colleagues in mainstream news organizations.  And I applaud them for their efforts.  Wish we saw more of it down here in the land of guns and Obamacare.

 

Related Resources

Anyone can publish information on the Internet. So it is up to the searcher to decide if the information found through search engines (as Google) is reliable or not. Search engines find Web sites but do not evaluate them for content. Sponsored links may or may not contain good information.

A few universities and government agencies have published great guides on evaluating information.

Here are a few

• The Penn State Medical Center Library has a great guide to evaluate health information on the Internet.

  The tips include

  • Remember, anyone can publish information on the internet!
  • If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
    If the Web site is primarily about selling a product, the information may be worth checking from another source.
  • Look for who is publishing the information and their education, credentials, and if they are connected with a trusted coporation, university or agency.
  • Check to see how current the information is.
  • Check for accuracy. Does the Web site refer to specific studies or organizations?

The Family Caregiver Alliance has a Web page entitled Evaluating Medical Research Findings and Clinical Trials
Topics include

• General Guidelines for Evaluating Medical Research
• Getting Information from the Web
• Talking with your Health Care Provider

Additional Resources

• Consumer’s Guide to Taking Charge of Health Information (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis)
• How to Evaluate Health Information on the Internet (US National Cancer Institute)9iiu9
• Quackwatch (a private corporation operated by Stephen Barrett, MD)

 

…And a Rumor Control site of Note (in addition to Quackwatch)

 

National Council Against Health Fraud

National Council Against Health Fraud is a nonprofit health agency fousing on health misinformation, fruad, and quackery as public health problems. Links to publications, position papers and more.

How to Read a Research Paper

Medical research results are increasingly available to all of us. However, caution is urged in interpreting results. For example, be very careful to not confuse causation with association. Just because two factors occur together does not mean one causes the other. For example, eating fish may result in lower cholesterol levels. But it may just mean one is eating less read meat. Another example is recent news item about insulin use and cancer. Some say insulin use can cause cancer, while others insist insulin users are predisposed to cancers.) The MedlinePlus Topic Page Understanding Medical Research has links to tutorials, overviews, and more A sampling of links Increasing Knowledge — How to Read a Research Paper(Lewy Body Dementia Association) Clinical Research & Clinical Trials(National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) Making Sense of Medical News (Nemours Foundation)

 

[Repost] Study explores the role of uncertainty in infectious disease modelling

 

[From the university’s press release at

http://www.liv.ac.uk/research/news/articles/the-role-of-uncertainty-in-infectious-disease-modelling/index.htm]

 

From the 20 October 2013 EurkAlert

Research by scientists at the University of Liverpool has found that greater consideration of the limitations and uncertainties present in every infectious disease model would improve its effectiveness/usefulness and value.

Infectious disease dynamical modelling plays a central role in planning for outbreaks of human and livestock diseases, in projecting how they might progress and guiding and informing policy responses.

Modelling is commissioned by governments or may be developed independently by researchers. It has been used to inform policy decisions for human and animal diseases such as SARS, H1N1 swine influenza, foot-and-mouth disease and is being used to inform action in the campaign to control bovine TB.

In a study published in PLOS One, researchers analysed scientific papers, interviews, policies, reports and outcomes of previous infectious diseases outbreaks in the UK to ascertain the role uncertainties played in previous models and how these were understood by both the designers of the model and the users of the model.

They found that many models used to respond to epidemics provided only cursory reference to the uncertainties of the information and data or the parameters used. Whilst the models were uncertain many still informed action.

Dr Rob Christley, from the University’s Institute of Infection and Global Health, said: “It is accepted that models will never be able to predict 100% the size, shape or form of an outbreak and it is recognised that a level of uncertainty always exists in modelling. However, modellers often fear detailed discussion of this uncertainty will undermine the model in the eyes of policy makers.

“This study found that the uncertainties and limitations of a model are sometimes hidden and sometimes revealed, and that which occurs is context dependent.

“Whilst it isn’t possible to calculate the level of uncertainty, a better understanding and communication of the model’s limitations is needed and could lead to better policy.”

A model is produced by individuals who have to decide what is important and need to bring together data and information which could include population data, age of population, proximity, type of disease. Uncertainty can occur at all stages of the process from weaknesses in the quality and type of data used, assumptions made about the infectious agent itself, and about the world in which the disease is circulating, all the way through to the technical aspects of the model.

 

###

 

The research team comprised veterinary scientists and epidemiologists, sociologists, microbiologists and environmental scientists.

The research, undertaken in collaboration with the University of Lancaster and funded by the UK Research Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use is, is published in PLOS One.

Related articles

• Spatiotemporal Infectious Disease Modeling: A BME-SIR Approach (plosone.org)
• Outbreak: Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease grants support research on disease transmission (hiscience.wordpress.com)
• Social media may provide clues into the spread of disease (globalnews.ca)
• Facebook and Twitter may Lend Clues About Infectious Disease Spread (medindia.net)

 

[Repost] Parents Want E-Mail Consults With Doctors, but Don’t Want to Pay for Them

From the 21 October 2013 ScienceDaily report

 Most parents would love to get an e-mail response from their kids’ health care provider for a minor illness rather than making an office visit, but about half say that online consultation should be free, according to a new University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health.

…

The full report is available online at: http://mottnpch.org/reports-surveys/email-consultation-co-pay-or-no-pay

Read the entire article here

Related articles

• Parents want e-mail consults with doctors, but don’t want to pay for them (medicalxpress.com)
• Parents want e-mail consults with doctors, but don’t want to pay for them (eurekalert.org)

 

[Repost] Health News Stories On Local Television News Broadcasts Are Too Short

From the 21 October 2013 article at ScienceDaily

Previous research has shown that the most popular way Americans get their health news is by watching local television broadcasts. Now, researchers at the University of Missouri School of Journalism have found that while local television news is the most common source of health news for Americans, most health news stories on local news broadcasts are only 30 seconds or less in length. Glen Cameron, the Maxine Wilson Gregory Chair in Journalism Research and professor of strategic communication at the MU School of Journalism, says this trend may lead to misunderstanding of important but complicated health news stories.

“This pattern of local health news reporting may be problematic because of the complex and rather technical nature of many health news stories,” Cameron said. “For example, there is much medical jargon such as “pseudoephedrine,” “dementia,” or “cardiovascular arrest,” involved with reporting health news; stories that are too short can leave viewers confused and inappropriately alarmed or complacent. In this sense, health news may need to be allocated more time to be truly beneficial to viewers.”

Read the entire article here

Related articles

• Health news stories on local television news broadcasts are too short, researcher says (medicalxpress.com)
• How Americans Get TV News at Home (drhiphop85.com)
• STUDY: Local TV News Gets Americans Talking (mediabistro.com)
• Health news stories on local television news broadcasts are too short, MU researcher says (eurekalert.org)

 

[Repost] Small Changes in Agricultural Practices Could Reduce Produce-Borne Illness

English: Stages in the intracellular life-cycle of Listeria monocytogenes. (Center) Cartoon depicting entry, escape from a vacuole, actin nucleation, actin-based motility, and cell-to-cell spread. (Outside) Representative electron micrographs from which the cartoon was derived. LLO, PLCs, and ActA are all described in the text. The cartoon and micrographs were adapted from Tilney and Portnoy (1989). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

From the 21 October 2013 ScienceDaily report

 

Researchers from Cornell University have identified some agricultural management practices in the field that can either boost or reduce the risk of contamination in produce from two major foodborne pathogens: salmonella, the biggest single killer among the foodborne microbes, and Listeria monocytogenes. Their findings are published ahead of print in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

“This is going to help make produce safer,” says Laura Strawn, a researcher on the study. “We could significantly reduce risk of contamination through changes that occur a few days before the harvest.”

Many of the risk factors were influenced by when they were applied to fields which suggests that adjustments to current practices may reduce the potential for contamination with minimal cost to growers, says Strawn.

Foodborne illness sickens an estimated 9.4 million, and kills around 1,300 annually in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Produce accounts for nearly half the illnesses, and 23 percent of the deaths.

“The research is the first to use field collected data to show the association between certain management practices and an increased or decreased likelihood of salmonella and L. monocytogenes,” says Strawn.

For salmonella, manure application within the year prior to the researchers’ sampling boosted the odds of a contaminated field, while the presence of a buffer zone between the fields and potential pathogen reservoirs such as livestock operations or waterways was protective.

Irrigation within three days before sample collection raised the risk of listeria contamination six-fold. Soil cultivation within the week before sampling also increased the chances of contamination.

“These findings will assist growers in evaluating their current on-farm food safety plans (e.g. “Good Agricultural Practices”), implementing preventive controls that reduce the risk of pre-harvest contamination, and making more informed decisions related to field practices prior to harvest,” says Strawn. “Small changes in how produce is grown and managed could result in a large reduction of food safety risks.”

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

 

• Small changes in agricultural practices could reduce produce-borne illness (phys.org)
• Small changes in ag practices could reduce produce-borne illness (esciencenews.com)
• Small changes in ag practices could reduce produce-borne illness (eurekalert.org)
• Major Foodborne Illness Outbreak Occurs During Government Shutdown (disinfo.com)
• Costco expands recall of Salmonella-tainted Foster Farms chicken (oregonlive.com)
• Device speeds concentration step in food-pathogen detection (sciencedaily.com)
• Device speeds concentration step in food-pathogen detection (esciencenews.com)