No One Wants a Lame Horse: The Positive Effects of Gene Therapy on Equine Osteoarthritis

Image Source

By: Whitney Stepp, Staff Member

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative and career-compromising disease in horses that is often emotionally and financially draining for owners. [i] OA a painful, incurable condition primarily characterized by the progressive destruction of articular cartilage[ii] and is also responsible for up to 60% of lameness in performance and pleasure horses.[iii] Equine lameness “is mild or severe loss of ability to move normally that can be caused by problems in a horse’s bones, muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, brains, circulation, and metabolism.”[iv] The majority of horse lameness problems occur in the foot,[v] which impairs their ability to do what they were in most cases purchased to do. Thus, it’s in a horse owner’s best interest to not only be aware of the symptoms of OA, but knowledgeable of the most effective treatments.

As with any medical diagnosis, progression of osteoarthritis can be slowed down with early corrective treatment.[vi] There are currently many symptomatic treatment options that veterinarians utilize to relieve clinical signs of Osteoarthritis, such as: prescription medications, icing, pressure wraps, exercise protocols, and dietary management to name a few.[vii] Unfortunately, while the current treatment options relieve clinical signs of OA, they have not been shown to prevent progression. [viii]

In a recent study, conducted by Dr. Ashlee Watts, DVM, an assistant professor at the Texas A & M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, a type of gene therapy, (using genes to treat or prevent disease), combined with mesenchymal stem cells, (MSC), was shown to reduce the progression of OA.[ix] The study consisted of thirteen mature Thoroughbreds in the early stages of experimentally induced OA, in all cases affecting the middle carpal bone that is located in knee.[x] Fourteen days after induction, seven horses received placebo injections to treat their OA, while the other six horses received the MSC and gene therapy injections in the affected joints.[xi] Dr. Watts admits that the process is complex, but in simple terms, she utilized gene therapy to augment stem cells to reduce destructive pathways in the joint and increase healing pathways.[xii]

The key results of the study revealed that there were no adverse effects of treatment with the combination of MSC and gene therapy. More importantly, in the week following treatment the researchers[xiii] observed significant improvements in range of motion and joint swelling in the joints treated, as compared to those that only received the placebo drug.[xiv] Also, the joints that were treated had reduced scarring on the joints and higher glycosaminoglycan levels that protect degenerating cartilage. Further, there was improved cartilage matrix gene expression, which is responsible for absorbing shock during weight bearing.[xv] Basically, the building/healing growth factor increased in production, improving soft tissue healing and reducing scar tissue formation, which in allows for more normal movement of the effected joints,[xvi] thus more activity for the injured horse.

Dr. Watts concluded that OA progression was significantly reduced in her model. [xvii] She also believes that “the stem cells may be the keep to major treatments without the gene therapy.”[xviii] It should be noted that further testing is needed in the area of gene therapy and equine clinical practices. With more experimentation and a potential third testing group that only received stem cells as opposed of the combination, researchers may discover major treatment improvements that lead to a complete stop in progression.

Essentially, the use of gene therapy is still in its infancy stages when it comes to clinical practices in equine medicine.[xix] However, more exploration into the possibilities for the use of gene therapy to treat equine injuries would be beneficial to horse owners in Kentucky and across the nation.
_________________
[i] Blood-Horse Publications, Equine Osteoarthritis, Ask the Vet Live, (2014), www.thehorse.com/ask-the-vet/29970/equine-osteoarthritis .
[ii] Erica Larson, Gene Therapy, Stem Cells’ Effects on Equine Osteoarthritis, (Feb. 8, 2014), www.thehorse.com/articles/33350/gene-therapy-stem-cells-eefects-on-equine-osteoarthritis.
[iii] Vetoquinol, Equine Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis Fact Sheet, www.equistro.com (last visited February 15, 2014).
[iv] PetMed Express, What is Horse Lameness, (2014), www.1800petmeds.com/education/what-is-horse-lameness-52.htm.
[v] Id.
[vi] Vetoquinol, supra note iii.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Larson, supra note ii.
[ix] Id.
[x] Id.
[xi] Id.
[xii]Erica Larson, Gene Therapy, Stem Cells’ Effects on Equine Osteoarthritis, (Feb 11, 2014), www.farms.com.
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Erica Larson, Gene Therapy, Stem Cells’ Effects on Equine Osteoarthritis, (Feb. 8, 2014), www.thehorse.com/articles/33350/gene-therapy-stem-cells-eefects-on-equine-osteoarthritis.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] Id.
[xvii] Id.
[xviii] Id.
[xix] Id.

Products Liability Action Against Manufacturers and Retailers of Synthetic Marijuana in Kentucky

Image Source

By: Scarlett Steuart, Staff Member

Since its appearance in 2006, the use of synthetic marijuana, commonly known as “Spice,” has been on the rise.[i] Spice is a combination of herbs laced with synthetic chemicals, and when used, it produces a similar experience as marijuana.[ii] The Spice label only includes the warning “not for human consumption.”[iii] As a result of the marketing and labeling of synthetic marijuana, primarily young people are being injured. With the criminal law system struggling to keep up with the rapid development and changes of synthetic marijuana, products liability law may be an option of redress. Focusing on Kentucky law, a controversial issue exists as to whether or not a products liability claim for synthetic marijuana is currently permissible.

In 1966, the Kentucky Court of Appeals recognized strict liability in the case Dealers Transport Company v. Battery Distributing Company.[iv] In 1978, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted the Products Liability Act of Kentucky.[v] The Act’s scope is broad and is intended to apply to all products liability claims.[vi] The Act also creates certain presumptions of non-defectiveness, until rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, based upon time periods.[vii] Additionally, the Act seeks to limit who may be held liable.[viii] If a manufacturer is identified and subject to the jurisdiction of the court, those in the chain of distribution, such as wholesaler distributors or retailers, may avoid liability.[ix] However, a defendant in the chain of distribution may be held liable if they knew or should have known that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.[x]

The issue in a synthetic marijuana products liability claim is whether the cautionary language of “not for human consumption” constitutes an adequate warning in the light of the foreseeable use and user of the product. In order to be found defective, the plaintiff would be required to show that the risks posed by consuming synthetic marijuana outweigh the manufacturer’s burden of including additional warnings on the synthetic marijuana’s packaging.[xi] The Kentucky courts might consider the warning inadequate because it is not proportional to the potential risks. The warning fails to provide adequate notice of the possible dangers of misusing the product and consumption, which includes the symptoms of rapid heart rate, vomiting, confusion, hallucinations, withdrawal, and addiction symptoms.[xii] If the warning is deemed inadequate, then the synthetic marijuana was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous.

Additionally, wholesale distributors and retailers may be held liable since they have been alerted to the fact that the synthetic marijuana contains an inadequate warning regarding its consumption. Distributors and retailers, such as gas stations, are aware, or should be aware, that packaging only contains the warning “not for human consumption” and that many young people are purchasing synthetic marijuana and suffering from adverse health effects due to consumption. By failing to take action, Kentucky courts may be willing to hold wholesale distributors and retailers liable along with the manufacturers.
_________________
[i]National Institute on Drug Abuse. DrugFacts: Spice (Synthetic Marijuana), 1, available at http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/spice-synthetic-marijuana (revised December 2012).
[ii] Id.
[iii] Id.
[iv] Dealers Transport Co. v. Battery Distributing Co., 402 S.W.2d 441, 445–46 (Ky. App. 1965).
[v] KRS 411.300-411.350.
[vi] KRS 411.300(1).
[vii] KRS 411.310.
[viii] KRS 411.320.
[ix] KRS 411.340.
[x] Id.
[xi] See Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., Inc., 602 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Ky. 1980).
[xii] National Institute on Drug Abuse. DrugFacts: Spice (Synthetic Marijuana). http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/spice-synthetic-marijuana (last revised December 2012).

I Love the Smell of Licorice in the Morning: Public Water Systems Protection after Freedom Industries

Image Source

By: Stephen F. Soltis,[1] Staff Member

John Denver once asked for the country roads to take him home to West Virginia. However, after January 9, 2014, Mr. Denver may be less enthralled to return to the Mountain State. The morning of January 9, 10,000 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM), a licorice smelling chemical that is used to process coal, leaked from a storage tank at Freedom Industries near Charleston, West Virginia.[2] Freedom Industries was located directly on the Elk River and was approximately one mile upstream from the West Virginia American Water Company’s (WVAM) municipal water intakes.[3] The MCHM entered the intakes and contaminated the tap water of 300,000 West Virginia residents.[4]

Within hours of the spill, multiple businesses filed lawsuits against Freedom Industries and WVAM.[5] However, these legal measures are largely remedial, and can only compensate for the economic harm already incurred. Congressional and state lawmakers should examine the cause of the leak, determine whether the subsequent contamination of the Kanawha Valley’s drinking water was the result of regulatory gaps, and whether these gaps should be closed.

MCHM did not fit within the existing federal statutory framework designed to protect the environment. The Clean Water Act primarily regulates intended discharges into the “waters of the United States.”[6] However, the Freedom Industries incident was an accident.[7] The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) utilizes health-based standards to control the amount of pollutants in drinking water,[8] but the SDWA does not define MCHM.[9]

There are two proposals pending that, if adopted, may prevent another Freedom Industries incident. The first proposal involves amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by creating stricter oversight of permitted industrial chemicals, including MCHM.[10] However, amending TSCA would likely have far reaching consequences on the industry, and political pressure would likely defeat strict regulations.

The second proposed action is the Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014 introduced by Senators Manchin, Boxer, and Rockefeller.[11] This pending legislation would amend the SDWA and require states or the Administrator to create “a chemical storage facility source water protection program.”[12] This program protects “public water systems” from releases of chemicals from facilities covered within the Act.[13] The Act establishes minimum requirements for the program, including “leak detection”, “spill and overfill control”, and “an emergency response and communication plan.”[14]

An ongoing concern with MCHM is that a safe level of exposure has yet to be defined.[15] The Material Safety Data Sheet for MCHM lacks key information regarding MCHM’s dose toxicity and germ cell mutagenicity.[16] The proposed drinking water safety bill directly addresses this concern by requiring notice “to the Administrator” or “the appropriate State agency” of “the potential toxicity of stored chemicals to humans and the environment.”[17]

The proposed legislation is a proactive approach that safeguards public water supplies. The bill requires identification of facilities that could potentially release chemicals into public waters, and establishes a regulatory regime to safeguard against these facilities contaminating the public water system.[18] By requiring increased control over chemical facilities near public water sources, the Act is a first step in safeguarding the water that runs alongside those country roads, and restoring West Virginians’ peace of mind.
_________________
[1] J.D. Candidate, May 2015, University of Kentucky College of Law. The author would like to thank Professor Michael Healy for his guidance in navigating this emerging topic.
[2] 2014 West Virginia Chemical Spill, CDC.gov, http://emergency.cdc.gov/chemical/MCHM/westvirginia2014/index.asp (last visited Feb. 11, 2014).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Kate White, Lawyers seek to consolidate water lawsuits, W.V. Gazette, (Jan. 12, 2014), http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201401120046?page=2.
[6] See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (1976).
[7] Brad Plumer, Five big questions about the massive chemical spill in West Virginia, Wash. Post, (Jan. 21, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/21/five-big-questions-about-the-massive-chemical-spill-in-west-virginia/.
[8] See Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300(f).
[9] Id.
[10] Joel Achenbach, W.Va. chemical spill poses a new test for lawmakers, Wash. Post, (Jan. 19, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/west-virginia-chemical-spill-in-elk-river-poses-a-new-chemistry-test-for-lawmakers.
[11] Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Act, S. 1961, 113th Cong. (2014).
[12] Id. at § 1472(a).
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at § 1472(b).
[15] Ken Ward Jr., Questions remain about MCHM screening level, W.V. Gazette, (Feb. 8, 2014), http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201402080047.
[16] Achenbach, supra note 10.
[17] Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Act, S. 1961, 113th Cong. § 1472 (2014).
[18] See Id.

What’s In Your Trash?

Image Source

By: Jazmin Smith, Staff Member

I admit it. I am guilty of buying too many bananas on occasion and letting them go to waste, but haven’t we all done it? Americans throw away anywhere from twenty-nine to forty percent of food produced each year,[i] and nine out of ten families are guilty of needlessly throwing away food.[ii] Food makes up the largest percentage of waste in landfills.[iii] It also has the lowest recovery rate of any material, and produces methane, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.[iv] While fifty million Americans are food insecure,[v] so much food goes to waste, and confusing date labeling is one of the contributing factors.

It turns out, that expiration and “sell by” dates have very little bearing on food safety. The dates are merely suggestions from manufacturers for when food is at its “peak quality.”[vi] One of the many problems associated with food labeling is the lack of federal standards and the variability of local rules. Moreover, inconsistent policies harm manufacturers and cause waste at the manufacturer/retail level.[vii] Finally, labeling frustrates recovery and redistribution programs, as it makes handling past-dated products difficult and legally complex.[viii]

The Natural Resources Defense Council prescribes several improvements that could be made to the labeling system. First, “sell by” dates are not for consumers, so they shouldn’t be visible to them.[ix] Those dates are for retailers, and they tend to only confuse consumers. The next step is establishing a more clear and uniform system. Using uniform language and a more consistent date selection method for manufacturers could achieve this.[x] Packages should also include more safety information, such as time-temperature indicators.[xi] Products could contain a safety label or a QR code that consumers mat scan if they would like more information.[xii]

Better labeling alone cannot end the food waste problem because consumers tend to have a “better safe than sorry” attitude. This is where food recovery programs come in. Manufacturers and consumers are wary about donating past-dated food because they don’t want to become liable for outbreaks of foodborne illness, but the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act actually absolves liability of those who donate to nonprofit organizations.[xiii] The Food Recovery Project at the University of Arkansas School of Law brings awareness to the protection of the Bill Emerson Act and encourages food donation/recovery. Several ways to achieve recovery include: turning table scraps into animal feed, composting, mindful grocery shopping, more creative menus (Freeze those brown bananas and make banana bread!), and advanced meal planning.[xiv]

Food waste is an issue that most of us don’t even contemplate when we toss out those eggs that are two weeks past the “expiration” date, but with a little bit of research and planning, it is something that can easily be reduced. Food recovery helps food-insecure families and provides an opportunity to put food waste back into food production through composting. Next time you clean out your pantry, consider whether the product is really expired, and if it is, consider whether there is an alternative way to use it.
_________________
[i] James Haley, The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, University of Arkansas School of Law (Aug. 8, 2013), http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/.
[ii] The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America, National Resources Defense Council (Oct. 22, 2013), http://www.nrdc.org/food/expiration-dates.asp.
[iii] James Haley, The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, University of Arkansas School of Law (Aug. 8, 2013), http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/.
[iv] Id.
[v] Food Recovery: A Legal Guide, University of Arkansas School of Law, http://law.uark.edu/documents/2013/06/Legal-Guide-To-Food-Recovery.pdf.
[vi] The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America, National Resources Defense Council (Oct. 22, 2013), http://www.nrdc.org/food/expiration-dates.asp.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Id.
[ix] Id.
[x] Id.

[xi] Id.
[xii] Id.
[xiii] James Haley, The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, University of Arkansas School of Law (Aug. 8, 2013), http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/.
[xiv] The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America, National Resources Defense Council (Oct. 22, 2013), http://www.nrdc.org/food/expiration-dates.asp.

Just Say No…To High Risk Antibiotics

Image Source

By: Amelia Sandot, Staff Member

The saying goes “you are what you eat,” but we don’t really think about what keeps our food healthy enough to be eaten. The focus seems to be on the quality of food we feed the animals we later plan on consuming. Recently, however, the concern seems to be shifting towards the medicine we are giving our food. According to a recent National Public Radio (NPR) article, many years ago the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that many of the common antibiotics still fed to our animals pose a “high risk” to humans.[1]

From 2001 to 2010, the FDA conducted a study on some 30 types of previously approved antibiotics for animals, such as chickens, cows, and pigs.[2] Of the 30 antibiotics studied, 18 were found to be unsafe for human consumption because of the risk that they could introduce “antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”[3] Since the conclusion of the study, the FDA has done little to nothing to stop the use of these antibiotics on animals, says the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the group who released the documents containing the FDA’s conclusions.[4] According to the NRDC’s report, none of the 30 antibiotics tested would be approved as new drugs if they were introduced today under the 2003 FDA guidelines.[5]

The problem with the antibiotics is that they are not being used to cure the animals of diseases but are instead being used so that the animals eat more and grow quicker.[6] This abuse of the antibiotics creates bacteria that resist the antibiotics and can be transferred to humans who use similar antibiotics to fight disease.[7] This creates a serious problem when there is a disease outbreak and known antibiotics cannot be used as the cure.

As of late, the FDA is beginning to “phase out” the use of the antibiotics as growth stimulants.[8] The FDA has released rules, which prohibit the use of antibiotics for anything other than disease prevention.[9] The new rules also require that a veterinarian monitor all antibiotic use.[10] It is reassuring to see that steps are being taken to guarantee that the foods we consume are safe and healthy because anything labeled “high risk” probably should not be eaten.
 _________________
[1] Carmen Cordova, Playing Chicken with Antibiotics: Previously Undisclosed FDA Documents Show Antibiotic Feed Additives Don’t Meet the Agency’s Own Safety Standards, NRDC Issue Brief, 2, (2014), http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics/files/antibiotic-feed-fda-documents-IB.pdf.
[2] Dan Charles, FDA Found Drugs Used in Food Animals to be ‘High Risk,’ Food for Thought (Jan. 28, 2014, 10:37 AM), http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/27/267225093/fda-found-drugs-used-in-food-animals-to-be-high-risk.
[3] See Cardova, supra note 1, at 6.
[4] See Charles, supra note 2.
[5] See Cordova, supra note 1, at 7.
[6] See Charles, supra note 2.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Webinar to Address FDA Decision on Antibiotics Use in Food Animals, Farm.com, (2014), http://www.farms.com/news/webinar-to-address-fda-decision-on-antibiotics-use-in-food-animals-71420.aspx.
[10] Supra.

Living In Fear: The Impact Of The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act On American Farmers

Image Source

By: Rictrell Pirtle, Staff Member

Paul Nord is a small-town crop farmer in Indiana who was injured during a routine farming exercise.[1] Paul’s 600-pound mower crushed two of his toes while he performed an act that he had done thousands of times before.[2] Unfortunately, Paul’s story is not unique to farmers. Paul is one of many farmers who routinely injury themselves in farming related accidents.[3] Many of these farmers either do not have health care coverage or have high health insurance premiums. This has left many farmers, like Paul, worrying about paying unbridled amounts in hospital bills. This is where the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) helps. It provides low-cost health insurance for many Americans who may not have otherwise been able to afford health insurance. This is a welcomed surprised to many farmers who fear bankruptcy due to hospital bills.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became effective on January 1, 2014.[4] This act seeks to provide lower-cost health insurance for millions of Americans.[5] Specifically, it expands Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals in states that decide to expand their Medicaid programs.[6] The ACA pays special attention to farmers and other individuals living in rural areas.[7] First, farm families are eligible for group rates, which ensures that all members of the family are insured regardless of their working status or pre-existing conditions.[8] Second, the ACA provides cost sharing assistance for individuals below 250 percent of the federal poverty line.[9] “Cost-sharing assistance increases an insurance company’s share of covered medical benefits by reducing out-of-pocket costs for certain lower income individuals and families.”[10] Third, the ACA provides tax credits for individuals with income between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.[11] This credit reduces health insurance premiums or reduces the carrier’s federal tax liability.[12] Lastly, small businesses with fifty or fewer employees are eligible for tax credits for providing health insurance to their employees.[13] These benefits have been a welcome surprise to many farmers, like those here in the Bluegrass State.

Farming provides financial stability for many Kentuckians. Like all Americans, Kentucky farmers want to enjoy a life free of financial woes. The ACA provides Kentucky farmers with a sense of security that if a health crisis occurs they will be covered. They will no longer have to decide between paying for medical costs and providing for their families. Accidents like Paul’s will no longer threaten to bankrupt Kentucky farm families.

Farming is a dangerous job and accidents can occur in an instant.[14] The threat of injury often looms in the minds of farmers and their families. The ACA helps farmers worry less about paying high amounts for hospital bills. It provides a safety net for the people who feed America.
 _________________
[1] Sehvilla Mann, Affordable Care Act’s Impact on Hoosier Farmers Uncertain, Indiana University School of Journalism, http://journalism.indiana.edu/studentwork/gallery/affordable-care-acts-impact-on-hoosier-farmers-uncertain/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2014).
[2] Id.
[3] Agricultural Safety, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2014).
[4] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 148, 124 Stat. 119.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 148, 124 Stat. 119; See also Mike Rosmann, Can Affordable Care Act Benefit Farm, Rural Residents, Iowa Farmer Today, Sept. 19, 2013, available at http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/feature/columnists/farm_and_ranch_life/can-affordable-care-act-benefit-farm-rural-residents/article_a86ba224-2160-11e3-8fc8-001a4bcf887a.html.
[9] Jon M. Bailey, Making Health Insurance Affordable: Assistance
to Individuals and Families in the Affordable Care Act, Center for Rural Affairs, Aug. 2013, at 5.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 2.
[12] Id. at 3.
[13] Mike Rosmann, Can Affordable Care Act benefit farm, rural residents, Iowa Farmer Today, Sept. 19, 2013, available at http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/feature/columnists/farm_and_ranch_life/can-affordable-care-act-benefit-farm-rural-residents/article_a86ba224-2160-11e3-8fc8-001a4bcf887a.html.
[14] Agricultural Safety, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2014).

The Cold, Hard “Hoof” About Zilmax

Image Source

By: Young-Eun Park, Staff Member

What does it feel like to have your toenails yanked off?[i] Ask the 75 cows that lost their hooves last year. It all started in August 2013, when employees at the Tyson Foods Inc. slaughterhouse noticed that 17 cows were hobbling down the ramps of the cattle trailer.[ii] The reason? Their hooves were “basically coming apart.”[iii] All seventeen animals were euthanized.[iv]

The seventeen animals had one aspect in common: in the weeks before the cattle were shipped to the slaughterhouse, all had been fed Merck & Company’s feed additive, Zilmax.[v] Zilmax is a supplement that makes cattle gain extra weight.[vi] During its manufacture, an estimated 70 to 80 percent of the US cattle herd was being fed Zilmax or its substitute.[vii] However, shortly after discovery of the crumbling hooves, Merck suspended sales in the US and Canada and promised to do research to determine whether Zilmax was the cause of these disturbing side effects.[viii]

This January, after a third-party investigation, Merck announced that it will resume sales of Zilmax since the “hoof loss was not due to the fact these animals had received Zilmax.”[ix]

Merck’s study draws a sigh of relief until the evidence is actually analyzed. First, Merck declined to identify the name of the third-party investigators or provide more detail on the findings[x], which makes a mysterious study backed by a company with $160 million in sales at stake[xi] completely useless. In fact, statistics point very convincingly towards Zilmax as being the culprit for cattle’s crippling side effects: in the two years after Zilmax was introduced, the number of cattle euthanized before slaughter rose nearly 175 percent from previous levels.[xii] The current plateau is at 1,600 to 2,300, well above the average of 670 a year in the four years before Zilmax’s 2007 debut.[xiii] Meatpacking plants and other countries are calling Merck’s bluff, with Tyson and Cargill refusing to accept Zilmax-fed cattle until Merck can prove that it’s safe,[xiv] and China refusing to accept meat from cattle fed with Zilmax.[xv]

Both Merck and the FDA insist that Zilmax-fed cattle are perfectly safe to consume, but that is not the issue.[xvi] Whether safe or not, Zilmax causes severe and unnecessary suffering in cattle. Already banned for use in horses because of the severe side effects,[xvii] cows experiencing lost hooves take tentative steps, as if walking on glass, and even when prodded, they refuse to rise to their feet.[xviii] These cows are inevitably euthanized, and neither the wellbeing of the animal nor its purpose of human consumption is ever realized. Echoing this view, both Tyson[xix] and Cargill have stated that their refusal to accept Zilmax-fed cows is not a food safety issue, but linked to its commitment to ensure the welfare of cattle harvested in the industry.[xx]

In an already mechanized and industrialized food industry, some weight should be given to animal treatment, even if the end product is safe to consume. Animal welfare is an important and integral part of animal agriculture and should be considered when making decisions about what we feed to livestock. Furthermore, while Zilmax-fed cows may be safe to consume at the outset, there is no telling what long-term effects the drug will have on humans. In the meantime, meatpacking plants, farmers, and other involved industries should refuse to use Zilmax even after its reintroduction into the market. That way, we won’t ever have to wonder what it feels like to live without toenails, and thankfully, cattle won’t have to experience it either.
_________________
[i] P.J. Huffstutter and Tom Polansek, Lost hooves, dead cattle before Merck halted Zilmax sales, AGWEEK (Jan. 6, 2014), http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/22402/#sthash.sYuGa8CH.dpuf.
[ii] Tracy Staton, Mulling a Zilmax relaunch, Merck faces reports of hoofless cattle and skeptical customers, FIERCE PHARMA (Jan. 2, 2014), http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/mulling-zilmax-relaunch-merck-faces-reports-hoofless-cattle-and-skeptical-c/2014-01-02.
[iii] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[iv] See Staton, supra note 1.
[v] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[vi] Zilmax, Merck Animal Health (last visited January 22, 2014), http://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/products/zilmax/overview.aspx.
[vii] Cargill’s view on Zilmax being pulled from the market, Cargill (last visited January 22, 2014), http://www.cargill.com/news/cargill-view-on-zilmax-being-pulled-from-the-market/index.jsp.
[viii] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[ix] Lance Turner, Reuters: Lost Hooves Prompted Tyson Foods to End Use of Zilmax, ARKANSAS BUSINESS (Jan. 6, 2014), http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/post/96448/reuters-lost-hooves-prompted-tyson-foods-to-end-use-of-zilmax.
[x] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[xi] See Staton, supra note 1.
[xii] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] See Staton, supra note 1.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[xvii] Dr. Mercola, Merck Continues Promoting Zilmax, Despite Cattle Losing Their Hooves, Mercola.com (Jan. 15, 2014), http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/15/zilmax-beta-agonist-drug.aspx.
[xviii] See Huffstutter, supra note 1.
[xix] Mercola, supra note 1.
[xx] Cargill, supra note 1.

Asian Carp Invade Kentucky!

Image Source

By: Sam Norman, Staff Member

“It's incredible what the fish are doing to our waterways. Not only is it predatory, but the safety issue with boaters and skiers. Those things jump. ... Once a waterway is infested, they multiply at an alarming rate and weed out all the other fish. They have the potential to totally wreck our major waterways."

-State Senator Joe Bowen[1]

Asian Carp are two different large species of carp know as Bighead Asian Carp and Silver Asian Carp.[2] Asian Carp have settled in freshwater ecosystems all across the United States, including Kentucky.[3] Asian Carp pose a problem to many jurisdictions because they are incredibly damaging to the ecosystem, reproduce at an alarmingly quick rate, have almost no natural predators in North America, and can harm recreations boaters and their property (boats).[4] Asian Carp are very damaging to the ecosystem because they can eat five to twenty percent of their body weight a day in plankton, algae, and other tiny organisms.[5] When this essential part of the food chain is removed so quickly from the environment it causes devastating consequences for other aquatic life.[6] When boats pass over waters that contain Asian Carp, this causes Silver Asian Carp to jump into the air.[7] Since these fish can weigh anywhere from thirty to forty pounds, this can create potential injuries for boaters and their property.[8] Thus, Asian Carp pose a very serious threat to Kentucky’s freshwater ecosystems in more ways than one.

In order to control Asian Carp populations Kentucky, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), has implemented a well-rounded multilayered strategy.[9] This strategy includes: a ban on Asian Carp, working with other states in the region to slow the spread of Asian Carp into new waters, educating fisherman on the issue, lobbying federal and state government for financial support, laying a framework for a viable commercial fishing industry in Kentucky, and most importantly, issuing a regulation that allows for commercial fishing of Asian Carp.[10] This is known as the Asian Carp Harvest Program.[11] This regulation allows for limited commercial fishing of Asian Carp if the fisherman has met the qualifications for program participation and abides by the requirements set forth after qualification is met.[12] These requirements include releasing by catch, providing summary information about the catch, etc.[13] As with any policy, this course of action has its advantages and disadvantages. The most important advantage is that commercial fishing is currently the only effective, meaningful way to control Asian Carp populations.[14] Additionally, the framework for a commercial fishing industry is in place in Kentucky and the surrounding region, and there is a market for Asian Carp in Europe and Asia.[15] The disadvantages include the possibility that this could lead to the further spread of Asian Carp because some would want to introduce them into new waters for financial gain.[16] Another concern is that this could lead to a deep decline in the Asian Carp population and ultimately endangered species protection.[17]

With an Asian Carp population that is growing bigger everyday, these concerns have to be dismissed as speculative. KDFWR should continue implementing this strategy because the initial signs show that the commercial fishing has been a success;[18] it’s well rounded, it’s a perfect balance between competing interests, and it turns lemons into lemonade. With this plan and the resolve of the people of Kentucky, I am confident the Asian Carp problem will be solved.
_________________
[1] Janet Patton, Large Asian carp jump, breed quickly — and they're invading Kentucky's waters, kentucky.com (Jan. 1, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/01/2461567/large-asian-carp-jump-breed-quickly.html.
[2] Asian Carp Frequently Asked Questions, Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, http://www.asiancarp.us/faq.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[3] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[4] Asian Carp Frequently Asked Questions, Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, http://www.asiancarp.us/faq.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[8] Asian Carp Frequently Asked Questions, Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, http://www.asiancarp.us/faq.htm (last visited Jan. 18, 2013).
[9] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[10] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014); 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:122 (4)(1)(a-b)(2013).
[11] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[12] 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:152 (2)(1-4)(2013).
[13] 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:152 (3)(6)( 8)(2013).
[14] Asian Carp Information, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, http://fw.ky.gov/Fish/Pages/Asian-Carp-Information.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2014).
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.

Make It “SNAP”py, Congress: Debate Over The Farm Bill and Its Effects On Impoverished Lexington, Kentucky Families

Image Source

By: Laura Myers, Staff Member

On November 1, 2013, impoverished families across the United States saw their monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits decrease when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) expired on October 31, 2013.[1] ARRA, better known as the Stimulus Package, provided “a temporary boost in benefits to help individuals and families impacted by the economic downturn.”[2] In addition, the remaining amount of benefits to these low-income families is currently on the chopping block as Congress renegotiates the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill).[3] The Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2012, and its nutritional programs, like SNAP, were extended for one year and have continued to be extended up to the present.[4]

Currently, the pending legislation Congress intends to pass will include staggering cuts to SNAP and other nutritional programs included in the Farm Bill.[5] Thus far, on June 10, 2013, a substantial majority (66-27) of the Senate passed a version of the bill that cut SNAP expenditures by $4.1 billion. Then, the House passed the “Farm only version,” on July 11, 2013, with a slim majority (216-208)—from which all Democrats abstained—that completely removed SNAP from the Farm Bill legislation.[6] The bill is now in conference between the two Houses, but clearly, both parties embrace SNAP funding cuts—it now just becomes a question of how much.[7]

There is an additional layer to this debate over food assistance programs. The 2008 Farm Bill identified areas called “food deserts,” defined as “area[s] in the United States with limited access to affordable and nutritious food, particularly such an area composed of predominantly lower-income neighborhoods and communities.” [8] Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky has been identified as a city with food deserts.[9] Located in Lexington, God’s Pantry is a food bank that serves client families, and its highest-served population’s zip code-area is one of the food desert pockets located within the city.[10] In 2011, the Lexington-branch site saw a 51% overall increase in its client-base.[11] Further, of its total clientele, 60% are SNAP recipients and have indicated that food stamps do not last them the entire month.[12] This creates an added dynamic to the SNAP problem: SNAP benefits are not the only benefits up for cuts—all nutritional programs funded by the Farm Bill are in danger, including those funding charities like God’s Pantry.[13] Put more bluntly: if Congress makes these reductions, more people will be hungry with fewer resources to feed them.
_________________
[1]Kevin Concannon, United States Department of Agriculture, Helping SNAP Recipients Prepare for November 1st Benefit Changes, USDA Blog (Oct. 28, 2013, 11:00 AM), http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/10/28/helping-snap-recipients-prepare-for-november-1st-benefit-changes/.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Nat’l Farmers Union, 2013 Farm Bill, National Farmers Union (last visited Jan. 12, 2014), http://nfu.org/farmbill.
[5] Nat’l Farmers Union, 2013 Farm Bill—Comparisons (last visited Jan. 20, 2014), http://nfu.org/images/stories/legislation/SideBySide%20FINAL.pdf; House Comm. on Agric., H.R. 2642 Summary (last visited Jan. 20, 2014), http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/documents/HR2642Summary.pdf.
[6] Id.; David Rogers, Farm Bill 2013: House Narrowly Passes Pared-Back Version, Politico.com (July 11, 2013, 3:51 PM), http://politi.co/12pxU3B.
[7] Legislators indicate that they do not want to cut the program entirely but the topic has been too contentious for parties to agree on the amount of cuts to be able to include the nutrition program in the 2013 Farm Bill, and the nutrition program will be dealt with separately for the first time since 1973. Scott Neuman, House Passes Farm Bill Without Food Stamps, National Public Radio (July 11, 2013, 5:20 PM), http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/11/201215276/house-passes-farm-bill-without-food-stamps.
[8] Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 7527 (2008).
[9] Keiko Tanaka et al., Lexington Community Food Assessment 2004-07, at 13 (2008), http://lcfa.ca.uky.edu/files/pdfs/LCFA-2003-07_Research_Report.pdf.
[10] God’s Pantry Food Bank, Hunger in Fayette County Report 2 (2011), http://godspantry.org/press-room/hunger-reports.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 3.
[13] Nat’l Farmers, supra note 4.