Yes your are quite correct.
The bitter reality is that often those who stand to benefit economically
even in western developed countries will break the law unless there is a
real chance they will get caught and suffer some adverse consequence that is
more significant than the gain in breaking the law. We see this all the
time in the commercial lab business among our customers. Telling them about
the risks they are exposing the public to, etc. does nothing to dissuade
them. Only stiff fines, jail time or product seizure has any impact and even
then they always think "it won't be me who is caught". I have been offered
directly and indirectly so many bribes over the years to falsify lab reports
etc. that I stopped counting and stopped being offended by it.
Jerry Oliveras
Laboratory Director
ANRESCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Lupin, Hector (FIIU) [mailto:Hector.Lupin@fao.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:54 AM
To: 'Daniel Núñez T. '; Jerry; 'seafood@ucdavis.edu '
Cc: 'balan@hd2.dot.net.in '
Subject: RE: chloramphenicol....
Importance: High
Dear colleagues,
>From a number of comments like yours it is my feeling that there is some
misunderstanding about residues of authorized veterinary drugs in fish and
shrimp, in general residues of antibiotics, and in particular residues of
chloramphenicol (CAP).
CAP has been banned for the use in animal production in many countries
around the world, because it is a hazard for humans. CAP could produce in
humans an irreversible illness called aplastic anemia. The nature of this
hazard as appears described in the US Parmacopoeia (http://www.usp.org/) is
as follows:
The illness "occurs in 1 every 25 000 to 40 000 courses of treatment. It is
not related to doses or duration of therapy. Most cases have been associated
with oral chloramphenicol, and the onset of aplasia may not occur until
weeks or months after treatment with chloramphenicol has been discontinued".
The nature of this hazard has been determined, therefore, from analysis of
clinical records on humans (animals seem not to be affected by CAP). It is
important to notice that the development of the illness is independent from
the dose (level of residue in the case of foods), and therefore there is no
possibility to discuss a possible MRL (Maximum Residue Limit). In this sense
the ban of CAP is not linked to a MRL or to a detectable level, it refers to
a ban on its use.
The discussion around a MRL, or detection level, for CAP is therefore
misleading and potentially hazardous at trade an consumption level.
Consumers do not want to eat CAP without to know (and if they know they do
not want). In principle, from available epidemiology information a very low
concentration could be enough to trigger the illness.
To trade fish treated with CAP but with a certificate of "CAP free" because
below of detection limits could have (depending on regulations) a strong
liability.
The ban on antibiotics, or a given veterinary drug, is not necessarily
always linked to a MRL. The CAP case is a clear example of this. Other good
example is for instance the case of ban of fluoroquinolones (a family of
antibiotics) for animal production, in USA. In the case of fluroquinolones
they in practice have been reserved for human treatment (the hazard in this
case is the early development of resistant strains of pathogens due to the
use in animal production).
FAO has issued early this year a press release strongly recommending member
countries to ban the use of CAP in all animal production (including
aquaculture).
The hazard is not only for consumers in importing countries but also for
population in exporting countries (very often developing countries) and
tourist visiting them. Animal production in developing countries (including
aquaculture) has already superated animal production in developed countries,
and there are some epidemiology indications that in some developing
countries the incidence of aplastic anemia is already above that of European
countries.
Kind regards.
Hector M. Lupin
Senior Fishery Industry Officer (Quality Assurance)
Fish Utilization and Marketing Service
Fishery Industries Division
FAO of the UN
e-mail: hector.lupin@fao.org
Fax: 39 06 57055188
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Núñez T.
To: jerry@anresco.com; seafood@ucdavis.edu
Cc: balan@hd2.dot.net.in
Sent: 12/06/02 21.49
Subject: Re: chloramphenicol....
Dear Sirs:
>From what I understand there are no formal studies in this issue
(remaining time in shrimp meat), due it is a prohibited antibiotic for
shrimp aquaculture (I don't know if there is any informal study).
I believe that the major problem is what happen with the aquaculture
pond, because from conversations maintained with scientists in the area,
there is a great chance to have a long time with residues of
chloramphenicol at the bottom of the pond (sediment), but again nothing
confirmed.
Hope this could help.
Regards,
Eng. Daniel Núñez T.
ASQ Certified Quality Auditor - ASQ Certified Quality Auditor HACCP
HACCP Lead Auditor
Technical Manager
Sudamar Cia.Ltda. - Seafood Quality Assurance Company
----- Original Message -----
From: E. Jerry Oliveras, <mailto:jerry@anresco.com> Laboratory Director
& President
To: seafood@ucdavis.edu <mailto:seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Cc: balan@hd2.dot.net.in <mailto:balan@hd2.dot.net.in>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: FW: chloramphenicol....
-----Original Message-----
From: Balamurugan [mailto:balan@hd2.dot.net.in]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 7:35 PM
To: farmavetID@yahoogroups.com <mailto:farmavetID@yahoogroups.com> ;
rivanabad@hotmail.com <mailto:rivanabad@hotmail.com> ;
CB4BIOMEDX@aol.com <mailto:CB4BIOMEDX@aol.com> ; inforvet@cec.eu.int
<mailto:inforvet@cec.eu.int> ; Guy.Hocking@coles.com.au
<mailto:Guy.Hocking@coles.com.au>
Cc: griveralo@yahoo.com <mailto:griveralo@yahoo.com> ; Jerry;
daniel@sudamar.com <mailto:daniel@sudamar.com> ; wocksandip@eth.net
<mailto:wocksandip@eth.net> ; sanco-webmaster@cec.eu.int
<mailto:sanco-webmaster@cec.eu.int>
Subject: chlorampnicol....
dear sir,
When the shrimp fed with chlorampnicol mixed feed, how long the
chlorampnicol will available in the shrimp meet. I heard that, if the
shrimp
were harvested after 25 days of chlorampnicol mixed feeding, it would
not be
detectable. Is it correct?
Where the antibiotic is depositing, in the shrimp body (shell, meet,
etc).
Is there any way to remove this from the shrimp?
regards
S.Balamurugan
************************************************************************
***********
S.Balamurugan, M.Sc,.(Ph.D.).,
E.Mail:balasm@rediffmail.com <mailto:E.Mail:balasm@rediffmail.com>
Phone(O) 958933-892164/79
Phone(R) 0891-739990
************************************************************************
***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 07:13:54 PDT