Beta agonists in livestock feed: status, health concerns, and international trade.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride in animal feeds, usage of those compounds has been a topic of worldwide debate. Ractopamine and zilpaterol are ß-adrenergic agonists used as veterinary drugs to increase weight gain in certain animals raised for food. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established maximum residue limits for ractopamine, which were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). No maximum residue limits for zilpaterol have been adopted by JECFA, and new reports of animal mobility issues confront the use of this feed additive. However, many countries disagree with the Codex standards and are restricting or banning meat products containing ß agonists. The bans by major importers of U.S. meat products have prompted some to advocate that the United States use the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body. This paper looks at the developments to provide a fuller accounting of what the issues may mean to U.S. firms selling meat products containing residues of ß agonists.

Reducing concentrated animal feeding operations permitting requirements.

Many owners and operators of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) need to secure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits from the federal or state permitting authority. Because of the expense and inconvenience of permit applications, farm groups have challenged revisions to the federal CAFO Rule as well as state regulations claiming selected provisions exceeded the authority of the permitting agency. In 2011, 2 courts responded with decisions that clarify federal and state permitting regulations. Another goal of agricultural groups is to change the regulatory authority of the state from an environmental agency to a department of agriculture. These developments suggest that by altering the permitting authority, CAFO owners and operators may alleviate some of the burdens of the permitting process.

Meeting environmental requirements for the land application of manure.

In an effort to save regulatory resources, the US Environmental Protection Agency and individual states have interpreted the Clean Water Act in a manner that authorizes discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations without the review of nutrient management plans. Environmental groups have objected to the abbreviated regulatory procedures, and courts have ruled that permitting agencies must review substantive documentation of effluent limitations contained in nutrient management plans. Proposed new federal regulations prescribing the requirement of a meaningful review of appropriate documentation by the permitting agency respond to the judicial mandates. To facilitate regulatory approval, regulators might use a state certification program to achieve the obligatory meaningful review. Independent certifiers would ensure that an operation's land application of manure meets federal water quality requirements.

Evolving policies to regulate pollution from animal feeding operations.

Due to concentrations of animals at large facilities, animal feeding operations (AFOs) have emerged as a major potential source of water pollution. The federal government regulates concentrated animal feeding operations under its point-source pollution permitting regulations. A major determinant of whether an operation must apply for a permit is the number of animals at an individual lot or facility. This paper examines federal mandatory controls and voluntary guidelines that seek to reduce contaminant pollution from AFOs. Land treatment practices are delineated due to their importance in reducing the injurious by-products of agricultural production. An evaluation of proposed revisions to federal regulations on confined animal feeding operations suggests they diverge from their goal of controlling water pollution. Federal regulations focus on the size of operation and amount of manure governed by the permitting process to the exclusion of other criteria related to the impairment of water quality. Given the uncertainties about the amount of pollution from AFOs, lack of enforcement of existing regulations, localization of problems, and possible alternatives for addressing the pollution, more demanding federal regulations may not form an appropriate response.

Legislative and legal restrictions on labeling information regarding the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin.

With the issuance of the "Interim Guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Milk and Milk Products from Cows That Have Not Been Treated with Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin" by the FDA in February 1994, the Monsanto Company, Inc. (St. Louis, MO) commenced the commercial sale of Posilac. Because of farmer and consumer concerns, marketing organizations, state administrative agencies, and state legislatures responded with various voluntary and mandatory regulations and rules for labeling milk and milk products with information regarding the use of recombinant bST. A regulatory labeling framework that varies from state to state has caused problems for some marketing organizations. Individuals and organizations may now turn to the judicial arena as an avenue to challenge unfavorable developments.