AgBioForum, vol. 03, no. 2 & 3 (2000)
Permanent URI for this collection
Issue title is: "Understanding the Differences in US-EU Biotech Regulation." The papers are based on presentations given at the "US-EU Policy Issues in Animal Production" symposium hosted by the EU Center and the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Missouri- Columbia in May 2000. Click on one of the browse buttons above for a complete listing of the contents of this issue.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item The adoption of rBST on Wisconsin dairy farms(AgBioForum, 2000) Barham, Brad; Jackson-Smith, Douglas; Moon, SunyungAdoption of rBST on Wisconsin dairy farms has been modest, and is limited by farm operations: (1) finding rBST disadvantageous given their moderate scale and lack of use of technologies and practices that improve its efficacy; (2) using alternative production systems that make rBST use less likely; and (3) working with handlers that market dairy products to consumers from cows not treated with rBST.Item Economic impacts associated with bovine somatotropin (BST) use based on survey of US dairy herds(AgBioForum, 2000) Ott, Stephen L.; Rendleman, C. MatthewBased on a 1996 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey of 1,178 dairy producers and a milk price of $13 per hundredweight (cwt), optimal recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) use would be 73 percent of cows. Such a rate would increase herdlevel milk production by 2,983 pounds per cow and herd-level net returns by $126 per cow.Item The regulation of rbST : the European case(AgBioForum, 2000) Brinckman, DirkIn December 1999, the Council of the European Union (EU) decided to definitively ban possible use of recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST) in the European Union. In support of its ban it invoked animal welfare reasons. Prior to that decision, the European legislator had invoked different reasons, going from impact on the European milk policy, alleged consumer fears to possible carcinogenicity, with varying success. The concerns were either cleared by the competent scientific committee, i.e., the Committee of Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) or considered by the European Courts to be unfounded. Despite the scientific finding of safety to public health, which should lead to the establishment of a maximum residue limit (MRL) for rBST and eventually to marketing authorization, the EU decided to ban rBST.Item Regulation of rbST in the US(AgBioForum, 2000) Collier, RobertIn the United States (US) and European Union (EU) the regulatory and commercialization process for recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) had widely differing outcomes. Although the regulatory process in both locations was completed in 1993 the commercialization of rbST in the US has been highly successful while completely failing in the EU. This paper examines these events from the US perspective and concludes that reasons for the difference in commercial success lie in the cultural, regulatory, and political background differences between the two world locations.Item Antibiotic resistance in the EU - Science, politics, and policy(AgBioForum, 2000) Follet, GhislainA number of resistant bacterial pathogens have become the focus of recent concern in human medicine. Studies and facts on use of antibiotics in animals suggest that animal sources contribute little to the problem. The current pursuit of zero risk by banning some antibiotics in Europe is not a sensible precaution but rather an abdication of responsibility based on science.