Horse slaughter; is it on or off the table?

HOUSTON, (Horseback) – A group of three organizations bitterly opposed to horse slaughter have issued a statement:

On Thursday Oct 11th the European Commission published a report, which evaluates the
operation of controls over the production of horsemeat for export to the European Union. This
is the report:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2012-6340

On Friday Oct 12th Canadian and Mexican horse slaughter plants temporarily shut down,
reportedly because of failure of compliance with these European food safety standards on one
or more shipments that arrived in France.
Horse welfare organizations were cautiously hopeful that this was a permanent situation and
that an end had finally come to the cruel and fraudulent foreign horse slaughter industry that is
preying on our American horses. They began to assess the situation with the goal of rescuing
the horses caught in the pipeline.
On Monday morning Oct 15th it became apparent that horse slaughter plants were opening
their doors once again to American horses trucked across our borders.
The European commission report of Oct 11th sites deficiencies in the validity and authenticity
of the affidavits for horses for human consumption, as well as a lack of a system to verify these
declarations accompanying the horses as well as a deficiency in post-mortem examinations of
the meat. The US has no system in place to meet EU standards for food safety standards of
traceability.
Horse welfare organizations have said for a long time that the EID forms (Equine Identification
Documents) accompanying horses for slaughter for human consumption are fraudulent and are being
filled out by kill buyers themselves. Kill buyers routinely fill out these forms only a short time after
buying the horse, claiming they have identified the horse over 6 months ago and that the horse has not
received any banned substances such as phenylbutazone (a carcinogen) and clenbuterol (a
bronchodilator/bulking agent) for that entire period of time.
According to the USDA 92 percent of all horses slaughtered are healthy and in the prime of their life.
Horse welfare organizations explain that horse slaughter is NOT a service business designed to help
dispose of old and abused horses, but simply a for profit demand driven business just like any other
business and the number of horses slaughtered is determined by the demand of horse meat abroad,
not by the number of “unwanted” horses.
“Regardless of the instrument that prompted the EU to issue an unprecedented mandate to suspend the
import of American horse flesh into Europe, and then reverse itself, the action has now made it glaringly
obvious to the global community that the U.S. Congress and Senate must step up to the plate and pass
the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.” said R.T. Fitch, volunteer president/co-founder of Wild
Horse Freedom Federation.
“How is knowingly shipping these contaminated horses off for foreigners to eat, any less a scandal than
China shipping baby food intentionally contaminated with melamine?” asks EWA’s John Holland, “For
our government to tolerate and even support this exploitation puts all our exports in a bad light.”
Horse welfare organizations are urging breed associations to take responsibility and restrict breeding
policies. “For example, states Simone Netherlands of Respect4Horses, if they truly cared, they could turn
some of those breed incentives into funds for euthanasia, funds for gelding and funds for horse
rescues.”
The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act ( S.1176 and HR.2966) currently has the co-sponsorship of
half the house and a quarter of the senate. Horse welfare organizations stand united in urging congress
to pass the Act without delay.
See related video (non- graphic): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiLIyseGnG0&feature=relmfu

The Equine Welfare Alliance (EWA) is a dues-free 501c4, umbrella organization with over 250 member
organizations and over 1,000 individual members worldwide in 18 countries. The organization focuses its
efforts on the welfare of all equines and the preservation of wild equids.
Wild Horse Freedom Federation (WHFF) is a registered, Texas non-profit corporation with federal 501(c)3
status. WHFF puts people between America’s wild equids and extinction through targeted litigation
against governmental agencies whose documented agendas include the eradication of wild horse and
burros from public, federal and state lands.
Respect4Horses (R4H) is a horse welfare organization who’s goals include providing information and
documentation to educate the public, the media and legislators in order to promote changes in
legislation in regards to current horse welfare issues such as horse slaughter and the roundups of our last
remaining wild horses and burros.

111 comments for “Horse slaughter; is it on or off the table?

  1. Joe
    October 21, 2012 at 6:03 am

    The three organizations only assume like always. All of their findings are based on assumptions including the Dr. Marini BUTE test.

    Only horses shipped to plants that slaughter for sales in the EU require
    the EID forms.

    You must only be assuming that the EU is upset with the signatures,
    where is the PROOF??

    And of course people who are in the RESCUE business want everyone to give them more money to pay for their lavish life style. Travel all over and spread more
    lies because what they say is only assumptions, only opinions and assumptions.
    Of course I am speaking of, for example SIMONE NETHERLANDS that has the R4H rescue.

    Just where is all of your scientific study findings? Where is your correspondence
    letters with the EU regarding your statements? Only stating OPINIONS like always.

    The article reads (Horse Welfare organizations were cautiously and hopeful)

    Wrong, the first thing they did was write articles and put on this magazine saying the shipment of meat was stopped because of drugs. Again, only assumptions,
    never any documented facts. How are we going to destroy the horse population when
    only less than 2% of all American horses go to slaughter? This is determined at the sale when the horse goes to the highest bidder. Jerry Finch, HSUS and others
    can bid the highest to save the horses. No one is going to complain about that as
    long as they feed and care for the horses at their own expense and do not try to get the government and taxpayer to foot the costs. JUST BID and do not stop, problem solved. Big Jerry Finch said he would pay $0.50 cents a pound plus shipping
    he will own most if not all loose horses being sold in America today.

    Talk gets you no where, action does.

    • Denise
      October 21, 2012 at 9:24 am

      The 3 organizations don’t ASSUME ANYTHING!

      Dr. Marini’s (et al) results were accepted in a peer reviewed publication of science (medical).

      And if people are in the rescue business LEGITIMATELY, than they barely get by and are able to sustain a decent standard of living for all the living in their sphere of influence.

      As to the rest of your poop…..well, it is just that….poop and noncompostable at that.

      YOU Joe, are the one living off of assumptions and lies.

      It’s coming Joe, no matter what you “think” (and I use the term loosely) or assume. The killers days are numbered.

      • Denise
        October 21, 2012 at 9:50 am

        Hey, Joe…as to your last statement? Yes, talk does nothing to a point, but you know (I doubt it) what?….The three LAST FOREIGN OWNED HCHS (human consumption horse slaughter) got closed because of the states, the courts, LAW and many advocates (including HSUS).

        So you are wrong again.

        p.s. Look at Equine Identification Document requirements (EID)…our talking changed that too….not yours.

    • October 21, 2012 at 9:55 am

      Joe, Joe, Joe, the study by Dr. Marini, Dr. Blondeau and Dr. Dodman is not based on assumptions. Once a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, the study is fact. This was printed in a food and toxicology journal. They don’t print assumptions. What was an assumption was the paper written by Wallis’ so called experts, none of which were medical doctors. Their assumptions were not accepted and the original study stands. How can you say the information was assumptions when they had the vet records from the track? Are you saying the vets were lying on the vet records? That is a mighty serious allegation. As far as the information on bute and its metabolites, let’s see one shred of proof from the medical community that doesn’t agree. You are not a medical doctor and not qualified to dispute the findings. It is the medical doctors that administer to humans that have done extensive studies. It is the medical doctors that have determined there are no safe levels of bute in food animals and have banned the drug in the EU, Canada and the US. End of discussion.

      The EU has the proof and has presented it in the last several FVO reports released. Read it from the EU if you don’t believe us. Banned substances and falsified paperwork. The report released last week stated the health affidavits are not sufficient to meet EU standards. Their words, not ours. Not opinions, facts from their inspections. We also have copies from auctions of the blank signed forms that the KBs completed. CHDC also has fraudulent forms that were given to the CFIA. The EU has all those copies in addition to the inspections they did. It is their results that were released in the reports on US horses slaughtered in Canada and Mexico. Are you saying the EU is lying as well?

      Please re-read our press release. Never once did we state that the shutdown on the 12th was because of drugs. We said we didn’t know why everything shutdown, just that it was shutdown. No one knows why. We got three different explanations from the EU and several different explanations from the plants, KBs and auctions.

      Yes, talk doesn’t get anyone anywhere but action does. And that is exactly what the EU is doing. Next year – no passports, no horse slaughter. And it’s about time.

      • Joe
        October 21, 2012 at 11:37 am

        VICKI_VICKI

        As always you are confused and always spin words. Just how did 3 people come to their conclusion? They did not use any out side studies to come to their conclusion.

        Not only that but, Marini reported 78 horses were tested, 38 tested positive. There is no report of what the level was. Not only that she failed to track these horses including the 9 that went to slaughter. That would be very easy, use the EID paperwork, the USDA back tag number or use the VS 17-140. Anyone of these would have proven if the horses she claimed had BUTE in them at the time of slaughter. No proof, only assumption based on her agenda. She claims that BUTE is in the horse for life. AGAIN NO PROOF, only 3 assumptions. NEVER FACTS. Here is a study that also discredits the Marini findings. It seems as though one person lied to it and 2 more agreed to her findings, NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF

        .The anti slaughter have always said that one shot of BUTE and that animal is condemended for life. There is no study from them that backs up that claim. More twist and spin.

        http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103685263837-91/Drs+Day-King-Henneke-Evans+letter.pdf

        • admin
          October 21, 2012 at 11:41 am

          Again, you are redundant. The bottom line, the use of bute in a food animal is against the law according to the FDA. Nothing else matters. Please do not do this again. You have been warned again and again regarding redundancy and misinformation.

          The Editor

          • Joe
            October 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm

            Editor

            Again I do want to make myself clear. I do not use BUTE or promote the use of the drug. There are tests showing that after a with drawl time it is safe in milk and a longer period it is safe to slaughter cattle for human consumption. There has been a study done by 3 different labs showing that bute does not stay in a horse for life.

            It also shows in less than 45 days there is no residue in the liver or kidneys and was never in the meat tissue. This will be published very soon and you will be one of the first that I will send it to you. Thank you again for the space.

            I agree that there is not enough consquences to the violaters that knowingly and willingly lie on an EID form. I am speaking about the FDA warning letter. I do believe if it were a life or death crime that someone would die or cause serious health damage. FDA would have done more than send a warning letter on July 9 2012 to Ronald A. Andio. You have the article posted Aug 21, 2012

          • admin
            October 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm

            Unless a study is accepted by FDA it is not valid, in other words even possibly bogus. Let me be brutally frank, Joe. You are wasting everybody on this forum’s time by repeating things you have said scores of times before. Get ready to leave us for good if you continue. Also, you state the presence of bute is safe in cattle for human consumption. Here is the unvarnished truth. Give us the names of stockmen who are selling bute tainted cattle on the market. Animal agriculture is built on trust. If the consumer is being poisoned by bad meat unscrupulous cattlemen are sending to market, those people need to be in jail, sent their by their own peers because such actions will destroy the credibility of the industry.

            The Editor

          • Denise
            October 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm

            “…such actions will destroy the credibility of the industry”…AND the US agricultural livestock and produce market domestically and internationally….technically.

            NCBA, CARGILL, et al…you want to play that game? Or have you all already decided that the emerging third world (SA, Africa, India, Asia) are your future? Why you having problems with bovine beef (Asia) and swine to export (or was it poultry to Eastern Europe)????

            Oh please, keep saying that or certainly thinking that as you suck off the government teat with land access, tax privileges, resource rights IN THIS COUNTRY! Raise the cows, pigs, poultry (already do) and horses in your intended market country.

            Liars. Get THEIR water, land and government…have a good time.

            I knew you guys cut the loyalty/commitment cord to this country several years ago…..but you still SUCK off that TEAT!

          • Denise
            October 21, 2012 at 7:52 pm

            Good grief….I could care less that YOU don’t use bute, Joe. Which begs an entirely different set of ethical questions….but since you are not the sole provider of US Horseflesh to Europe…you are not qualified to speak on this issue. Somebody is giving bute to equines, Joe because it keeps coming up in test results by importing countries (see Suzanne Moore references below).

            And don’t come back with “ban bute”…it is a nonstarter.

        • October 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

          It doesn’t matter what the level is – IT IS BANNED IN ALL FOOD ANIMALS. If an animal has had a banned substance, they cannot be sent to slaughter. That is the law. The study is irrefutable that US horses that have had banned substances are going to slaughter. They have the vet records to prove it. Why do you think the big plants in Canada are no longer accepting TBs? They have lip tattoos and can be traced to their vet records at the tracks and they don’t want to get caught. Come on, Joe. You aren’t that dense.

          Why would you post a link to a paper that was not accepted? I already explained that their paper was dismissed by the journal and the original study stands as published. Dr. Marini responded to the bogus paper with why their opinions were not valid and not one word was amended from the original study. Do you not understand the difference between a medical doctor and a vet? None of them are MDs. I certainly don’t want a community college instructor deciding what is safe for me to eat.

          Medical doctors determined what the safe levels are for medications in food animals. If a medication is banned, extensive studies determined there are no withdrawal times and no acceptable levels. Why can’t you understand that?

          • October 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm

            VGNM 19 UK Horse Medicines(Incorporating guidance relating to Horse Passports: https://www.box.com/s/ln2vb4hnyf4tml8no4qq

            Excerpt: Horse Medicines – paragraph 28, page 14

            Phenylbutazone is a useful NSAID for the management of orthopaedic conditions.
            Conscious of the needs of the veterinary profession and the equine industry, the VMD has authorised products containing this active ingredient; but, mindful of food safety issues and the obligations imposed by the legislation, we have restricted the use of these products to non-food horses only. Horses which have been treated with phenylbutazone must not enter the food chain, and their passports must be signed at part II of section IX to indicate that the animal is not intended for human consumption. This is an irreversible decision.

            In the original document – link provided above – the last sentence was in bold RED type.

        • October 21, 2012 at 6:18 pm

          These are the EU regs that will be enforced in 2013: EU regs: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/docs/requirements_non_eu.pdf

          There is a special section on importing horses into the EU. It starts on page 14. This excerpt is from page 15, Col. 2

          Substances without an EU MRL for
          equidae which are not nor deemed essential medicines

          Some medicines commonly used for horses world-wide e.g. phenylbutazone, are not listed in Reg. 1950/2006 or in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation 37/2010. Any horse in the EU treated
          with phenylbutazone must be excluded from the food chain and signed out of the food chain in the passport.

          There are more regulations on these pages concerning other banned substances.

          We will have to have a system comparable to this passport system by July 31, 2013, or our horses will not be acceptable.

          Most recent report of EU inspection in Mexico:
          https://www.box.com/s/cqfs3h429ak1na8bz1h9

          2010 Inspection Report in Mexico:
          https://www.box.com/s/bgsda62zd15xh4r8bs27

          2010 Inspection Report in Canada:
          https://www.box.com/s/horrns3xsr50th1f0dct

          Canadian Response 2010
          https://www.box.com/s/aos488pdftk07bnvxmzf

  2. Anotherhorseman
    October 21, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Dear Editor,

    Great Reprint….. I thought I should mention the reason that the supposed percentage of seemingly healthy horses going to slaughter(“92″) “Is What It Is” It takes significant time and investment to find out if each horse has any real market value as a companion animal/beast of burden/pleasure riding horse/breeding prospect, this of course would put the horses at a physical age that would make them for the most part appear to be in perfect health and worthy of investment to the unknowing/less aware public….”Candidates for Rescue” would be the Anti-Slaughter Classification. In light of that perspective…it is likely that some horses sent to auction are worthy of continued ownership for various disciplines, historically Auction Markets/Sale Barns are the location where this type of selection/sorting would occur…in past years many hundreds of thousands of horses have been redirected to new ownership for value added and personal enjoyment. As well many hundreds of thousands have been sent to Slaughter/Salvage simply because ..as individuals they “Were Or Were Not” of high enough quality/value to continue ownership and maintenance by the general public/market.

    Unfortunately for the Horse Industry and it’s many varied interest participants there is a sector of Horse Enthusiasts/Animal Rights People…led by some Anti Livestock Production Groups that are very ignorant of Selective Culling/Continued Ownership/Value Added Principles, as well…they are “Very Vocal”….they are not interested in reality or the historical facts of life in regards to Animal and Human Interaction nor are they aware of Economic Sustainability or Conservative Principles of Livestock Management.

    In regards to Joe’s comment about Mr. Finch and his 50 cent Bid…..This is certainly the answer to the entire problem. No amount of lie’s/bickering/name calling or Government Intervention would have more impact on this entire issue than for Mr. Finch and all Animal Right/Horse lovers to engage this offer/ideology.

    At this time I would like to challenge all advocates of ending Equine Slaughter/Salvage to step forward and put your “Money” where your heart as well as your mouth is….”Step Up” What you choose to do with this Collection/Herd of Livestock/Horses is entirely up to you as a group as well as individually….thanks to a Historical Amendment called “Private Property Ownership Rights”.

    THE SOONER THE BETTER.

    Best Regards
    Anotherhorseman

    • admin
      October 21, 2012 at 10:40 am

      We have to very important points to make to you.

      1. Vocal anti agriculture groups in the equine welfare movement constitute a tiny portion of those actively involved. Most, in fact, almost all are enthusiastic meat eaters. Of this we are certain.

      2. We know of no animal rights other than those written into law sanctioning animal cruelty such as the use of the often inaccurate captive bolt gun.

      • Anotherhorseman
        October 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm

        Dear Editor,

        I agree with your disdain and desire for captive bolt usage to end( this has always been my position as you full well know).

        In regards to your statement of the input of Anti-Agriculture Groups….their influence is more financial rather than “On The Ground” these groups that ask for Financial Aid from the public are very well organized and full well know how to make the most impact on any given topic/issue of the day. It is an old and proven concept of divide and conquer. Financial support for fringe groups is always a necessary ingredient in any campaign if goals are to be remotely achieved.

        Best Regards
        Anotherhorseman

        • admin
          October 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          We would hardly call the largest and richest among the advocate groups, ASPCA and the Humane Society, “fringe.” We know virtually all of the other groups well. They are largely hand to mouth. Again, you are wrong. Moreover, they own pubic opinion which finds your possession offensive to thte tune of 80 percent opposition. Why then, do you persist? Isn’t it far more productive to concentrate your efforts on widely accepted food animals?

    • Denise
      October 21, 2012 at 10:59 am

      AnotherMeatHorseperson:

      WTH?!?!?????

      More stoopid speak that goes NO WHERE about this issue, just maintaining the status quo.

      p.s. What “Historical Amendment” (or would that be “Hysterical”) called PPOR are you exactly talking about because you don’t get “science” and “facts” right, I hardly think you are capable of interpreting the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation/rulings of same?

      More whine from the ignorant, polluting, gotta have it killers and their dumba$$ supporters.

      Just for my giggles and not that I believe you would tell the truth, but are you a legal American citizen?…vote?….own a horse(s) (KB auctions and transport don’t count? Because I can answer yes to all those questions.

      • Anotherhorseman
        October 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm

        Dear Denise,

        I’m voting for Romney (I voted for Obama last time…it did not work out so well), I own in excess of 10 Horses, have been in Production Agriculture all my life, I have never purchased a “Killer Horse” in my life, I have however raised(from the ground up) many High End Horse Show Individuals in many different venues..from Endurance Race Champions and Ranch Horse Competition to AQHA World Show Qualifiers and many a County Fair Blue Ribbon Earners and 4H and High School Horses of the year…I have also had the experience to know that a few of the horses I have raised are not of high enough quality to offer to the public(not ethical to market a cull as a keeper), these horses should not and are not going to go to waste…if any person in the World will make use(sustenance) of that horse they certainly are going to have an opportunity to do so…..people like you would starve to death but for the intelligent capability of my fellow primary producers and myself.

        Your passion is deep, your wisdom is limited….please do not continue to try and make everyone on this forum believe that you are elite or hold the high ground on any Ag issue’s of this day or any other for that matter.

        Your childish rebuttals do certainly disclose your personal level of agitation when others defy your personal perspective on all issues.

        Best Regards
        Anotherhorseman

        • Denise
          October 21, 2012 at 7:44 pm

          Another:

          I hardly think with my education, experience in Ag and service to my country I would starve to death….much more without the likes of you that supports polluting human consumers with an unqualified food source that is produced as a “Horse” NOT as Horsemeat.

          Elite? Because I don’t believe in HCHS of US equines? It is hardly just a personal perspective…it is based on what is taught in US universities and even USDA, FDA regs and laws. That you live in loophole land doesn’t make it right.

          Do the world a favor and get out of the horse AND FOOD biz. You possess the arrogance and self-interest of many Chinese producers; and we all know what a great history of quality and safety they have.

          YOU NEVER CITE REGS. YOU NEVER CITE SCIENCE. YOU NEVER CITE FACTS……You pontificate and the world has enough religious leaders. We don’t need another. And I suppose the world is still flat and the sun rotates (orbits) around the earth.

        • October 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm

          From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

          Food and Drug Administration

          21 CFR Part 530

          [Docket No. 03N-0024]

          New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
          Order of Prohibition

          AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

          ACTION: Final rule.

          ———————————————————————–

          SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
          prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
          in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
          order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
          dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
          event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
          the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
          Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).

          DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
          electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
          April 29, 2003.

          ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
          Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
          1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
          http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
          Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
          Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
          gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.

          SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. AMDUCA

          AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
          1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
          permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
          animal and human drugs in animals. However,

          [[Page 9529]]

          section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
          authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
          affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
          presents a risk to the public health.
          In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
          published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
          part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
          use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
          and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
          prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
          procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
          We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
          animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
          this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
          drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
          Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
          than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
          become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
          revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
          The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
          530.41.

          II. Phenylbutazone

          Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
          of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
          approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
          States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
          experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
          drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
          Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
          hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
          7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
          anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
          (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
          the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
          (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
          have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
          for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
          level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
          sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
          determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
          results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
          in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
          3).
          For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
          injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
          horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
          phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
          Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
          found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
          dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
          (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
          residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
          throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
          evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
          dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
          presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
          being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
          Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
          order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
          dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
          We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
          and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
          extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
          to public health.

          III. Request for Comments

          We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
          to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
          revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
          written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
          ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
          comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
          any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
          Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
          in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
          receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
          The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
          except for Federal holidays.

          IV. Order of Prohibition

          Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
          512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
          extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
          dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
          event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
          that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
          Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
          dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.

          V. References

          The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
          Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
          4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
          1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
          Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
          Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
          J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
          Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
          2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
          Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
          Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
          3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
          Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
          studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
          publication number 90-2822, 1990.
          4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
          “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
          Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
          5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
          Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
          1231, 1995.
          6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
          the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
          pp. 888-890, 1962.
          7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
          http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
          8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
          Tindall, p. 92, 1988.

          List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530

          Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,

          [[Page 9530]]

          Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
          under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
          redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
          CFR part 530 is amended as follows:

          PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS

          1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
          follows:

          Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
          352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.

          Sec. 530.41 [Amended]

          2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
          follows:

          Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.

          (a) * * *
          (12) Phenylbutazone.
          * * * * *

          Dated: February 13, 2003.
          Stephen F. Sundlof,
          Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
          [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
          BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • admin
            October 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm

            Thank you Suzanne. Please post this as many times as needed each and every time the safty of Bute is called into question.

            The Editor

    • October 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm

      The animal rights thing is getting really tired. We are not advocating for animal rights. I do not believe animals can ever have rights other than to be treated humanely. We are advocating ending horse slaughter. Period. We aren’t saying that it’s a horse’s right not be slaughtered. We are saying that horses in the US are not raised as livestock and if anyone’s rights are being violated, it is a consumer’s right to safe food. US horses are not raised as food animals. When their careers end or when the overbreeders can’t sell all the horses they chose to breed, that does not make them a food animal. When rodeo horses are used up, that doesn’t make them food animals. When race horses can no longer race, that doesn’t make them food animals and yet, those are the very horses ending up on a consumer’s plate.

      And even more tired is the property rights argument. Right now, any US horse owner can sell, donate or euthanize their horses. When slaughter ends, they will retain those rights and can still slaughter their horse and eat it. So what rights are you losing? Along with property rights comes accountability and responsibility. You own your car but you can’t dispose of it however you choose – the same with appliances, computers and host of “things you own” so no, you aren’t free to do whatever you want with your property because there are consequences.

      If the market dried up tomorrow in Europe, are you going to sue the EU for taking away your property rights? How absurd.

      • Anotherhorseman
        October 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm

        Dear Mrs.Tobin,

        I as well as many others think personal/private rights of ownership is of huge significance.

        Your argument of limits on disposal of personal property are not valid.

        Computors/Cars/Appliances can and are all “Salvaged”(by business that has been granted licence to do so) for further exploitation of value by the free open market…to not do so has been a huge issue…in fact salvage and renewable resources are the topic of this entire generation.

        Living animals can and are harvested by an open and willing free market for commodities world wide..as are perishable fruits and vegetables….it just so happens that the components that cars and electrical components is made from is also salvaged.

        Access to these markets is paramount to a healthy economy and sustaining a “Value” for each and every item produced and marketed.

        I value your perspective of humane handling of all livestock including horses…however you and your 1000 or so members can not dictate to others what is and is not personal property and the rights of ownership and disposal.

        In regards to the market for Horsemeat in the E.U. , If the market “dried up” then that is a free market choice and that is a normal function of markets….however if Slander and Misinformation is the reason for the market drying up….then yes…some responsible group or individuals should/could be sued for those activities.

        Best Regards
        Anotherhorseman

        • admin
          October 21, 2012 at 6:58 pm

          Anotherhorseman – As a working journalist I work with the issue of defamation on a daily basis and have for the last 40 years. In your last paragraph, you came awfully close to making a threat against the EWA and others. I would warn you, this is not the place for such things, particularly when 80 percent of all Americans support their position. Moreover, I would remind you that truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases and for years I have been impressed with the depth of their research. If they put something in print, you can be assured it has been vetted.

          Finally, there are many members of the 80 percent opposed to slaughter that find use of the terms such as harvest and salvage extremely offensive when they are used in regards to living animals, particularly horses. Please do not use such terms here. Also, your comparison of a horse to computers, ccars, or appliances is equally offensive. Such inanimate objects do not feel pain.

          The Editor

          • skip
            October 22, 2012 at 7:46 am

            To the Editor-very interesting points you raise in defense of EWA and other rescue/welfare groups in your post on 10/21…”truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases and for years I have been impressed with the depth of their research.” You go on to say “you can be assured it has been vetted”. Really? While no one disputes the adverse effects of bute on human health,I find it interesting that after repeated requests for documented (vetted)cases of deleterious injury to consumers of horsemeat,none have been provided(this, after 40+ years of horse slaughter numbering over 140,000 head/year).Another case in point-Bute consumption equated to production? Quite possibly the most UNSCIENTIFIC,ridiculous,mickey-mouse proclamation I’ve heard from an educated researcher.Name another group other than a horse welfare group that concurs with that study.Lastly,if “harvest and salvage” are too offensive,what terms do you suggest? A side note-please don’t tell the kiddies their chicken nuggets came from a live chicken that had it’s head cut off and it’s guts pulled out w/a machine or that a cute little goat had it’s head nearly severed in the name of Halal,the Muslim method of slaughter;now that’s offensive!Funny how we’ve become so sensitive in a generation;bet your grandpa didn’t sugarcoat what had to be done to put food on the table.

          • admin
            October 22, 2012 at 8:40 am

            Please read the following once and for all.

            The Editor

            From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            Food and Drug Administration
            21 CFR Part 530
            [Docket No. 03N-0024]
            New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
            Order of Prohibition
            AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
            ACTION: Final rule.
            ———————————————————————–
            SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
            prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
            in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
            DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
            electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
            April 29, 2003.
            ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
            Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
            1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
            http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
            Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
            Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
            gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
            I. AMDUCA
            AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
            1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
            permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
            animal and human drugs in animals. However,
            [[Page 9529]]
            section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
            authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
            affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
            presents a risk to the public health.
            In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
            published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
            part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
            use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
            and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
            prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
            procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
            We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
            animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
            this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
            drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
            Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
            than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
            become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
            revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
            The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
            530.41.
            II. Phenylbutazone
            Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
            of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
            approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
            States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
            experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
            drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
            Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
            hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
            7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
            anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
            (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
            the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
            (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
            have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
            for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
            level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
            sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
            determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
            results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
            in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
            3).
            For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
            injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
            horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
            phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
            Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
            found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
            dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
            (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
            residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
            throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
            evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
            presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
            being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
            Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
            order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
            and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
            extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
            to public health.
            III. Request for Comments
            We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
            to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
            revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
            written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
            ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
            comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
            any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
            Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
            in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
            receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
            The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
            except for Federal holidays.
            IV. Order of Prohibition
            Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
            512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
            extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
            event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
            that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
            Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            V. References
            The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
            Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
            4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
            1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
            Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
            Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
            J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
            Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
            2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
            Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
            Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
            3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
            Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
            studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
            publication number 90-2822, 1990.
            4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
            “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
            Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
            5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
            Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
            1231, 1995.
            6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
            the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
            pp. 888-890, 1962.
            7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
            http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
            8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
            Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
            List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
            Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
            [[Page 9530]]
            Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
            Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
            under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
            redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
            CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
            PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
            1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
            follows:
            Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
            352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
            Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
            2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
            follows:
            Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
            (a) * * *
            (12) Phenylbutazone.
            * * * * *
            Dated: February 13, 2003.
            Stephen F. Sundlof,
            Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
            [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
            BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • Joe
            October 22, 2012 at 9:18 am

            Again no one is questioning that Bute and Clenbuterol is forbidden by the FDA.

            I am only saying that is not commonly used because there is only one notice given by FDA that there was the 2 drugs found in 2 horses shipped by Ronald Andio

            This again shows that of all of the horses being sent to slaughter, there it is not a big problem like the anti slaughter say there is. The anti slaughter only assume that there is more, show the proof that there is a lot of meat that is contaminated with forbidden residues. Thanks for the space. I am sure my comments are welcome as the editor told Suzanne Moore to post as much as she wanted.

          • admin
            October 22, 2012 at 9:20 am

            Joe, I think this answers all of your concerns.

            The Editor

            From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            Food and Drug Administration
            21 CFR Part 530
            [Docket No. 03N-0024]
            New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
            Order of Prohibition
            AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
            ACTION: Final rule.
            ———————————————————————–
            SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
            prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
            in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
            DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
            electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
            April 29, 2003.
            ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
            Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
            1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
            http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
            Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
            Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
            gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
            I. AMDUCA
            AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
            1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
            permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
            animal and human drugs in animals. However,
            [[Page 9529]]
            section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
            authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
            affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
            presents a risk to the public health.
            In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
            published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
            part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
            use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
            and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
            prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
            procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
            We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
            animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
            this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
            drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
            Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
            than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
            become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
            revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
            The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
            530.41.
            II. Phenylbutazone
            Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
            of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
            approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
            States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
            experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
            drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
            Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
            hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
            7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
            anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
            (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
            the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
            (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
            have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
            for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
            level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
            sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
            determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
            results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
            in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
            3).
            For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
            injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
            horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
            phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
            Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
            found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
            dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
            (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
            residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
            throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
            evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
            presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
            being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
            Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
            order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
            and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
            extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
            to public health.
            III. Request for Comments
            We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
            to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
            revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
            written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
            ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
            comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
            any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
            Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
            in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
            receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
            The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
            except for Federal holidays.
            IV. Order of Prohibition
            Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
            512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
            extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
            event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
            that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
            Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            V. References
            The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
            Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
            4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
            1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
            Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
            Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
            J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
            Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
            2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
            Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
            Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
            3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
            Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
            studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
            publication number 90-2822, 1990.
            4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
            “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
            Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
            5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
            Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
            1231, 1995.
            6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
            the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
            pp. 888-890, 1962.
            7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
            http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
            8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
            Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
            List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
            Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
            [[Page 9530]]
            Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
            Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
            under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
            redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
            CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
            PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
            1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
            follows:
            Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
            352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
            Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
            2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
            follows:
            Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
            (a) * * *
            (12) Phenylbutazone.
            * * * * *
            Dated: February 13, 2003.
            Stephen F. Sundlof,
            Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
            [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
            BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • October 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm

            Joe, if you would read Dr. Marini’s study for what it IS – a study showing that the long banned substance bute is entering the human food chain – you would see that from race horses – that have been DOCUMENTED as having been given bute – alone, a significant amount of adulterated horse meat had been shipped to the EU under guarantee that it was not adulterated or contaminated. Since former race horses DO IN FACT form a large part of the total amount of horses that are slaughtered from the US, that would be far, far too many. And the USDA didn’t catch ANY of it because they were not properly testing. https://www.box.com/s/171cf01f320611effb73

            Since horses in this country race on bute – i.e. that are given bute on race day – besides all the bute and other banned substances they are given. Given the number of race horses that are slaughtered every day, even if NO other horses were ever given bute which we KNOW is NOT the case – the race horses alone would be enough to get our horse meat refused by our food safety rules, Canadian food safety rules, EU food safety rules and every other country that HAS food safety rules.

            Remember, neither the USDA nor the CFIA test every carcass. In fact, CFIA’s rate of phenylbutazone testing on horse carcasses is an abysmal 0.152% (143 samples taken on 93,812 horses in 2009)- these are the CFIA’s own stats. Not nearly enough.

            As for the One-Dose-And-You’re-Out Claim, I guess you didn’t see the excerpts from the new EU regs for 2013 for 3rd countries that export horses to the EU for human consumption. Here it is again:
            These are the EU regs that will be enforced in 2013: EU regs: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/residues/docs/requirements_non_eu.pdf

            There is a special section on importing horses into the EU. It starts on page 14. This excerpt is from page 15, Col. 2

            Substances without an EU MRL for
            equidae which are not nor deemed essential medicines

            Some medicines commonly used for horses world-wide e.g. phenylbutazone, are not listed in Reg. 1950/2006 or in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation 37/2010. Any horse in the EU treated with phenylbutazone must be excluded from the food chain and signed out of the food chain in the passport.

            There are more regulations on these pages concerning other banned substances.

            We will have to have a system comparable to this passport system by July 31, 2013, or our horses will not be acceptable.

            Most recent report of EU inspection in Mexico:
            https://www.box.com/s/cqfs3h429ak1na8bz1h9

            2010 Inspection Report in Mexico:
            https://www.box.com/s/bgsda62zd15xh4r8bs27

            2010 Inspection Report in Canada:
            https://www.box.com/s/horrns3xsr50th1f0dct

            Canadian Response 2010
            https://www.box.com/s/aos488pdftk07bnvxmzf

            You also missed this from the UK which has been on the Passport System since 2009:
            VGNM 19 UK Horse Medicines(Incorporating guidance relating to Horse Passports: https://www.box.com/s/ln2vb4hnyf4tml8no4qq

            Excerpt: Horse Medicines – paragraph 28, page 14

            Phenylbutazone is a useful NSAID for the management of orthopaedic conditions.
            Conscious of the needs of the veterinary profession and the equine industry, the VMD has authorised products containing this active ingredient; but, mindful of food safety issues and the obligations imposed by the legislation, we have restricted the use of these products to non-food horses only. Horses which have been treated with phenylbutazone must not enter the food chain, and their passports must be signed at part II of section IX to indicate that the animal is not intended for human consumption. This is an irreversible decision.

            In the original document – link provided above – the last sentence was in bold RED type.

            God, Joe, your whine about my being able to re-post copy/paste from the Federal Register and your info from Never-Never Land getting a once-only are a scream. Have you turned purple yet?

          • October 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm

            Joe, the last three EU FVO inspections found banned substances in US horses slaughtered in Canada and Mexico as well as falsified paperwork. The last report stated that health affidavits are not sufficient to meet EU standards.

            The idea is to prove the horse is drug free BEFORE sending the horse to slaughter, not by random testing on the back end. It has already been proven that the EIDs and health affidavits aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. There is no tracking and horses that have had multiple owners have no health records for the life of the horse. Where are they getting information on stolen horses? The entire system is a farce and the EU has finally woken up and is doing something about it. Once the passports start, the amount of US horses that will be eligible for slaughter won’t financially support a plant.

            The only way to guarantee food safety to foreign consumers is to shut down the slaughter of US horses.

          • Joe
            October 23, 2012 at 5:53 am

            Vicki

            Do we shut down the livestock industry including cattle. you know full well that there is a problem there too.

            OH I forgot, you scold me when I show the problem in the beef, Your goal is only to stop horses being slaughtered.

          • admin
            October 23, 2012 at 7:58 am

            Joe, are you saying beef producers are feeding animals chemicals on the EU’s banned list?

            The Editor

          • skip
            October 23, 2012 at 11:19 am

            To the Editor’s post of 10/23-could it be Joe was referring to the millions of pounds of recalled beef due to E-Coli contamination? As you well know,E-Coli can cause severe sickness and even death…which of course gives you, or anyone else for that matter, a great opportunity to explain to your readers why we don’t see that associated w/the consumption of horsemeat(40+ years of slaughtering 140,000+ horses a year is alot of meat to be potentionally hazardous to one’s health and well-being).As always,will be anxiously awaiting the result of your research! Oh, and one other question-what’s your take on Anotherhorsemen’s fact that horsemeat still commands a hefty price/value compared to other red meats, considering the propaganda being spread as to it’s toxicity and potential risk,doesn’t add up does it?

          • admin
            October 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm

            The bottom line, it’s against the law, plus the EU Regs

            Submitted on 2012/10/22 at 10:47am

            Again, you need to read this. It will be posted as a reply to your asinine comments until you do.

            The Editor

            From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            Food and Drug Administration
            21 CFR Part 530
            [Docket No. 03N-0024]
            New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
            Order of Prohibition
            AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
            ACTION: Final rule.
            ———————————————————————–
            SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
            prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
            in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
            DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
            electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
            April 29, 2003.
            ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
            Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
            1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
            http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
            Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
            Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
            gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
            I. AMDUCA
            AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
            1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
            permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
            animal and human drugs in animals. However,
            [[Page 9529]]
            section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
            authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
            affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
            presents a risk to the public health.
            In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
            published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
            part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
            use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
            and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
            prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
            procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
            We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
            animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
            this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
            drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
            Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
            than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
            become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
            revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
            The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
            530.41.
            II. Phenylbutazone
            Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
            of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
            approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
            States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
            experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
            drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
            Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
            hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
            7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
            anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
            (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
            the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
            (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
            have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
            for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
            level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
            sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
            determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
            results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
            in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
            3).
            For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
            injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
            horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
            phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
            Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
            found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
            dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
            (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
            residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
            throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
            evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
            presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
            being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
            Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
            order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
            and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
            extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
            to public health.
            III. Request for Comments
            We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
            to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
            revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
            written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
            ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
            comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
            any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
            Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
            in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
            receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
            The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
            except for Federal holidays.
            IV. Order of Prohibition
            Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
            512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
            extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
            event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
            that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
            Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            V. References
            The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
            Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
            4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
            1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
            Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
            Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
            J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
            Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
            2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
            Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
            Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
            3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
            Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
            studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
            publication number 90-2822, 1990.
            4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
            “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
            Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
            5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
            Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
            1231, 1995.
            6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
            the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
            pp. 888-890, 1962.
            7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
            http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
            8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
            Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
            List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
            Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
            [[Page 9530]]
            Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
            Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
            under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
            redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
            CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
            PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
            1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
            follows:
            Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
            352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
            Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
            2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
            follows:
            Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
            (a) * * *
            (12) Phenylbutazone.
            * * * * *
            Dated: February 13, 2003.
            Stephen F. Sundlof,
            Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
            [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
            BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • Joe
            October 23, 2012 at 4:17 pm

            You must be getting forgetfull, you forgot this article. It is not hard to figure it out that is forbidden to use some drugs. Answer this, if it is such a crime why does FDA only send a warning and want to know what the violator is going to do to get back in compliance. Your article is very redundant. No one disputes that there are forbidden drugs. You are wasting a lot of space playing games.

          • Denise
            October 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm

            Because the US doesn’t do domestic HCHS…..NOTHING REDUNDANT SAVE FOR YOUR STUBBORNNESS, AMNESIA OR MENTAL DEFECT….they do not or are they required to enforce the bute/Banamine/non food animal drugs for animals exported aka NOT CONSUMED HERE (US).

            And you, Joe, skip, Anotherhorsemeatman are wasting a ton of time arguing ad naseum that bute ain’t no big deal, especially in a nonproduction for human food animal.

          • skip
            October 23, 2012 at 8:18 pm

            Ms.Verret,Denise,whatever your moniker is these days-please answer the request for documented data concerning the consumption of horsemeat and it’s harmful effects for the past 40+years-simple question,simple answer.Surely,as intelligent as you are,(as you constantly remind us)you can answer that question w/a straight forward answer;.

          • admin
            October 23, 2012 at 8:40 pm

            Again, it’s against the law. That’s all that counts.

            Submitted on 2012/10/22 at 10:47am

            Again, you need to read this. It will be posted as a reply to your asinine comments until you do.

            The Editor

            From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            Food and Drug Administration
            21 CFR Part 530
            [Docket No. 03N-0024]
            New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
            Order of Prohibition
            AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
            ACTION: Final rule.
            ———————————————————————–
            SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
            prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
            in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
            DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
            electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
            April 29, 2003.
            ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
            Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
            1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
            http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
            Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
            Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
            gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
            I. AMDUCA
            AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
            1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
            permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
            animal and human drugs in animals. However,
            [[Page 9529]]
            section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
            authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
            affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
            presents a risk to the public health.
            In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
            published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
            part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
            use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
            and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
            prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
            procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
            We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
            animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
            this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
            drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
            Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
            than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
            become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
            revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
            The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
            530.41.
            II. Phenylbutazone
            Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
            of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
            approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
            States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
            experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
            drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
            Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
            hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
            7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
            anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
            (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
            the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
            (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
            have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
            for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
            level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
            sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
            determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
            results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
            in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
            3).
            For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
            injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
            horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
            phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
            Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
            found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
            dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
            (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
            residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
            throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
            evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
            presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
            being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
            Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
            order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
            and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
            extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
            to public health.
            III. Request for Comments
            We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
            to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
            revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
            written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
            ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
            comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
            any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
            Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
            in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
            receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
            The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
            except for Federal holidays.
            IV. Order of Prohibition
            Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
            512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
            extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
            event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
            that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
            Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            V. References
            The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
            Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
            4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
            1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
            Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
            Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
            J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
            Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
            2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
            Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
            Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
            3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
            Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
            studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
            publication number 90-2822, 1990.
            4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
            “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
            Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
            5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
            Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
            1231, 1995.
            6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
            the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
            pp. 888-890, 1962.
            7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
            http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
            8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
            Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
            List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
            Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
            [[Page 9530]]
            Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
            Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
            under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
            redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
            CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
            PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
            1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
            follows:
            Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
            352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
            Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
            2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
            follows:
            Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
            (a) * * *
            (12) Phenylbutazone.
            * * * * *
            Dated: February 13, 2003.
            Stephen F. Sundlof,
            Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
            [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
            BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • Denise
            October 23, 2012 at 10:59 pm

            Wow…you scare me skippy….NOT! And what is the freakin’ dif or your point? Hmm, just more messenger attack…not message.

            The discussion is on the use of bute currently, NOTE… not it’s CURRENT debilitative effects on current consumers AS THE USE OF BUTE IN HUMANS STOPPED OVER 40 YEARS AGO BECAUSE THE EFFECTS ON HUMANS RESULTED IN MORTALITY and significant health problems. We are talking equines, specifically from the US,

            How you scumin’ Davey? (you do know the Editor can trace your IP…rocket scientist)?

            Same as usual…I see.

            I don’t obfuscate…you do.

            Wow. I must be intelligent if you are that scared of me and are repeatedly (actually perpetually) off topic. Thanks for the compliment.

            I don’t make the laws or regs, a$$wipe….I just follow them. Refute one thing or fact I posted, but please check Ms. Moore’s previous posts first before you, again whine and vomit on the reading public.

            You dyed in the horse hide killers have become sooooo boring in the 21st Century.

          • October 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm

            Now, which medical authorities are just going to hand us 40+ years of information, right? And what pray tell would we even look for? It’s often the case that people get sick and the cause isn’t found – especially if the cause is considered to be safe – which it would be if people like you didn’t ignore the food safety rules and knowingly sell adulterated horse meat to consumers who don’t have a clue as to how American horses are regulated – or not regulated.

            The FACT that bute causes a myriad of symptoms and there is such a wide difference in people’s sensitivity to it, the reports you want would be almost impossible to produce.

            Isn’t the fact that bute is banned enough? NO one in any country is going to hand out people’s health records to US! Ridiculous.

          • October 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm

            Here ya go, Skip:
            From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            Food and Drug Administration
            21 CFR Part 530
            [Docket No. 03N-0024]
            New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
            Order of Prohibition
            AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
            ACTION: Final rule.
            ———————————————————————–
            SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
            prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
            in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
            DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
            electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
            April 29, 2003.
            ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
            Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
            1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
            http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
            Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
            Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
            gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
            I. AMDUCA
            AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
            1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
            permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
            animal and human drugs in animals. However,
            [[Page 9529]]
            section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
            authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
            affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
            presents a risk to the public health.
            In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
            published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
            part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
            use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
            and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
            prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
            procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
            We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
            animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
            this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
            drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
            Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
            than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
            become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
            revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
            The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
            530.41.
            II. Phenylbutazone
            Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
            of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
            approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
            States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
            experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
            drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
            Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
            hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
            7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
            anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
            (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
            the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
            (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
            have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
            for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
            level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
            sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
            determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
            results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
            in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
            3).
            For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
            injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
            horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
            phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
            Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
            found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
            dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
            (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
            residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
            throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
            evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
            presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
            being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
            Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
            order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
            and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
            extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
            to public health.
            III. Request for Comments
            We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
            to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
            revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
            written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
            ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
            comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
            any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
            Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
            in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
            receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
            The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
            except for Federal holidays.
            IV. Order of Prohibition
            Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
            512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
            extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
            event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
            that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
            Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
            V. References
            The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
            Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
            4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
            1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
            Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
            Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
            J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
            Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
            2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
            Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
            Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
            3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
            Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
            studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
            publication number 90-2822, 1990.
            4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
            “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
            Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
            5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
            Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
            1231, 1995.
            6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
            the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
            pp. 888-890, 1962.
            7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
            http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
            8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
            Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
            List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
            Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
            [[Page 9530]]
            Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
            Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
            under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
            redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
            CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
            PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
            1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
            follows:
            Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
            352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
            Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
            2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
            follows:
            Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
            (a) * * *
            (12) Phenylbutazone.
            * * * * *
            Dated: February 13, 2003.
            Stephen F. Sundlof,
            Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
            [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
            BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

          • October 24, 2012 at 11:39 am

            The drugs are NOT forbidden in HORSES!!! You’re the one playing games, Joe. The FDA ignores horses because they are not regulated as food animals! How many times do you have to be told?

          • October 24, 2012 at 9:48 pm

            The FDA could hardly issue recalls for meat we do NOT eat in this country!! With no meat to recall, all the FDA CAN do is issue a warning. I wish they were harder on violators myself, but they don’t have the funds to do much more that send a warning letter.

            The FDA is the entity that banned bute, as you say you know. So, why don’t you ask this question of them? All I know is that bute IS banned and it’s illegal to sell adulterated meat. That’s all I need to know. If you don’t think their response is sufficient, take it up with THEM!

          • October 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm

            Skip, the difference is with when people get sick from e-Coli it happens within days of ingesting tainted meat. With bute (only one of numerous banned meds), it is a carcinogen and could take years before developing cancer. By then, if the horse meat was the cause, it is long gone and not traceable. How are you going to tie someone that develops cancer 10 years from now to horses that were slaughtered years prior to the illness?

            Livestock can be traced back to the farm they were raised. They don’t have multiple owners and multiple careers. They serve one purpose; food production. With US horses, you cannot trace them back to anyone because they are not raised or regulated as food animals. There is no tracking, no health records, nothing. The only horses that can be traced are race horses. They have complete medical records at the track and can be traced through lip tattoos. Why do you think the big plants in Canada stopped taking US TBs? it’s because they can get caught and have been caught. With non-race horses, they can’t trace the source. When there are recalls, the source can’t be traced other than it was shipped from Canada.

            As far as Another’s comment, just as we assume our food sources are safe for consumption, the EU consumers believe the imported horse meat they are eating is safe for consumption. Do you think if the EU told them they may be eating meat that could cause cancer they would continue eating it?

            I again mention the last three EU FVO reports that found banned substances in US horses slaughtered in Canada and Mexico and falsified paperwork accompanying the horses. That is not propaganda, it is fact. The Belgium alert on horse meat from Canada is not propaganda, Since 70% of Canada’s horse meat exports is to the EU and 67% of the horses are from the US, there is a high probability, it was from the US horses. And yet, Canada gets the hit. When horses go to a feedlot first, when they are slaughtered, they are a product of Canada, not the US. Again, Canada takes the hit for the toxic meat, not the US.

            Until there are fully enforced passports, there is no guarantee that horse meat from US horses is safe for consumption. Since horse owners want no part of passports partially due to the cost of having a vet administer all meds to properly record info on the passport the likelihood of implementing passports is slim to none. Therefore, the slaughter of US horses should be halted immediately.

          • skip
            October 23, 2012 at 8:33 pm

            Quite a stretch Vicki-but what the hell-die immediately from E-Coli or get (undocumented) cancer from horsemeat after eating it for 40 years-that the best you got?P.S.-Make sure you rinse your corn flakes off before you indulge…lots of herbicide and pesticide residue there-in use at least for the past 40 years.

          • October 23, 2012 at 9:35 pm

            It IS documented. Read the medical papers. That’s why it is banned in food animals.

          • October 24, 2012 at 11:54 am

            Skip ~ I’ve already answered this. There would be no such reports in the US, Canada, Mexico or the UK because horses are not consumed by humans in these countries. Since the consumers in Europe have been consistently lied to about how the horses they are eating are raised, if they did get sick, horse meat would be the LAST thing anyone would think of.

            The carcinogenic nature of horse meat means products the cancer may not show up for many years. And the many varied symptoms of bute toxicity and the very wide variations in sensitivity among individuals who have NO idea they have been exposed to bute in the first place make it very unlikely that the cause would be pinned down. Besides, have you gone over ALL the records in EU countries looking for symptoms of ANYTHING that might POSSIBLY come from the MANY drugs many horses MAY have been given – including the ones that have withdrawal periods that we cannot enforce? And then cross checked to determine whether that individual had ever at any time consumed AMERICAN horse meat? No, you haven’t.

            If the FDA says they “are issuing this
            order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
            dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
            event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
            the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
            Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).” Obviously, the FDA believes there will be adverse events in humans from bute in beef. Why then would it be any different if it were horse meat? Huh? Why would ingesting bute in cattle be harmful but ingesting but in horse meat be safe?

          • Joe
            October 24, 2012 at 7:15 am

            Vicki

            You always use the words could and may cause cancer, the reason you use those words is because you KNOW there is no positive tests that prove it does cause cancer. People eat a lot of food besides horsemeat that may be causing the cancer. It could be from the water they drink also.

            You tell of since 70% of Canada’s horse meat exports to the EU that it is a high PROBABILITY that it is US horses. You are just assuming again. When a container of meat is rejected, every package is tested and the records will show where the horses came from and who shipped them. This is how Ronald Andio got caught.

            The fact is that not all of the American horses going to slaughter have been given BUTE. The meat that is inspected and tested shows that, Yet you EWA keep saying it is. JUST WHERE IS YOUR PROOF???????????? Twisting and spinning your words does not make it so..

            The current EID paperwork does work, we just need tougher rules to prosecute the violaters. A plant in Canada tells of people who have been caught changing the passports or failing to put the forbiden drug on the chip.

            My point is that, if someone wants to be crooked regardless what is used someone will beat the system. Just tougher rules with consequences is the answer. Same goes for the beef that gets shipped with drugs present.

          • admin
            October 24, 2012 at 8:26 am

            Joe, I’m trying to understand you. Why do you and a handful of others continue to post this stuff in the face of 80 percent opposition and overwhelming evidence that selling drug laden horses to the market is against the law. Why do you insist that an enormous number of American horses have not had bute and are ineligible for slaughter. Why Joe?

          • skip
            October 24, 2012 at 11:12 am

            To the Edtor’s post of 10/24-You ask Joe why he insists “that an enormous number of American horses have not had bute and are ineligible for slaughter”-what a perfect time for you to put him in his place and show him the actual figures for bute usage on horses in this country.Be sure to back up your figures w/factual,actual data;that should silence him for good.

          • admin
            October 24, 2012 at 11:17 am

            Sorry Skip, I don’t need to for him, you, or anybody else. Bute is against the law for use in horses, period, end of story. Please stop bothering our readers with this useless argument. In other words, if you insist on posting this drivel, do it elsewhere.

            The Editor

          • October 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm

            Besides, Skip, as I have posted ad nauseum we don’t keep records of bute use in horses because they are NOT FOOD ANIMALS in this country. That’s the PROBLEM, and I don’t believe for one moment that you are so incredibly stupid that you don’t already understand this. What do you expect to gain from horse slaughter that’s worth these risks – at least as far as YOU are concerned?

            Don’t ask this stupid freakin question again!

          • Denise
            October 24, 2012 at 1:50 pm

            Suzanne Moore (24 October 2012):

            Skippy likes a payout for his fails as a horsemen….POOOF!!!!…. the equines he fails with become MEAT for humans with a paltry sum, poisoning humans.

            A$$HAT!

            p.s. maybe he’ll internet your address and work place for the public to come and haunt you….that’s how he deals with people that don’t agree with him. I hope he has a Stepford wife.

          • October 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm

            Well, I’m retired and don’t have a workplace except my own barn. Let the public come – it would give me a chance to educate them about horse slaughter.

            Somehow, this “threat” doesn’t do it for me, ya know?

          • Joe
            October 25, 2012 at 3:14 am

            The Marini Study of taking 76 horses coming fresh off of the race track, where these horses are more likely to have BUTE in them. her own test shows that only 1/2 of the total horses tested had BUTE. This blows her reckless statement that all horses in America have BUTE in them. Her own study shows she is WRONG, RECKLESS and FALSE.

            Marine only assumed 9 out of the total of the 38 that she claims to had BUTE in them, again her reckless study did not document what level. If those horses went to slaughter that she claims,six months later where is the proof that they went to slaughter and if they did where is the proof that these horses had residue of BUTE in the tissue, liver or kidneys.

            This is why I call her work, FALSE, RECKLESS and WRONG.

            I and others are not saying or support horses going to slaughter knowing that the horses were contaminated. The EID paperwork asks WHAT DRUGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE LAST 180 DAYS.

            Thank you for letting me explain my side and the space..

          • October 25, 2012 at 9:46 pm

            Joe ~ Have you even READ the study? No, you have NOT. Dr. Marini didn’t take ANY horses fresh off the track. She didn’t work with any actual horses at all. This is what she actually did, copy/paste from the official abstract:

            Methods

            We contacted individuals who rescued TB race horses from the
            slaughter pipeline over a five year study period. Through these
            individuals, we identified 50 TB horses rescued from slaughter
            and an additional 18 TB horses that were sent for intended slaughter.
            Each of the 68 horses could be identified by a lip tattoo registered
            with the Jockey Club of America and all of the 68 horses have
            Lifetime Past Performance records that are available on the public
            database. Remember now, she could ONLY work with horses for which these records existed – She used two official – and public – databases and crosschecked between the two to make sure both records were indeed for the same horse. Sounds pretty painstaking to me. This is what she found:

            These records reveal a great deal of information about an individual
            TB horse including all race tracks at which the TB horse
            raced over its lifetime. TB race horses that raced at one or more
            race tracks where PBZ given on race day is allowed were documented
            in the Lifetime Past Performance record. At least three
            individual race track drug racing records were obtained from eight
            out of the thirty-four TB race horses that were randomly selected
            from the study population to ensure that the drug record from
            the specific race track matched the drug record from the same race
            track listed in the Lifetime Past Performance record. Individual race
            track records from a TB race horse that was given race day PBZ
            were obtained by entering the registered name of the TB horse at
            the following Equibase web site: http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqpVchartSearch.cfm.

            You following so far? She got info from people who rescued TBs and through that she found 50 were rescued, 18 were slaughtered. All these horses had two sets of records that she could check for race-day bute administration.

            After examining the records of all 68 horses, this is what was found:

            We were able to obtain records (track records and Lifetime Past
            Performance record) to determine whether PBZ was administered
            on race day or given within 24 h of a race on 32 horses: all 18 of
            the non-rescued TB horses and 16 of the 50 rescued horses. National
            databases were used to determine the number of TB race
            horses sent to slaughter for human consumption during the five
            year study window.
            The thirty-four TB race horses described in this study came from
            the West coast, the Midwest and the Northeast of the United
            States.

            Results

            All eighteen horses sent to intended slaughter for human consumption
            and 16/16 of the 50 identified rescued TB horses had a
            positive history of PBZ administration (Table 1). One of the 18
            non-rescued horses was not given PBZ on race day but was documented
            to have been given the drug by a licensed veterinarian
            prior to being sent to slaughter for human consumption. Another
            TB race horse that was sent to slaughter for human consumption had documented PBZ in its blood. This horse won at a race track
            in the United States where all winners must be tested for PBZ blood
            levels by law. Approximately 91,000 TB race horses were sent to
            slaughter over the five years that we examined the data.
            This is the first report to show that many TB race horses bought
            for human consumption may have residual PBZ; over 30% of the TB
            horses were given PBZ within six months of being sent to slaughter
            for human consumption. Winning TB horses have PBZ blood levels
            determined to ensure they are within the range and allowed by law
            (<5lgml-). According to Dr. Lawrence Soma, the racing commissioner’s
            equine research director at the New Bolton Center of the
            University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, the
            mean PBZ concentration in the blood of a horse that tests ‘‘negative”
            (horses that have a legally permissible level of PBZ) is about
            2lgml-1 (personal communication). One of the slaughter bound
            horses listed in Table 1 had a documented PBZ level after winning
            a race at a race track in the United States. The total number of winning
            TB race horses with documented PBZ blood levels bought for
            slaughter for human consumption is unknown. This is an important
            point because this horse’s Lifetime Performance Record did
            not indicate race day PBZ administration. A second TB race horse
            presented in this study had PBZ administration documented by a
            licensed veterinarian. Again, the Lifetime Performance Record of
            this horse did not indicate race day PBZ administration. These results
            support the view that TB race horses can and do receive
            PBZ at times other than on race day.
            It is disturbing to note that a documented 9000 lb of horsemeat
            (500 lb of dressed horsemeat per horse  18 contaminated horses)
            taken from horses with known exposure to PBZ was sent abroad
            for human consumption over the five year study period. This estimate
            of the amount of contaminated horsemeat may be at the low
            end because our sample size is small and the records indicate a
            high likelihood of exposure in this cohort.
            The scope of the amount of horsemeat that may be contaminated with PBZ can be inferred from the number of rescued horses given race day PBZ. All sixteen of the rescued TB horses on which we obtained Lifetime Past Performance records were given PBZ on race day or within 24 h of a race. If rescue organizations did
            not outbid horse dealers that buy for the slaughterhouses, more
            horsemeat would be expected to be contaminated with PBZ.
            The data presented in Table 2 shows that the time interval from
            the last known dose of PBZ to the animal being bought for slaughter
            varies from about one week to four years. In our study, four
            years may be a safe withdrawal time since a horse was given PBZ
            prior to being sent to slaughter. However, the FDA does not allow
            any use of PBZ in horses destined for human consumption and neither
            does the United Kingdom (UK) or the European Union (EU)
            regardless of withdrawal time. In addition, we did not have access
            to veterinary records prior to, during racing or after retirement
            from racing. Therefore, we do not know whether any of the horses
            sent to slaughter for human consumption were given PBZ during
            the interval between the last known PBZ dose and the time they
            were bought by horse dealers that buy horses for the slaughterhouses.
            Thus, it is possible that horses given race day PBZ four
            years ago could have been given more of this drug at times other
            than racing and prior to being sent to slaughter.
            In 2008, three TB horses whose records we examined were
            bought for slaughter and given PBZ on the same day. These TB
            horses were rescued from slaughter (http://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/five-banned-in-suffolk-downs-no-slaughter-policy-mass/).
            A fourth TB horse, given race day PBZ six weeks
            prior to being taken off a slaughter truck, was also rescued (http://
            http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2008/09/019.shtml). This information
            underscores the fact that recent administration of PBZ given to
            horses destined for slaughter for human consumption is a current
            and immediate problem.
            In horses, phenylbutazone is metabolized in the liver where it is
            converted to oxyphenbutazone,c-hydroxyphenylbutazone and probably
            c-hydroxy-phenbutazone and follows a bi-exponential model of decay. The plasma half-life of PBZ is 5.46 h in young horses but is longer in horses older than ten years and those with impaired liver function. In addition, PBZ uptake into the bloodstream is delayed by food in the stomach (Lees et al., 1985, 1986,
            1987, Maitho et al., 1986, McConnico et al., 2008). Oxyphenbutazone
            is a major metabolite of PBZ and remains elevated up to at
            least 72 h (Lees et al., 1985, 1986, 1987, McConnico et al., 2008).
            Tissue levels of phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone were highest
            in kidney. In one study, high levels were also found in liver,
            lung and heart whereas the lowest levels were found in muscle
            (gluteus and biceps) and tendon (Lees et al., 1987). Since the elimination
            of PBZ follows exponential decay, traces of PBZ will remain
            as a contaminant of horsemeat in previously treated horses for a
            very long and as yet undetermined period of time.
            Oxyphenbutazone has NSAID properties and at one time was
            thought to be less toxic that PBZ. However, oxyphenbutazone also
            has serious adverse effects in humans including those of producing
            aplastic anemia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, leucopenia,
            pancytopenia, and hemolytic anemia (Chaplin, 1986). The
            mortality rate of PBZ- and oxyphenbutazone-induced aplastic
            anemia was 94% and 71%, respectively (Benjamin et al., 1981;
            Böttiger and Westerhom, 1973; Cameron et al., 1966; Chaplin,
            1986; Deaths due to butazolidin, 1952; Dunn, 1972; Etess and Jacobson, 1953; Hale and DeGruchy, 1960). Overall, the data suggest
            that the risk for the development of the lethal adverse effects
            in humans by PBZ and oxyphenbutazone are not always dose-dependent
            indicating an idiosyncratic effect. In addition to its
            well-known bone marrow suppression effects, PBZ is also associated
            with a hypersensitivity reaction in the liver which can cause
            death (Benjamin and Ishak, 1981). Taken together, it is clear why
            phenylbutazone is currently unavailable for human use in the
            United States and is banned in animals destined for human
            consumption.
            PBZ is used in equines of all ages and while most of the horses
            sent to slaughter are young and sound, old equines are also sent to
            slaughter. Slaughter bound horses are either bought directly by
            dealers or purchased at auction houses. There is limited information
            on how the horses are handled at dealer feedlots and there
            are no laws of governance. Clearly, the longer horses are kept on
            dealer feedlots the lower the profit. Whether horses on dealer’s
            feedlots are given any medications is unknown. Domestic horses
            may need medications to treat bacterial or viral infections. Moreover,
            domestic horses need drug treatment to control parasitic
            infections and certain vaccines are also required by law. Many of
            the drugs used to treat bacterial, parasitic and viral illnesses are
            also banned if the animal is sent to slaughter for human consumption.
            Banned drugs given to horses such as PBZ are not tracked for
            human consumption purposes.
            The FDA, like the EU and UK, specifically bans the use of PBZ in
            any horse destined for slaughter for human consumption. Yet, this
            ban is being circumvented because there is no pre-slaughter mechanism
            to determine and remove horses that receive PBZ during their lifetime. This is because horses are not regarded as or treated as food-producing animals in the United States and there are no USDA regulations to prevent them from being given banned substances like PBZ.
            The lack of oversight to prevent horses given PBZ from being sent to slaughter for human consumption as ordered by the FDA indicates a serious gap in food safety and constitutes a significant public health risk, a fact that has been recently highlighted by the Department of Animal and Food Science at the University of Delaware (http://copland.udel.edu/~kniel/VirtualFarm/Templates/
            horses.htm NOTE: This is the link I posted the other day). We recommend that the FDA and USDA join forces to track the administration of PBZ to horses and stop the slaughter or exportation for slaughter of horses with a positive history of PBZ treatment. If such a process cannot be put in place expeditiously, both agencies should ensure that horse carcasses only be used
            for non-human purposes.

            There is more, but I'm not about to copy/paste the entire abstract, tables and all. Surely you can read SOME of it for yourself, can't you Joe? If you don't understand "exponential decay" I'll be glad to explain it to you.

            This study was PEER-REVIEWED, and published by a highly respected science journal. Why don't you look at the references at the end? All those scientists in this conspiracy too?

            Where does Dr. Marini say that ALL American horses are given bute? Find it for me.

            As for as the level, it doesn't matter what the level of bute is because safe levels have NOT been determined. Since there is so much variation in human response the the FDA, the CFIA and the EU cannot know what level would be low enough to be safe for the most sensitive individuals. That's why LEVELS DO NOT MATTER. There was no need to even consider them. ANY BUTE AND YOU'RE OUT. You KNOW that! And besides, she explains it herself.

            Joe, don't you understand by NOW that those EIDs are not worth the paper they're printed on? I've already posted the links to the actual reports on what the EU inspectors found in Mexico and Canada 2010, and the link to the 2012 report from Mexico – which found no improvements had been made. The 2012 inspection from Canada should be out soon, but I'm sure it will be no better.
            Quick peek: They found banned substances in horses that had EIDs that said the horses had been given NO drugs. READ IT!

            2010 Inspection Report in Mexico:
            https://www.box.com/s/bgsda62zd15xh4r8bs27

            2010 Inspection Report in Canada:
            https://www.box.com/s/horrns3xsr50th1f0dct

            Canadian Response 2010
            https://www.box.com/s/aos488pdftk07bnvxmzf

            Most recent report of EU inspection in Mexico:
            https://www.box.com/s/cqfs3h429ak1na8bz1h9

            Joe, YOU are the one that's FALSE, RECKLESS and WRONG. Maybe you should read things for yourself instead of letting Sue Wallis tell you what it says. Ya think?

            In the EU's own inspection report of their Mexican plant last year, they reported that the EID's of American horses were falsified. The found the same in Canada. This year's Mexican plant

          • October 25, 2012 at 10:04 pm

            That last paragraph is redundant and I intended to delete it. Sorry. Time for me to go to bed!

          • October 23, 2012 at 5:51 pm

            Skip ~ You DO realize that we don’t eat horses in this country, right? Neither do they eat horses – except for a small niche market in Quebec – in Canada. They don’t eat horses in the EU either. So any problems would have to be in Europe or Asia.

            Since the consumers in these countries were LIED to about the origin of the horse meat and told the horses were raised especially for food in beautiful grassy pastures with clear, clean water to drink. You need to watch a horse meat commercial in Belgium sometime. If a person got sick, why on earth would they think about horse meat? They’ve been told horse meat is a HEALTH FOOD for God’s sake! They are just now learning the truth, and the ones who have any clue at all are still in the minority. How do I know this? Because people go over there and ASK them. Like I said, you need to see what the Belgians are being told. They would never expect to get sick from “health food.”

            It’s like cancer, Skip. You might eat something for years before the cancer show up, and you would have no way of knowing just what caused it. Same with getting hold of some bute. Since bute is SO idiosyncratic in the widely varied symptoms it can cause, and people vary SO widely in their reaction to it, how would one pin it down? Especially if they had NO idea they were being exposed to bute in any way shape form or fashion?

            Also, bute AND clen residues are NOT detected anti-mortem with blood tests. They are detected post-mortem by laboratories doing biopsies on the kidney and eye respectively. By that time, the meat has been delivered to the destination countries. Want to see recall notices from Canada and the UK?
            https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.0810
            https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.1078
            https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.1215

            These are just a few recent ones that I happened to decide to keep.

            I believe I answered your question about the prices of horse meat above.

          • October 24, 2012 at 10:09 pm

            Skip – take it to the FDA! It’s THEIR rule.

          • Denise
            October 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm

            EU?…that is the freaking rule in the US with regard to BEEF CATTLE…some wiggle room for specific female dairy cattle use (and yes, I know where most spent dairy cows go).

          • Denise
            October 23, 2012 at 3:08 pm

            Excuse me, but aren’t we discussing US Equines as “food animals” and the use therein with regard to bute/banamine/NSAIDS exposure in those animals?

            Just a point….there is a limited use in female dairy cattle, age dependent AND THAT IS ALL.

            50 million freaking times you have been told this and you continue to quibble and just plain don’t remember…..do you have some form of dementia?

          • October 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm

            They don’t use it in dairy cattle any more. Read that thing I got from the Federal Register. It’s the official withdrawal of permission to use bute even for that. And it’s dated 2003. It plainly states there is NO permitted use of bute in US food animals.

          • October 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm

            Not A BIG PROBLEM!! Even with just the race horses – that are undoubtedly dosed with bute and no telling what else – and if ALL other horses that go to slaughter were perfectly clean of bute, clen and all the others – not to mention those many substances that have withdrawal periods that we CANNOT TRACK because we don’t keep those kinds of records – even that would be an unacceptable risk. Clen is not used as widely as bute, no, but SO WHAT? It still a distinct possibility it’s there in all those thousands of untracked horses we slaughter every year. No matter how small the odds may be, they are nowhere near zero, and that is unacceptable. The error is ALWAYS toward safety! My God!

            Children are especially susceptible to bute. They can develop aplastic anemia and DIE. No, that doesn’t happen to every child. But, did you know that in Italy they put horse meat in BABY FOOD? If you think this is actually an acceptable risk, you are a psychopath. Period

            What stake to you have in all this anyway? How much money do you believe you’re going to make selling adulterated horse meat to consumers overseas? Is it really worth more than the life of a child – or anyone else for that matter? Do you have kids, Joe?

        • October 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm

          You are correct. Citizens cannot dictate how property can be disposed of but the law can. And the law says that if an animal has received a banned substance they are prohibited from going to slaughter. That is not our opinion, it is not misinformation, it is the law. It is the law in the US, Canada and the EU. As I said, with or without slaughter, you are free to sell, donate or euthanize your horse. Nobody is taking those rights away from you.

          There are dozens of published papers on the food safety laws and what is acceptable in food animals. It is not slander or misinformation to repeat the law. Every published paper uses words such as – banned, prohibited and in the UK paper, irreversible. Those words are absolute. If any food animal has received a banned medication they are prohibited from going to slaughter. That is absolute and makes them a non-food animal.

          In our country, we euthanize non-food animals. It is not a waste but a dignified, humane death to animals that have served as companions, provided service, performed, raced or used as work animals – the same functions dogs perform in our society.

          Horses are not sold by the pound so to think a “salvage value” would dictate the value of a horse is ludicrous. I have never heard of a yearling sale by the pound. I’m sure the breeders that think they have the next Secretariat are not selling the colts by the pound. It is nothing more than another government funded welfare program for those that don’t want to take responsibility for their horse. We have enough welfare programs for the meat producers. I think the hundreds of millions taxpayers dish out to the welfare ranchers so they can run their private businesses on public land is more than enough.

          Sorry, but in our country if we can’t sell something, we have to pay to dispose of appliances, cars, etc. The trash men don’t pay us to pick up our garbage, we pay them. If you can’t sell your horse (i.e. it has no value) then it is the owner’s responsibility to euthanize the horse and provide a proper burial or have the horse rendered. It’s not the government’s responsibility.

  3. Joe
    October 22, 2012 at 7:24 am

    The issue is, no one is in question if phenylbutazone is a forbiden drug by FDA.

    This issue is that bute seems to be not a problem in the horses that are
    slaughtered. Bute is not as widely used as some report. There only seems to
    be one notice from the FDA warning that bute and clenbuterol had been detected
    in a couple of horses from one shipper. Again if this was at a level that
    would kill or harm a person who ate the meat. COMMON SENCE would tell us that
    the FDA would have done more than send a warning letter to the violater giving
    Ronald Andio 3 weeks to come up with a preventive plan, granting an extension
    if necessary. That says that it was NOT LIFE THREATING. I am not saying that it is
    not forbidden according to FDA. We have only said that there is not an issue with
    a lot of meat with bute in it.

    If bute was commonly used there would be more reports of tanking the horse
    meat that was processed. With over 80% of the horses being processed come
    from America and almost no condemended meat. Just what can be everyones issue.

    The only reason is the anti slaughter want to stop all slaughter.

    Just like all of the notices this past Monday in this magazine the anti’s
    insinuated that it was drugs, always assuming something just creats false rumors.

    • admin
      October 22, 2012 at 8:37 am

      From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
      Food and Drug Administration
      21 CFR Part 530
      [Docket No. 03N-0024]
      New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
      Order of Prohibition
      AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
      ACTION: Final rule.
      ———————————————————————–
      SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
      prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
      in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
      order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
      event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
      the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
      Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
      DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
      electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
      April 29, 2003.
      ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
      Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
      1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
      http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
      FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
      Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
      Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
      gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
      SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
      I. AMDUCA
      AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
      1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
      permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
      animal and human drugs in animals. However,
      [[Page 9529]]
      section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
      authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
      affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
      presents a risk to the public health.
      In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
      published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
      part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
      use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
      and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
      prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
      procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
      We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
      animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
      this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
      drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
      Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
      than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
      become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
      revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
      The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
      530.41.
      II. Phenylbutazone
      Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
      of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
      approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
      States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
      experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
      drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
      Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
      hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
      7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
      anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
      (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
      the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
      (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
      have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
      for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
      level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
      sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
      determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
      results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
      in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
      3).
      For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
      injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
      horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
      phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
      Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
      found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
      dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
      (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
      residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
      throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
      evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
      presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
      being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
      Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
      order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
      We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
      and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
      extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
      to public health.
      III. Request for Comments
      We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
      to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
      revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
      written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
      ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
      comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
      any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
      Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
      in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
      receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
      The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
      except for Federal holidays.
      IV. Order of Prohibition
      Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
      512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
      extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
      event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
      that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
      Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
      V. References
      The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
      Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
      4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
      1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
      Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
      Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
      J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
      Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
      2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
      Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
      Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
      3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
      Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
      studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
      publication number 90-2822, 1990.
      4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
      “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
      Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
      5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
      Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
      1231, 1995.
      6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
      the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
      pp. 888-890, 1962.
      7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
      http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
      8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
      Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
      List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
      Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
      [[Page 9530]]
      Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
      Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
      under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
      redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
      CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
      PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
      1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
      follows:
      Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
      352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
      Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
      2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
      follows:
      Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
      (a) * * *
      (12) Phenylbutazone.
      * * * * *
      Dated: February 13, 2003.
      Stephen F. Sundlof,
      Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
      [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

      • October 22, 2012 at 10:18 am

        Thank you. Since neither “Joe” or “Another” can’t or won’t read, I guess this info is going to have to be posted a LOT.

        • admin
          October 22, 2012 at 10:20 am

          We will post it as long as they post misinformation. Thanks for taking the time to do the research and then get the actual government information to us.

          The Editor

    • October 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      If you realize that bute is not permitted for food animals by the FDA, the EU, the CFIA and Mexico, then WHY are you still pushing it? What answer do you have to that? We are not interested in animal ag at all except the illegal slaughtering horses as food animals when they are not.

      It does NOT matter what you want and neither do you ASSUMPTIONS that there isn’t a “big problem” with bute in slaughtered horses. If the food safety regulators in these different countries ALL ban it’s use in food animals, there must BE a problem with bute or they wouldn’t all ban it. WHY would they bother?

  4. Joe
    October 22, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Why do you get reduntant with that article. I have made it very clear that no one

    disputes what the FDA is saying, AGAIN I AM ONLY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO BIG

    PROBLEM WITH THE FORBIDDEN DRUGS IN THE MEAT THAT THE CFIA AND EU ARE TESTING..

    If our horses were full of drugs the tests whould be condemening more. I got your point I HOPE YOU GET MINE. Again thanks for the space..

    • admin
      October 22, 2012 at 10:47 am

      Again, you need to read this. It will be posted as a reply to your asinine comments until you do.

      The Editor

      From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
      Food and Drug Administration
      21 CFR Part 530
      [Docket No. 03N-0024]
      New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
      Order of Prohibition
      AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
      ACTION: Final rule.
      ———————————————————————–
      SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
      prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
      in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
      order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
      event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
      the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
      Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
      DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
      electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
      April 29, 2003.
      ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
      Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
      1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
      http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
      FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
      Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
      Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
      gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
      SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
      I. AMDUCA
      AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
      1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
      permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
      animal and human drugs in animals. However,
      [[Page 9529]]
      section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
      authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
      affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
      presents a risk to the public health.
      In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
      published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
      part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
      use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
      and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
      prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
      procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
      We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
      animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
      this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
      drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
      Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
      than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
      become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
      revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
      The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
      530.41.
      II. Phenylbutazone
      Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
      of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
      approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
      States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
      experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
      drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
      Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
      hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
      7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
      anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
      (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
      the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
      (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
      have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
      for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
      level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
      sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
      determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
      results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
      in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
      3).
      For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
      injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
      horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
      phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
      Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
      found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
      dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
      (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
      residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
      throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
      evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
      presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
      being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
      Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
      order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
      We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
      and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
      extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
      to public health.
      III. Request for Comments
      We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
      to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
      revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
      written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
      ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
      comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
      any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
      Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
      in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
      receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
      The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
      except for Federal holidays.
      IV. Order of Prohibition
      Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
      512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
      extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
      event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
      that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
      Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
      dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
      V. References
      The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
      Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
      4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
      1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
      Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
      Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
      J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
      Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
      2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
      Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
      Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
      3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
      Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
      studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
      publication number 90-2822, 1990.
      4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
      “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
      Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
      5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
      Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
      1231, 1995.
      6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
      the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
      pp. 888-890, 1962.
      7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
      http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
      8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
      Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
      List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
      Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
      [[Page 9530]]
      Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
      Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
      under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
      redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
      CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
      PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
      1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
      follows:
      Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
      352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
      Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
      2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
      follows:
      Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
      (a) * * *
      (12) Phenylbutazone.
      * * * * *
      Dated: February 13, 2003.
      Stephen F. Sundlof,
      Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
      [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

    • Joe
      October 23, 2012 at 4:10 am

      Admin

      Why are you being so assine and redunant with that article?

      Yes I have read it and understand it, We do not dispute that their are drugs that are forbidden,

      I AM SAYING THAT THE HORSES SLAUGHTERED COMMING FROM AMERICA HAVE NO BIG PROBLEM WITH THESE DRUGS. THE RECORDS OF CONDEMENED MEAT SHOW THAT..

      Maybe you and others need to read this study again until you can understand it.

      IT IS REGARDIND THE DR MARINI FALSE. RECKLESS and WRONG BUTE STUDY,, PLEASE READ

      http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103685263837-91/Drs+Day-King-Henneke-Evans+letter.pdf

      • admin
        October 23, 2012 at 7:57 am

        Marini’s study is neither false, reckless, nor wrong. Moreover, feeding that meat is against the law no mater what you say.

  5. October 22, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    I just found something I’d never seen before from the University of Delaware about public health risk in slaughtering our non-food animal horses for human consumption:
    http://udel.edu/~kniel/VirtualFarm/Templates/horses.htm

    I can’t post an excerpt because it’s a graphic. WELL worth a look!

  6. Denise
    October 22, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    If Equines (US and otherwise) weren’t being DUMPED for convenience with a pittance of money in return (not including stolen equines) to feed unsuspecting humans contaminated food AT A HUGE PROFIT TO THE KILL FLOOR PURVEYORS..this exchange would be funny.

    Joe, Anotherhormsemeatman, Skippy…….want some cheese with the whine?

    We are waiting.

  7. Denise
    October 22, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Posts are skipping…hopefully this makes it to the end of the thread:

    Denise on October 22, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    If Equines (US and otherwise) weren’t being DUMPED for convenience with a pittance of money in return (not including stolen equines) to feed unsuspecting humans contaminated food AT A HUGE PROFIT TO THE KILL FLOOR PURVEYORS..this exchange would be funny.

    Joe, Anotherhormsemeatman, Skippy…….want some cheese with the whine?

    We are waiting.

    • Anotherhorseman
      October 23, 2012 at 7:42 am

      Dear Denise,

      Great point you make about the spread between the “Value” received by U.S. horse owners and the “End Value” on the Retail Side in the many countries that “Value” Horsemeat.

      Any intelligent individual would notice that apparently the “Consumers/Market” does not have an issue with the Safety of Horsemeat….the Consumers/Market accept the value and quality of horsemeat for what it is and they do in fact pay a very realistic price for the product.

      With the communication capability of the masses these days…..no one could possibly assume that the Consumers/Market are not aware of all the controversy that you and your group have spread…..making claims of toxicity and long term health issues has not convinced the bulk of the consumers to the point of not paying a decent price for the product…after all…not once in 40 Years of massive amounts of U.S. Origin Horsemeat Export has anyone made a claim of death or health injury. We on our side think that speaks volumes in itself.

      You can spout Regulations all you want..all to no avail, the consumer does in fact make their own mind up in these issue’s.

      The market for quality horsemeat remains strong…the pittance that U.S. and Canadian Horse Owners is paid is the only thing that you and your groups have succeeded in accomplishing…..the more you rant…the lower the price for acquisition goes.

      A lower base horse market is all you have achieved with your campaign to discredit the value of horsemeat( 50% price drop the day that the editor claimed the market dried up)…..the market will always remain world wide…having said that it is possible that U.S. Horse Owners will one day be denied any access to that huge and potentially lucrative market. All based on assumptions and ill thought out regulations that have no validity in the minds of the Consumer.

      Best Regards
      Anotherhorseman

      • Denise
        October 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm

        Ummmmmm…the consumers are learning and so are their governments.

        The only ones NOT LEARNING are the likes of you, the horseflesh cartels and irresponsible owners or breeders.

        I’ll say it AGAIN….NO ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE BY THE ANTISLAUGHTER SIDE!

        BTW, your “property issue” doesn’t have squat to do with HCHS…check out case law on the Fifth Amendment (for Feds) and the Fourteenth Amendment (for States) regarding “fair market value” with regard to “eminent domain”….nothing to do with “I can do anything I want with my personal property”.

        And FYI…I’m NOT discrediting the value of US Horseflesh…I’m discrediting it’s status as a food source for humans, it’s safety and purity. I won’t bore you with the cruelty suffered by the animals themselves.

        US Equines ARE NOT a production meat source for humans….NOT SURE????? Ask the USDA how many equine killfloor inspectors they have now and are funded. That we had it here in the US in the past DOES NOT mean it is approved NOW.

        And next time you open your mouth, cite something other than your opinion and that B$ study done by Henneke and crew….just one!

      • October 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm

        Another did you check out that link I just posted? It’s on the University of Delaware site, and it deals with the health risks in eating American horses because they are NOT food animals and are not raised, medicated or tracked like food animals. They discuss bute – first. Then go to the other banned substances and problems with eating a non-regulated, non-food animal.

        Are they making this all up too? All these scientists and toxicologists and experts on food vs non-food animals ALL say the same thing. Is this a huge conspiracy? I had never even SEEN this page before. Why in the world would all these people with reputations to think about go and make up a lie and spread it around? Why do you think the FDA banned bute for ANY use in food animals in the first place? It happened years ago, the very last permitted “off label” use in dairy cattle was banned in 2003!

        Why does Canada have the very same rules concerning bute as the US? Why the UK? Did you read that excerpt from the UK passport rules that I posted? How about the excerpt from the new EU rules that will be enforced between now and next July? WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS? I REALLY would like to see your answers to these questions.

        • October 24, 2012 at 12:17 pm

          How come no one has offered answers to my questions above? Or for that matter ANY of my questions on this and every other post on this subject? NEVER a specific answer to a specific question. WHY?

          • October 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm

            NO answers YET! Well, I didn’t expect any.

          • admin
            October 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm

            In all fairness, your note was only posted about 5 minutes ago. 10:56 CST

          • October 26, 2012 at 9:30 am

            Well, I actually posted it a couple of days ago, and it’s been waiting for moderation. Of course, only I could SEE it, so that doesn’t count as far as Joe is concerned. :)

          • October 26, 2012 at 10:26 am

            I mean my note about the work at Delaware U that is mentioned in the study. Also, when I posted it, it jumped way up in the posts instead of staying where it made sense.

          • Joe
            October 27, 2012 at 8:39 am

            It is not surprising that some articles that are documented that support horse
            processing are not always posted. This again shows the Horseback Magazine is anti horseslaughter claiming that they are ONLY AGAINST THE CAPTIVE BOLT.

          • admin
            October 27, 2012 at 9:32 am

            Joe, I have approved this one last post of yours in order to reply to you. You have repeatedly been warned to not post false claims on this forum, yet you persist to redundantly post the same nonsense again and again. Your time here has ended. Please go post somewhere else because you will not have this as a platform to perpetuate myths and outright lies. You were given a second chance to come back here and be a responsible participant in these discussions. You failed the test with flying colors.

            This should serve as a warning to others. We caution you to only cite references to peer reviewed scientific papers or articles in the mainstream press or responsible associations and news organizations.

            The Editor

      • October 23, 2012 at 5:59 pm

        Funny, kill buyer Leroy Baker himself said that the price was driven down by the EU’s tightening down on their regulations. He ought to know, right?

      • October 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        Joe, the consumers overseas have been consistently LIED to by people like you. They don’t even know they’re eating American horses. I already told you that TV ads portray the horses as being raised specifically for human consumption. I SAW the ad myself.

        I’m sure you are familiar with all the ways consumers can be fooled. You’d do it yourself. You try it constantly right here.

      • October 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm

        The consumers may make up their own minds – after all, people are still smoking cigarettes. That certainly doesn’t make them safe. However, they ARE legal and selling adulterated horse meat is NOT!

        READ that report you’re complaining about. You will SEE what bute does to people, and the FDA’s reason for being concerned enough to block the final use of bute in ANY food animal. Again, WHY do they ban it?????????

  8. Joe
    October 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Yes, I have posted an article before. There are careless people in every business that only want to sell an animal without holding it for the required withdrawl period. In this case it is penicilin, there is also but that shows up.

    Horses are not the only thing we have to be concerned about. Thanks to the good
    inspections of our FSIS these animals are caught and condemended. weather it be a horse or cow. The shippers suffer consequences. The cattle use the same type of owner signed paper work that the animal(s) are drug free as used in the horses. We have bad apples in every barrel, time and time again I try to get these anti slaughter people to understand that. Request a foia and you will be alarmed. YOU and YOUR SUPPORTERS ONLY SINGLE OUT HORSES.

    How many times do I have to say I AM FOR FOOD SAFETY IN ALL LIVESTOCK??

    Some people hear what they want to hear, read what they they want to see. Stick there head in the sand and call me and others dumb.. Yes, some do not want to hear anything negative to their beliefs. They say I have already made up my mind and nothing you say will change it.. Thanks for letting me post the rest of the story..

  9. October 23, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Joe, I hit the submit too soon. The documentation is on the drugs and would cause the same illnesses in any meat. You keep forgetting that the research is done on the drugs and the impacts on human health. When a drug has proven through extensive studies that there are no acceptable levels, it is banned. Bute, as an example, leaves the blood stream and takes up in the injured tissue. It then metabolizes into oxyphenylbutazone. The metabolites are just as dangerous.

    I’m curious why you persist in arguing about this when it is banned. It doesn’t matter how many people got sick or will get sick, it is banned. If an animal has had a banned substance, they cannot enter the food chain. And soon, you will need a passport to prove the horse has not had any banned meds from the age of six months. The “honesty” system if fraught with fraud from the bottom feeders that place $300 above the risk of a human’s health and the EU is finally doing something about it.

  10. Denise
    October 23, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    skippy (who really isn’t…but I am whom I post..no moniker):

    repost because stuff is skipping, BUT…

    skip on October 23, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    Ms.Verret,Denise,whatever your moniker is these days-please answer the request for documented data concerning the consumption of horsemeat and it’s harmful effects for the past 40+years-simple question,simple answer.Surely,as intelligent as you are,(as you constantly remind us)you can answer that question w/a straight forward answer;.

    Answer is?????

    Wow…you scare me skippy….NOT! And what is the freakin’ dif or your point? Hmm, just more messenger attack…not message.

    The discussion is on the use of bute currently, NOTE… not it’s CURRENT debilitative effects on current consumers AS THE USE OF BUTE IN HUMANS STOPPED OVER 40 YEARS AGO BECAUSE THE EFFECTS ON HUMANS RESULTED IN MORTALITY and significant health problems. We are talking equines, specifically from the US,

    How you scumin’ Davey? (you do know the Editor can trace your IP…rocket scientist)?

    Same as usual…I see.

    I don’t obfuscate…you do.

    Wow. I must be intelligent if you are that scared of me and are repeatedly (actually perpetually) off topic. Thanks for the compliment.

    I don’t make the laws or regs, a$$wipe….I just follow them. Refute one thing or fact I posted, but please check Ms. Moore’s previous posts first before you, again whine and vomit on the reading public.

    You dyed in the horse hide killers have become sooooo boring in the 21st Century.

    In conclusion:

    From the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-02-28/html/03-4741.htm
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    Food and Drug Administration
    21 CFR Part 530
    [Docket No. 03N-0024]
    New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone; Extralabel Animal Drug Use;
    Order of Prohibition
    AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
    ACTION: Final rule.
    ———————————————————————–
    SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (we) is issuing an order
    prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal and human drugs
    in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. We are issuing this
    order based on evidence that extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
    dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely cause an adverse
    event in humans. We find that such extralabel use presents a risk to
    the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
    Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).
    DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2003. We invite your written or
    electronic comments. We will consider all comments that we receive by
    April 29, 2003.
    ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments to the Dockets Management
    Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
    1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
    http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria J. Dunnavan, Center for
    Veterinary Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
    Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-1168, e-mail:
    gdunnava@cvm.fda.gov.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. AMDUCA
    AMDUCA (Public Law 103-396) was signed into law on October 22,
    1994. It amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to
    permit licensed veterinarians to prescribe extralabel uses of approved
    animal and human drugs in animals. However,
    [[Page 9529]]
    section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4)(D)) gives us
    authority to prohibit an extralabel drug use in animals if, after
    affording an opportunity for public comment, we find that such use
    presents a risk to the public health.
    In the Federal Register of November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57732), we
    published the implementing regulations (codified at part 530 (21 CFR
    part 530)) for AMDUCA. The sections regarding prohibition of extralabel
    use of drugs in food-producing animals are found at Sec. Sec. 530.21
    and 530.25. These sections describe the basis for issuing an order
    prohibiting an extralabel drug use in food-producing animals and the
    procedure to be followed in issuing an order of prohibition.
    We may issue a prohibition order if we find that extralabel use in
    animals presents a risk to the public health. Under Sec. 530.3(e),
    this means that we have evidence that demonstrates that the use of the
    drug has caused or likely will cause an adverse event.
    Section 530.25 provides for a public comment period of not less
    than 60 days. It also provides that the order of prohibition will
    become effective 90 days after the date of publication, unless we
    revoke the order, modify it, or extend the period of public comment.
    The list of drugs prohibited from extralabel use is found in Sec.
    530.41.
    II. Phenylbutazone
    Phenylbutazone became available for use in humans for the treatment
    of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949 (Ref. 1), but is no longer
    approved, and thus not marketed, for any human use in the United
    States. This is because some patients treated with phenylbutazone have
    experienced severe toxic reactions, and other effective, less toxic
    drugs are available to treat the same conditions (Refs. 1 and 2).
    Phenylbutazone is known for its ulcerogenic, nephrotoxic, and
    hemotoxic effects in horses, dogs, rats, and humans (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 6,
    7, and 8). It is known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic
    anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and deaths
    (Refs. 7 and 8). The reported adverse reactions were associated with
    the human clinical use of 200 to 800 milligrams phenylbutazone per day
    (Refs. 7 and 8). Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type
    have also been reported in patients with phenylbutazone. The threshold
    for this effect has not been defined. Therefore, it is unclear what
    level of exposure would be required to trigger such reactions in
    sensitive people. Moreover, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as
    determined by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) based on positive
    results in genotoxicity tests and some evidence of carcinogenicity seen
    in the rat and mouse in carcinogenicity bioassays NTP conducted (Ref.
    3).
    For animals, phenylbutazone is currently approved only for oral and
    injectable use in dogs and horses. Use in horses is limited to use in
    horses not intended for food. There are currently no approved uses of
    phenylbutazone in food-producing animals.
    Investigation by FDA and state regulatory counterparts has recently
    found phenylbutazone on farms and identified tissue residues in culled
    dairy cattle. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
    (USDA’s) Food Safety Inspection Service has reported phenylbutazone
    residues in culled cattle presented for slaughter for human food
    throughout the United States in the past 2 calendar years. This
    evidence indicates that the extralabel use of phenylbutazone in female
    dairy cattle 20 months of age or older will likely result in the
    presence, at slaughter, of residues that are toxic to humans, including
    being carcinogenic, at levels that have not been shown to be safe.
    Because of the likelihood of this adverse event, we are issuing an
    order prohibiting the extralabel use of phenylbutazone drugs in female
    dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
    We will continue to monitor the extralabel use of phenylbutazone
    and will adjust the scope of this prohibition should we find that
    extralabel use in other species or classes of animals presents a risk
    to public health.
    III. Request for Comments
    We are providing 60 days from the date of this publication for you
    to comment. The order will become effective May 29, 2003, unless we
    revoke or modify the order, or extend the comment period. You may send
    written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
    ADDRESSES) by April 29, 2003. Submit a single copy of electronic
    comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of
    any written comments, except that individuals may submit one hard copy.
    Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets
    in the heading of this document. You may read any comments that we
    receive at our Dockets Management Branch reading room (see ADDRESSES).
    The reading room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
    except for Federal holidays.
    IV. Order of Prohibition
    Therefore, I hereby issue the following order under section
    512(a)(4)(D) of the act and 21 CFR 530.21 and 530.25. We find that
    extralabel use of phenylbutazone animal drugs and human drugs in female
    dairy cattle 20 months of age or older likely will cause an adverse
    event which constitutes a finding under section 512(a)(4)(D) of the act
    that extralabel use of this drug presents a risk to the public health.
    Therefore, we are prohibiting the extralabel use of this drug in female
    dairy cattle 20 months of age or older.
    V. References
    The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
    Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). You may view them between 9 a.m. and
    4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    1. Insel, P. A., “Analgesic-Antipyretics and Anti-inflammatory
    Agents, and Drugs Employed in the Treatment of Gout,” Goodman and
    Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed., edited by
    J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, P. B. Molinoff, R. W. Ruddon, and A. G.
    Gilman, McGraw-Hill, pp. 642-643, 1996.
    2. McEvoy, G. K., “American Hospital Formulary Service B Drug
    Information 93,” American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc.,
    Bethesda, MD, p. 1194, 1993.
    3. National Toxicology Program, “Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
    Studies of Phenylbutazone in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (gavage
    studies)” National Toxicology Program Technical Report number 367, NIH
    publication number 90-2822, 1990.
    4. Edited by R. J Anderson, J. G. Gambertoglio, and R. W. Schrier,
    “Clinical Use of Drugs in Renal Failure,” Charles C. Thomas,
    Springfield, IL, p. 6, 1976.
    5. Carpenter, S. L., and W. M. McDonnell, “Misuses of Veterinary
    Phenylbutazone,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, pp. 1229-
    1231, 1995.
    6. Council on Drugs, “Registry on Blood Dyscrasias,” Report to
    the Council, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 179(11),
    pp. 888-890, 1962.
    7. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2000. http://
    http://www.csi.micromedex.com/DATA/HS/HS3159F.htm
    8. Humphreys, D. J., Veterinary Toxicology, Bailli[eacute]re
    Tindall, p. 92, 1988.
    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 530
    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Animal drugs,
    [[Page 9530]]
    Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
    under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
    redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
    CFR part 530 is amended as follows:
    PART 530–EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN ANIMALS
    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 530 continues to read as
    follows:
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
    352, 353, 355, 357, 360b, 371, 379e.
    Sec. 530.41 [Amended]
    2. Section 530.41 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
    follows:
    Sec. 530.41 Drugs prohibited for extralabel use in animals.
    (a) * * *
    (12) Phenylbutazone.
    * * * * *
    Dated: February 13, 2003.
    Stephen F. Sundlof,
    Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 03-4741 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
    Reply

    Oh Skippy, Dave, DeBarres, Anotherhorsemeatman, Joe looking for somebody (and the rest of you cowards [hmmm... that is just internet rumor]) that sell US equine flesh for human food without full names, etc…ooops or real production records.

    Heck, $uey NEVER posts save for her own paid facebook poop, save Farm Bureau freebie pass on some Ag site/paper (no comments allowed…of course) and you too D-Bag at UH [or what is it this month?])…that is just FACT. Scroll back and check out the other reports Suzanne Moore has posted. Get an education if you can read beyond the 8th grade level (actually, the references require at least a sophisticated college level with a ton of PhD, MD, DVM/VMD).

  11. October 24, 2012 at 3:43 am

    reposting – reply jumped under the wrong thread…

    Skip, the documentation is on the drugs and would cause the same illnesses in any meat. You keep forgetting that the research is done on the drugs and the impacts on human health. When a drug has proven through extensive studies that there are no acceptable levels, it is banned. Bute, as an example, leaves the blood stream and takes up in the injured tissue. It then metabolizes into oxyphenylbutazone. The metabolites are just as dangerous.

    I’m curious why you persist in arguing about this when it is banned. It doesn’t matter how many people got sick or will get sick, it is banned. If an animal has had a banned substance, they cannot enter the food chain. And soon, you will need a passport to prove the horse has not had any banned meds from the age of six months. The “honesty” system if fraught with fraud from the bottom feeders that place $300 above the risk of a human’s health and the EU is finally doing something about it.

  12. Denise
    October 24, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Joe…

    What “passports” and/or “chips” in Canada for US imported equines????????

    What are you talking about?

    Editor…I’m still trying to find the pharma data on the total amount of NSAIDs (like Bute) that have been produced for vet use, the number of prescriptions and the poll that I think The Horse did among subscribers/readers regarding bute use. It was a high positive number, but I can’t find it…yet.

    Currently there are over 43 formulations and/or compounds (NSAIDs) marketed, prescribed and distributed for US Equines…FDA summation.

    • October 24, 2012 at 12:21 pm

      I remember that, Denise. I think it’s been posted, but of course these bleeps brushed it off as inaccurate, biased, unscientific and all the other excuses they use to disregard anything that undermines their claims.

  13. Denise
    October 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Hey Skippy…ain’t you on the recall list by FDA?????? (peanut butter, food safety snark)

  14. October 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Joe, you cannot make a statement that anything will cause cancer because everyone won’t get cancer. Look at the warnings on cigarettes – “may result in”. Some people get cancer or lung diseases and others smoke their entire lives and don’t get sick. The point is there is a significant risk.

    My assumptions are quite valid. 67% is a majority. Actually, the 67% is low because as I stated, the horses going to feedlots are considered Canadian horses at slaughter and are not included in the 67%. Common sense would tell you that if the majority of horse meat exported from Canada is from US horses, then the majority of issues are from US horses. The EU reports are confirming this, if you’d bother to read them.

    You are correct. The EIDs are working quite well for those sending their horses to slaughter that have had banned substances. There are no health records to verify what’s on the EIDs. Nobody knows what the horses have had over their lifetime. Talk about making assumptions! How is Canada going to tell when a passport is fraudulent when there are no passports? All they have is a piece of paper than anyone can write whatever they want and there is nothing to verify any of the information. That’s exactly why the EU stated that the paperwork is not sufficient to meet EU standards. Read the reports.

    How are you going to strengthen the laws when there is nothing to prove they falsified the paperwork? The testing is not done on kidneys and even if it was, random testing on a small amount of horses in comparison to the total slaughtered would let the majority of fraudulent EIDs slip right through the system.

    If you are going to quote something I said then don’t change my words. I NEVER said all horses going to slaughter had bute.

  15. October 25, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Joe, re-read the report. Your numbers are all wrong.

    What is your point on the form asking questions? The KB completes them and lies. There is nothing in place to prove the horses are drug free. Just what the KB writes. How can they state the horse hasn’t had any drugs in the past 180 days when they’ve only had the horses for a day or two? ESP? Or perhaps the horse tells him?

    You never answered my question on where they are getting drug history on stolen horses?

  16. Joe
    October 26, 2012 at 5:12 am

    SUZY-SUZY

    I agree that you need to go to bed, you also need to read and STUDY the findings of Dr.’s Henneke, King, Day and Evans. You are the one who is not reading and understanding.

    Again BUTE is not against the law, if it were the FDA would not send a letter
    to Ronald Andio and give him 3 weeks to come up with a plan to get back in
    compliance. We all agree that Bute is forbidden by FDA and not against any LAW.

    The team of Dr. Henneke, Dr. King, Dr. Day and Dr. Evans report goes on to say
    ” To our knowledge,there has NEVER BEEN A DOCUMENTED CASE OF HUMAN ILLNESS CAUSED
    BY INGESTION OF HORSE MEAT from a horse that WAS ADMINISTERED BUTE PRIOR to SLAUGHTER.

    The European Food Safety Authority HAS NEVER reported an icident of horsemeat
    contaminated by BUTE.. Reports by Dr. Thomas Tobin & Associates of the
    Maxwell H. Glueck Equine Research Center have shown that the half-life of BUTE
    in a horse is 7.22 hours. These Researchers have demonstrated that 90% of a dose
    will be eliminated in 24 HOURS..

    Now the team of Dr. Marini is= Dr. Nicolas Dodson who is an animal behavorist with expertise in DOGS & CATS. Dr. Dodson who has strong affiliation with Humane Society Veternary Medical Association who is HSUS..

    Co author Nicolis Blondeau is a horsetrainer with no SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS
    Whatsoever. And Dr. Marini serves as the FOOD SAFETY ADVISOR for EWA an animal rights group with affiliation to HSUS.

    Do you suppose this is wy the findings is RECKLESS-FALSE and WRONG?

    Dr. Marini and others says that BUTE stays in the horse for life, tests show that
    Bute never stays in the tissue, liver or kidneys for the life of the horse.

    Thanks for letting me show the other side of the story-Joe

    Please read the full report below

    http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103685263837-91/Drs+Day-King-Henneke-Evans+letter.pdf

    • admin
      October 26, 2012 at 7:36 am

      You have again shown the bogus study of non medical doctors. Moreover you have innacurately stated that EWA is affiliated with HSUS. You’re out of here.

    • October 26, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Joe, that study was never accepted by the journal or any peer reviewed medical publication. Not one word of Dr. Marini’s (etal) study was changed resulting from their attempt to discredit the study.

      We’ve been over this already. That group of so called experts are not medical doctors and do not have the credentials to assess the impacts of drugs on human health.

      Why do you keep posting a study that has no validity except in Wallis World?

      Again, the medical doctors have determined there are no acceptable levels of bute.

      • admin
        October 26, 2012 at 10:17 am

        Joe has again been taken off the forum for persisting in posting misinformation after multiple warnings.

        The Editor

    • October 26, 2012 at 10:20 am

      I told you – DO NOT USE A NAME THAT IS RESERVED FOR FRIENDS – which you are NOT! Who said bute is illegal for HORSES? It’s illegal for FOOD ANIMALS. It’s illegal to sell bute contaminated horse meat as safe for human consumption. Got that?

      Food regulations ARE laws! Joe, you are a blithering idiot and there is no use even trying to talk sense, because you twist words that are right in front of you and expect others not to notice. Have you checked those letters after the names of the study authors? Do you know what those letters mean? Guess not.

      To repeat: In horses, phenylbutazone is metabolized in the liver where it is
      converted to oxyphenbutazone,
      c-hydroxyphenylbutazone and
      probably
      c-hydroxy-phenbutazone and follows a bi-exponential
      model of decay. The plasma half-life of PBZ is 5.46 h in young
      horses but is longer in horses older than ten years and those with
      impaired liver function. In addition, PBZ uptake into the bloodstream
      is delayed by food in the stomach (Lees et al., 1985, 1986,
      1987, Maitho et al., 1986, McConnico et al., 2008). Oxyphenbutazone
      is a major metabolite of PBZ and remains elevated up to at
      least 72 h (Lees et al., 1985, 1986, 1987, McConnico et al., 2008).
      Tissue levels of phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone were highest
      in kidney. In one study, high levels were also found in liver,
      lung and heart whereas the lowest levels were found in muscle
      (gluteus and biceps) and tendon (Lees et al., 1987). Since the elimination
      of PBZ follows exponential decay, traces of PBZ will remain
      as a contaminant of horsemeat in previously treated horses for a
      very long and as yet undetermined period of time.

      You DO NOT understand exponential decay. I didn’t expect you to.

      Exactly WHERE did you get YOUR description of the credentials of the study participants? They are as screwy as you are. I mean, totally off the wall and just plain WRONG.

      Nicholas Dodman Tufts University, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, MA, United States

      Nicolas Blondeau Institut de Pharmacologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire – I.P.M.C., UMR 6097, C.N.R.S./Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, 660 route des Lucioles, Sophia Antipolis 06560 Valbonne, France

      Ann M. Marini Department of Neurology and Program in Neuroscience, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States

      As for reports of horse meat contaminated with bute, what are these recent recalls for? And these are just recent examples.
      https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.0810
      https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.1078
      https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.0810
      https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=notificationDetail&NOTIF_REFERENCE=2012.1215

      All horse meat recalls from the EU because of bute, and, in some cases, clenbuterol as well.

      As for all that other gobbledygook about ties to the EWA or HSUS, well…. And, again, the EWA is NOT an animal RIGHTS org. Do you even know what EWA stands for? EQUINE (that’s horses ONLY) WELFARE (NOT rights) Association. Got that.

      Honestly, Joe, you are losing it. You really need some help.

  17. Denise
    October 26, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    admin/Editor:

    (1) Fix the “skipping” (not skippy) phenomena.

    (2) Require persons posting, beyond personal opinion…CITATION (that would be people like Joe, Anotherhorseman and Skip). Make them cite one peer reviewed paper or other scientific, government reg paper, law, reg current for any statement from them.

    (3) You disagree?…you disagree (the equine killers) and a big YIPEE!!!! No CITATION? No trash or dismiss speak allowed. Get on F’** target…unlike how you butcher US Equines…time to skip?

    (4) Editor/admin/Horseback…fix the skipping of comments.

    • admin
      October 26, 2012 at 10:46 pm

      Good idea. I didn’t post Joe’s latest redundant comment.

  18. Joe
    October 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Sorry I forgot to post the link to drugs in cattle. Joe

    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/high-drug-residues-found-at-nms-3v-dairy-farm/

  19. October 23, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    It’s just as illegal for them as for us. EXCEPT there are records for cattle and as food animals, they are regulated and horses are NOT. If bute can get into highly regulated, tracked and inspected food animals like cattle, how much more would be in untracked, non-food animals like horses where bute is perfectly LEGAL?

    Comparing apples to oranges will get you nowhere.

  20. October 24, 2012 at 11:37 am

    I drugs get through the highly regulated cattle industry – although the rules MAY be different for DAIRY cattle – how much more get through in the NOT regulated horse industry?

    I eat beef myself, Joe. I do NOT want them shut down. I do not eat horses and neither does any other American except for a TINY minority. And, they CAN eat horse meat any time they want as long as they own the horse and do not try to SELL the meat across state lines.

    EU regs require a horse to have been issued a permanent ID and tracking begun by the age of six months. After that, a horse is automatically banned from the human food chain no matter what. That means that all the horses that are being shipped are NOT legal under EU rules, but are being sold to the EU as being in compliance.

  21. Denise
    October 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Suzanne,

    These three (among other) dazed and confused horseflesh peddlers may very likely be the tip of the iceberg regarding food safety and purity import/export/domestic because our food system is essentially a “self-regulated” industry with voluntary recalls to boot.

    Now, I’ll grant you…the legitimate, regulated meat industry is way, way better than our clandestine US Horseflesh industry….our government (state or Fed) have little to do with foreign standards AND, and….the enforcement of same.

    Not their yob…essay.

Comments are closed.