Know the Facts – EU Technical Report and Veterinarian Summary Shows Zero Prohibited Drug Residues in Horses
It has come to our attention that anti-horse activists are trying to spin the results of an official European Union food safety document to portray horse meat as unsafe and full of toxic drug residues.
When faced with this kind of inflammatory rhetoric it is best to know the facts, and to get those facts directly from the scientists and veterinarians. To that end, please find here a summary of the EU document that is posted on the Vetsweb site, as well as a link to the entire European Food Safety Authority Technical Document:
Please note – this report was published in 2010 for samples
in 2009, and it only covers animals produced and processed in the European Union. It does not cover the U.S., Canada or Mexico. The report covers bovines, pigs, sheep and goats, horses, poultry, aquaculture, milk, eggs, rabbit meat, farmed game, wild game, and honey.
The report notes that the methodology has changed so is not valid to compare to previous years.
“The residue situation in 2009 was similar to the two previous years for all substance groups. However, because the sampling plan and the spectrum of analysed substances were not necessarily the same over the three years, such comparisons should be regarded as having a high degree of uncertainty.”
Most importantly of all, if you take the time to actually read the report you will see that it shows that the incidence of prohibited drugs in horses is zero. Even where the anti-horse activists are crowing about the report showing that the horse samples were higher for hormones and for NSAIDS (which are NOT in the prohibited category), the only way they could show higher levels in horses is by purposely leaving out results for sheep and goats which were twice as high as the incidence in horse meat.
Do your own homework, folks, and don’t believe a word of the animal rights activists’ misinformation campaigns. Again zero prohibited drugs in the
prohibited A1 steroid category.
Only two European Union member countries reported one sample each of B1 anti-bacterials non compliant samples out of 3,000 – one sample in Austria, the other in Estonia.
Know the facts! |
Facebook
It says nothing about the source of the horse meat. Europe has herds that are bred for slaughter and do not receive medications. I bet that the samples would score very differently if it were meat from American horses.
I had no idea that Europeans bred horses specifically for a human grade protein source.
As well I think its great that they do not receive any medications and could possibly considered organic in regards to value for human sustenance….this just furthers my convictions that consuming horse meat is an individuals decision and should be accepted as such.
I’m sure the procedures for ending a horses life is humane and proper in Europe as well.
Best Regards
Anotherhorseman
“I had NO idea that Europeans bred horses for….”…..Anotherhorseman…end quote.
Then why are you in this debate without knowing the FACTS!!!!!!
Secondly, the majority of equines born and raised in Western Europe are not tracked for final Meat for humans consumption….ergo the passport. Second incorrect assumption and/or statement.
Organic? Third incorrect statement and what’s the “possibly considered organic” crack? What’s organic in the US? What’s organic in the EU? Do they have an “organic category for meat in the EU? Ergo another “Anotherhorseman” statement, comment, opinion that lacks foundational knowledge of the issue and leaps to the absurd.
And you’re sure the procedures is (should be “are”) correct and proper in Europe, but YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE……BUT YOU ARE SURE!
And btw, people in the US bred and or own equines for human consumption in the US…they just don’t get paid like what you advocate; they raise, slaughter and consume on their own property. I wouldn’t eat it, but it isn’t illegal…yet. Did you forget or not know that too?
Keep posting. We couldn’t have a better spokesperson for our cause.
Dear D. Verret
Note the word “Specifically”
In regards to procedures..I apologize for saying “I’m sure” let me rephrase and say…I certainly “expect” they practice humane euthanization…being they are Europeans and have been civilized in as far as culture far longer than North Americans.
Best Regards
Anotherhorseman
I’m not even going to say “nice try”.
Everything you posted was an illogical, opinionated, factless mess. You want to quibble about one word in that so-called pile of bovine tripe you threw out there.
Uhhhh….nope. A boo-boo and “expect” just don’t cut it when you’re advocating (and still have, btw) butchering equines and peddling dangerous meat to humans.
And your response is also riddled with somewhat racist observations and lack of US cultural sensibilities.
Please take your best regards and give them to a horse in your sphere of influence….based on your knowledge and posts, that horse needs them more than I do.
I live in France and horse slaughter over there is considered to be somewhat of a nuisance by many horse owners. As far as the whole process being more humane, nothing could be further from the truth. They still have the same problems we do with the whole process, save for the double deck trailers.
Yeah, Anotherhorseman – That’s been the problem all along! They have tracking systems in place for EVERY horse, with a microchip that must be implanted shortly after birth and an elaborate health record to go with it. WE DO NOT. That’s why we have been screaming so loudly about the slaughter of AMERICAN horses for human consumption. AMERICAN horses, get it?
They can eat their own horses if they want to and I can accept it just fine. IF that’s what they did. But it is not – thousands of AMERICAN horses are slaughtered in Mexico and Canada and sent to the EU for human consumption, and they are NOT safe to eat. I didn’t realize you were THAT ignorant about the situation.
Say, what’s “organic medicine”?
Scratch my question about organic medicine. I reread your sentence and you meant the HORSES might be considered organic, not medicines.
But still, what in the world does this have to do with our opposition to the slaughtering of AMERICAN horses for human consumption?
But, go read the report at the link I posted below. It came from HorseTalk in New Zeland – not us.
The Italian draft horse is raised almost exclusively for its meat as are cows. There is 3 different breeds of horse in France bred the same as well as in Belgium. They may eat what they wish. Doesn’t mean we have to sell it to them.
Wow, I’m at a loss for words at just how far off base their delusional version of reality is…
Sue, you better read the report again because not only did they find drug residues in horses but the accompanying paperwork said they were drug free. It did cover imports from the US.
—-”The Food and Veterinary Office carried out a mission in Mexico from November 22nd to December 3rd, 2010. The objective was to follow up on previous visits and to check if import requirements for horse meat into the European Union are being followed. The inspectors visited four slaughter plants, three collecting center and one US export pen.
Animals’ Angels received the inspection report today and we are currently reviewing the details. While the FVO concluded that the overall conditions had improved, multiple areas of concern remain – especially in regards to the current traceability of horses imported from the US.”—-
It’s not that hard, we know you can do it, Sue. Someday, you’ll surprise everyone by telling the truth. You were wise to tell people to know the facts because they sure aren’t getting them from you….
Ms. Wallis, Mr. DuQuette and their backers have a unique sense of truth which repeatedly denies information that doesn’t fit their cubbyhole of compartmentalized suitability.
It ain’t about truth…it’s about winning, no matter how unethical, immoral and damaging to living beings. There’s the baseline of this issue called equine slaughter of US equines.
Very simple to decide actually.
Beyond the toxic load that all living beings now carry, domestic horses are often as medicated or more so than most human beings. And the list of side effects on their meds is just as long or longer than on ours. Most horse folks know that.
And as far as scientific studies go or mainstream veterinary medicine for that matter, my questions would be: who paid for the study and who was beholding to who. Other than the horses that is as in the case above. As we know, horses cannot speak for themselves so must rely on the moral fiber of us humans.
God forbid.
Yeah, know the facts: http://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/inspectors-find-serious-violations-at-eu-regulated-horse-slaughter-plants-in-mexico/
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2011/06/059.shtml?sms_ss=blogger&at_xt=4ded4b56535713a1%2C0
http://www.box.net/shared/lqi4hhkg42
How can they print absolute lies? I quote from this very report: “For non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (B2e) there were non-compliant samples in 0.6% of horse samples”
And this is not to mention the Bute found in American horses by Americans – see last two links I posted. And what about the plants in Mexico the EU just shut down?
And I am NOT a freakin’ “animal rights activist” for the 1000th time!
What a bunch of bastards who don’t care about the health of unsuspecting consumers over seas – or even here for that matter. SCUM!
Suzanne:
It is not about truth. It is about what THEY want.
In addition, the effort we see here is nothing more than a calculated delay, defer, confuse and stall tactic because many of the legislators in Congress don’t have one skimpy piece of knowledge or clue on the US equine slaughter issue.
The good news is that the purity of the “meat” is definitely not qualified, quantified or agreed to and can’t be certified by the US govt….let’s not even go into to their test and enforcement standards in operation over 3 years ago and now unfunded.
But US equines roll miserably along across international borders to unknowing consumers.
It is remarkable that Sue Wallis would actually include the statement:
Please note – this report was published in 2010 for samples in 2009, and it only covers animals produced and processed in the European Union. It does not cover the U.S., Canada or Mexico.
Sue has made our point beautifully. The EU has an micro-shipping system that tracks all drugs given to horses. If a horse is intended for slaughter, the vet cannot administer prohibited substances. It is precisely the reason US horse meat is unsafe.
We rejected such a system in the US when the NAIS (National Animal Identification System) was abandoned due to resistance from US ranchers and horse owners.
Reports from Mexico have been another matter all together. A pilot testing program in the US in 2004-2005 found over 8% of the carcasses were contaminated with phenylbutazone alone.
Yep. I don’t understand why they ran this story in the first place. If it really didn’t cover US horses, it’s totally beside the point. As usual…..
Dear Mr. Holland,
This is a bit off topic however I think its worth sharing….It seems very likely that Canada will within a very short time embrace an Equine Tracking System(Complete with Premise I.D.) to ensure the safety of horse origin protein products.
Personally I think this is a great advancement in the Culture of Canadians…they recognize that safety of human grade protein sources is paramount to success in being Conservative and less wastefull of available quality primary resources.
I think this action could actually “increase the quality of life” for horses that are consumers of pain killers and parasite control products as many horse owners do not keep a viable long term record of products given to them….when forced to keep a journal on individual consumption, horse owners will be able to do a better job of managing their equine livestock in regards to health and salvage potential.
Also in regards to many negative comments over the last few weeks made by several of your members…..the term “Salvage” is very proper in regards to animal based protein produced for Human Consumption.
If you step back and look at all animal based value added production systems….Salvage is the only term that really applies…..Grass and non edible grades of cereal crops only have one use(other than ethanol)….to be salvaged and processed in such a fashion as to make them economically feasable and safe for human sustenance.(Meat Protein)
As one of your supporters suggested that the people who are in the Meat industry(Ranchers Kids) “Just don’t no any better” …..is quite a statement to make and for the editor of Horseback to actually allow to be posted.
If our culture did not embrace “Salvage” we as a group would in fact literally “Starve To Death”… transport of vegan diet essentials is at this time not financially or physically possible.
Especially in 2011….when only roughly 2% of the population are actually making a sole living from Agricultural production and the resulting Salvage Options, while the other 98% live in or in very close proximity to massive population centers that are not self sustaining.
Like I said…its a bit off topic but does bare consideration in the overall controversy of “Equine Salvage”.
Best Regards
Anotherhorseman
To our friend, Another Horseman – We find the use of such terms as processing, salvage, and harvest misleading when it comes to horses. Moreover, calling these animals livestock is a stretch considering by your own admission only about two percent of the population make their living from agriculture. Horses have primarily become a companion animal in our culture. They are used for pleasure, not as a commodity. The term livestock in common usage today denotes a food source, and horses in the United States have not fit that description since the end of World War Two. As a writer who makes his living by the pen, see http://www.stevenlongwriter.com, I use plain English. In the future if you are going to post in our pages, please use the proper terms. Instead of the word processing, use the word slaughter, instead of salvage, use the term selling culls to recover costs, and instead of harvest, use the term selling horses to slaughter for profit. If you are unwilling to use plain English, please post your notes where misleading words are welcom.
And just in case you think Horseback is discriminating against you, we have written this same sort of note to the racing industry when proponents of slot machines at horse tracks use the term gaming in place of the real term, gambling.
We don’t much care what you say about an issue, we just demand you be totally honest when you say it in our pages.
The Editor
We have something called “salvage value” for carcasses in the US, it’s called rendering.
Now here is the rub, the dead animal’s owner has to PAY FOR IT and the renderer expends capital processing the remains and creates byproducts for resale.
Just exactly how does a living equine have “salvage value” when alive? That appears to be an oxymoron to me.
Hi Anotherhorseman,
I don’t really know what to say, because I am not at all sure what you just said. Canada may put into effect a pass port type system, but that will only put more pressure on them to stop accepting our horses. We have already rejected NAIS after the government spent tens of millions on it and it is not likely to be tried again here.
As to such a system having any positive value to horses, I sincerely doubt it.
Now as to “salvage”, “processing”, etc. I am with the editor here. “Salvage” indicates that you have no moral responsibility for the fate of a living creature that has served you except to make money off it. By that definition, Judas “salvaged” Jesus.
As to other such words, you guys are following in a long and ignoble tradition. The Nazis did not plot to murder 14 million people, they developed a “final solution”. They did not run concentration and extermination camps, they had “resettlement centers” and “family camps”. The law giving Hitler complete power was the “enabling act”.
Our own congress took away many of our rights and our privacy with the “Patriot Act”. People always change the words when they want to soften something ugly. As soon as they quit using the proper words…watch out!
I just read the report itself. Besides the non compliant NSAIDs of 0.6 in horses that I posted earlier, there was this:
“In the group of steroids (A3), which includes some results on corticosteroids, there have been 0.39 % non-compliant samples in all animal and product categories.
The non-compliant samples were found in bovines (0.34 %), pigs (0.30 %), sheep and goats (3.65 %), horses (1.27 %), poultry (0.05 %), and aquaculture (0.46 %).” If my eyes do not deceive me, horses were higher that anything else except sheep and goats TOGETHER.
That is not 0 in anyone’s book, Sue. GEEZ!
To my friend the Editor,
I accept your demands and conditions of terminology used in this venue.
At this time I would like to ask a question as I feel incorrectly challenged in my classification/definition of Horses.
1. If Horses are not considered “Livestock” then should the existing Tax Laws be changed..? Defining Horses as Livestock has allowed for many Tax write off/Investment Strategy/Depreciation Allowances and has certainly had an impact on the financial activity of the Horse Industry as well as Industry that feeds from the Horse Industry(Trailer Manufacturing/Indoor Riding Arena Manufacturing/Deluxe Horse Barns for instance)…..I’m not aware of any tax evasion loopholes or depreciation schedules allowed for say “Cat Owners” which are usually defined as a Companion Animal.
Once again I do appreciate this venue and I will continue to practice polite debate and refrain from any uneccasary insults or comments that could be construed as such.
Best Regards
Anotherhorseman
What a wonderful issue you raised, and one upon which I have been actively conversent. Three sessions ago I testified before the Texas Legislature’s House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, or whatever it was called, about this very issue at the request of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. At the time their animal cruelty division was attempting to strengthen the statutes to get stronger penaltys for cruelty to horses. In Texas horses are classified as livestock and are exempt. Under the law it is only cruelty to a horse if torture is involved, and that, the lawyers tell me, is difficult to prove in court. The fact was that it was a serious crime to mistreat a gerbel, but not a horse because the horse is considered a farm animal, or livestock. My point was that we need to speak the truth, and that is that horses haven’t been livestock in the opinion of most reasonable Americans in reality since early in the last century. I was suggesting the horse be removed from the livestock classification and placed in a classification all its own – not livestock, but not a companion animal either. I testified that the horse simply be classified as an equine – a stand alone species under the law. Nobody wanted to take away the favorable tax status for owners of large numbers of horses and our suggestion would not have done so. However, breeders and other agricultural interests fought this sensible suggestion of law enforcement and the attempt failed. So to answer your question, I in no way want to change the tax status of horses. I do, however, demand they be protected as a member of a higher pecking order than a gerbel, goldfish, or common dog or cat.
To the Editor,
That is interesting…!
Have a good day Sir..!
Best Regards
Anotherhorseman
Thanks Anotherhorseman. I haven’t given up. The idea makes too much sense to ignore, and I can’t imagine anybody in agriculture opposing it once they understand it. The change would not target the horse owner who gives his horse good care, ranchers, or farmers. It would simply target the often psychotic people who inflict unspeakable cruelty to horses as has happened recently in Florida with the illicit butchers who are killing people’s horses in their pastures and selling the meat, or the frequent stories we all hear about horses being shot by passersby.
Before you so eloquently stated it, I was going to say…state law drives the prosecutorial train.
Unfortunately, many states are WAY behind the 21st dynamic of animals; one might want to include children, domestic abuse AND animals.
And frankly, whether an equine is considered livestock (and in the US that means meat) or not isn’t the issue. The issue is the treatment of any animal. Why is it equivocated by antiquated laws?
There was a time you got hung for stealing cattle, horses…err livestock. WTH happened?
Recent responses to several posts have got me a scratchin’ me head!To the Editor:Your admonition to a contributor to use “proper and plain English”was good to a point;terms like”processing,harvest,and salvage are misleading – to make horse-slaughter appear politically correct/acceptable.(To be fair, could you please admonish the person who wrote”cubbyhole of compartmentalized suitability” to do the same?I still haven’t figured that one out yet).You also advocate declassifying horses to companion animals. Using Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,”livestock “is described as”animals kept or raised for use or pleasure;esp:farm animals kept for use and profit”(a term in use in the English language since 1742)Why should we declassify the horse from a livestock animal to a companion animal? After 269 years, why are we trying to re-invent the wheel?Besides,if we consider the horse as a companion animal,wouldn’t Coggins tests/health certificates, for instance, be optional?Companion animals such as common dogs and cats don’t need health papers to travel from state to state.I am also somewhat confused with your idea of “conveying a higher pecking order to a horse over a common dog or cat”.Your thought process there?In regards to John Holland’s comparison of slaughter advocates to Nazis-pretty bold statement to say the least.Further examination into that thought process may reveal a truth-a lie told often enough and long enough sometimes gets confused as the truth.Remember the slogan promoting animal rights a few years back?I think it went something like this”a dog is a cat is a pig is a boy”Thanks for bringing those points up-lest we forget and allow history to repeat itself.Thanks again for your time.
Skip, I suspect you missed something in speed reading my comments. I was writing of my testimony before a committee of the Texas Legislature when I said that horses should be re-classified as somethong other than livestock while retaining all of the tax advantages large numbers of them currently enjoy. I very specifically stated that they be classified as a stand alone classification as Equines, nothing more and nothing less. I certainly never, ever, suggested they be classified as companion animals any more than I approve of classifying them as livestock or farm animals, which the modern American horse is decidedly not.
The Editor
Hmmmm…we have reinvented the proverbial “wheel” several times throughout the history of Man: walking, oxen for loads, riding on horse, wagons,trains, planes and automobiles. Last I checked, we are in space via shuttles, satellites, etc.
Sorry, but the proverbial “wheel” is constantly being reinvented.
Thank God and just a bit stymied as to why you think it shouldn’t be.
Ummm and yep, companion animals DO have to have their paperwork. It depends on where you are going in the US and most CONUS jurisdictions just don’t bother to enforce. Take a trip to Hawaii and see what happens. Take your dog to Mexico for a vacation and see what happens when you try to fly down, back or cross back by auto. Reputable kennels won’t take your animal without proper shots etc.
BTW…does a bovine need a Coggins?…or is that just about disease control for a specific species?
Some of your logic defies sensible debate and I will define the cubbyhole comment at a later date…I just have to find the suitable approach and words for you. I suspect if you don’t get it, it will be hard to help you “get it”.
To the Editor-At first glance,I thought your idea of re-classifying the horse was silly at best;after more thought…what a novel,if not brilliant idea!Reclassifying the horse as an equine, as you suggest, would finally give the horse the distinction it deserves.Since you contend that a horse is decidely not a farm animal/livestock,nor companion animal,would a designation as simple as “domestic animal”suffice?It might be easier to get the USDA or other gov. entity to look at it under that heading.Your thoughts?Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Thanks for the kind words Skip. I don’t much care what the new classification is called, it’s the structure that counts, not the nomenclature. It just makes abundant sense to me that horses be removed from the livestock classification in order to come under our cruelty laws which don’t apply to livestock, yet maintain the tax advantages raising them brings as a business entity. The deduction is well deserved by the landowner who gets the deduction because of the large land use expense horses consume compared to the cost to breeders of smaller animals. For example, I certainly wouldn’t give such a tax break to a dog, cat, or bird breeder.