http://labexkorea.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/status-of-biogas-technologies-and-policies-in-south-korea/

The Environmental Technologies Export Initiative builds on President Obama’s National Export Initiative, which aims to double U.S. exports by the end of 2014 and support millions of American jobs.

The American environmental industry generates approximately $312 billion in revenues each year, with a global market of more than $800 billion. This growing industry employs nearly 1.7 million Americans and includes over 60,000 small businesses across the country.

“When it comes to technology that conserves resources and protects the environment, America leads the rest of the world by a mile. This is largely thanks to the value Americans place on environmental protection and to the innovation of our entrepreneurs,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “As other countries start to take environmental challenges more and more seriously, there is a growing global market for the technologies that have been and continue to be developed by innovators on our shores. Today we’re taking steps make it easier for American companies to enter and succeed in that market.”

“Two years ago, the President launched the National Export Initiative, a government-wide effort led by the Commerce Department. We have made historic progress on the path to achieving the President’s goal, but we must continue to do everything we can to support U.S. companies in selling their goods and services all around the world,” said Secretary Bryson. “One of the important strategies in the NEI is to build on our industrial strengths, and it is clear that environmental technology is one of those strengthens.”

The web-based tool, which is scheduled to be launched in fall of this year and hosted on export.gov, will offer U.S. environmental companies detailed information on U.S. government support activities including market research, scientific analysis, regulatory information, and financial support programs. EPA and Commerce are also partnering with trade associations to highlight potential growth opportunities for U.S. companies by increasing access to EPA’s scientific, technical and regulatory information and Commerce’s foreign market analysis and export promotion infrastructure. When launched, this portal will provide a more systematic approach for U.S. companies looking to expand markets for their environmental products and services abroad.

EPA co-sponsored today’s summit with American University’s Center for Environmental Policy, bringing together government, academia, investment and industry leaders to discuss the acceleration of technology development and adoption to achieve economic growth through environmental protection. Stimulating innovation and expanding the technology markets to protect people’s health and the environment will help to create jobs, develop partnerships, and identify concrete actions that the public and private sectors can take to increase investment and broaden business opportunities.

More information on President’s National Export Initiative: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-export-initiative

More information on EPA’s export initiatives: http://www.epa.gov/international/trade

More information on Department of Commerce’s work promoting environmental technology: http://www.export.gov/envirotech

More information on EPA’s Technology Summit: http://www.epa.gov/envirofinance/2012summit.html

EPA

Using a powerful DNA sequencing technique, called pyrosequencing, a team led by USDA-ARS scientists Terrence Gardner and Veronica Acosta-Martínez analyzed the bacterial diversity in three Michigan agricultural soils, and in two eroded sediments generated from these soils during a wind tunnel experiment: coarse particles and fine dust. Not only were the microbial assemblages on the coarse particles distinct from those on the dust, report the scientists in the current issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality, but the two types of eroded sediments were each enriched in certain groups of microbes compared with the parent soil, as well.

The findings suggest that specific bacteria inhabit specific locations in soil—and thus different groups and species can be carried away depending on the kinds of particles that erode. “It’s important to know which microbes are being lost from soil,” says Acosta-Martínez, a soil microbiologist and biochemist at the USDA-ARS Cropping Systems Laboratory in Lubbock, TX, “because different microbes have different roles in soil processes.”

For example, the Proteobacteria—a diverse group critical to carbon and nitrogen cycling—were more associated in the study with eroded, coarse particles (those larger than 106 microns in size) than with the fine dust. Similarly, the dust housed its own community, in this case Bacteroidetes and other bacteria that are known to tolerate extreme dryness, gamma radiation, and other harsh conditions that may develop on dust particles as they float through the air, says Gardner, a postdoctoral researcher who is also affiliated with Alabama A&M University.

What this means is that wind erosion can both reduce the overall microbial diversity in farm fields, as well as deplete topsoil of specific groups of essential bacteria, say the researchers. At the same time, certain important groups, such as Actinobacteria that promote soil aggregation, remained in the parent soil despite the erosive conditions generated in the wind tunnel. And while fine dust can travel extremely long distances, coarse particles rarely move more than 20 feet, suggesting that they—and their associated microbes—should be fairly easy to retain with cover cropping and other soil conservation measures, Acosta-Martínez notes.

Helping farmers and land managers adopt practices that better conserve soil is one of the main goals of the USDA-ARS team’s work, which also includes Ted Zobeck, Scott Van Pelt, Matt Baddock, and Francisco Calderón. In the Southern High Plains region, for example, intense cultivation of soil combined with a semi-arid climate can result in serious wind erosion problems. In fact, last summer’s drought brought Dust Bowl-like conditions to the area, says Acosta-Martínez.

But “wind erosion is a national problem,” she adds, with significant erosion occurring even in places where the growing season is humid and wet. Organic histosol soils in Michigan and many other parts of the country, for instance, are very susceptible to wind erosion when dry, especially since they’re usually intensively farmed and often left bare in winter. Cover cropping or crop rotations not only help keep these soils in place, but can also build soil organic matter, which in turn promotes soil aggregation, water penetration, and general soil health.

It can take years, however, for farmers who’ve adopted new management practices to detect noticeable changes in levels of soil organic matter and other traditional soil quality measures. This is why Acosta-Martinez and Gardner have been analyzing soils with pyrosequencing, a method that yields a fingerprint of an entire microbial community, and well as identifies specific groups and species of bacteria based on their unique DNA sequences.

In this study, these microbial signatures told the researchers what’s potentially being lost from soil during wind erosion events. But the fingerprints can be early indicators of positive outcomes, too.

“The microbial component is one of the most sensitive signatures of changes in the soil,” says Acosta-Martínez, because of microbes’ involvement in soil processes, such as carbon accumulation and biogeochemical cycling. “So, we’re looking for any shifts in these signatures that could lead us to think that there are benefits to the soil with alternative management.”

The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/41/3/744.

The Journal of Environmental Quality is a peer-reviewed, international journal of environmental quality in natural and agricultural ecosystems published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). The Journal of Environmental Quality covers various aspects of anthropogenic impacts on the environment, including terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic systems.

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) www.agronomy.org, is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services.

Font: environmental-expert.com

EPA will spend more than $20 million to support the monitoring, the majority of which will be devoted to assist small drinking water systems with conducting the monitoring. The data collected under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3) will inform EPA about the frequency and levels at which these contaminants are found in drinking water systems across the United States and help determine whether additional protections are needed to ensure safe drinking water for Americans. State participation in the monitoring is voluntary. EPA will fund small drinking water system costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality control.

The list of contaminants to be studied includes total chromium and hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6. Addressing hexavalent chromium in drinking water is a priority for EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. In January 2011, EPA issued guidance to all water systems on how to assess the prevalence of hexavalent chromium and in the March 2011 proposal for UCMR 3, EPA invited comments on whether the agency should include chromium in the final rule. Public comments received by EPA were strongly supportive of adding total chromium and hexavalent chromium for monitoring.

“The monitoring that will take place will provide EPA with invaluable information about what municipalities are seeing in their drinking water all across the country,” said EPA acting assistant administrator for Water Nancy Stoner. “The results of this multi-year monitoring effort will help inform EPA’s work to ensure Americans receive safe drinking water.”

EPA selected the contaminants by first reviewing the agency’s contaminant candidate list, which highlights priority contaminants that need additional research to support future drinking water protections. The contaminants on the list are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. However, they are not addressed by existing national drinking water standards. Additional contaminants of concern were selected based on current occurrence research and health-risk factors.

EPA has standards for 91 contaminants in drinking water, and the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that EPA identify up to 30 additional unregulated contaminants for monitoring every five years.

For more information, visit: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/index.cfm

EPA

But, how will leaders react? Many may come to Rio+20 with commitments, but how can we hold them accountable to fulfill these commitments?

Ambassadors are gathering this week in New York to negotiate “The Future We Want,” the outcome document that will guide sustainable development over the coming decade. While the permanent representatives to the UN debate the details of the official goals, another important development is under way: the “Compendium of Commitments.”

The Compendium, in a nutshell, would be a platform or registry of pledges by governments, civil society and the private sector that aims to fulfill globally-agreed-upon goals around a number of key themes, whether from prior (ratified but unfulfilled) multilateral environmental agreements, global sustainability initiatives, or principles enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration.

A New Bottom-Up Approach

This bottom-up approach differs from what was tried at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992, and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The 1992 Rio conference focused on the passage of a number of multilateral environmental agreements. In Johannesburg, the conference focused on large-scale multi-stakeholder partnerships. The former has been criticized as too “state-centric,” while the latter did not, on the whole, move us toward sustainability.

The Compendium idea has taken root out of a very real fear that Rio+20 negotiations in New York could arrive at nothing more than vague rhetoric with nations telling each other what they should achieve rather than taking concrete steps.

What makes a Compendium different? A few things:

• Goals would be time-bound, short term and achievable, with clearly defined responsible parties;
• They would aim to achieve already existing global goals (e.g. environmental targets, human rights, or gender equality), rather than negotiate new targets and agreements;
• They would be centralized according to a common interface and each would meet a certain minimum data standard for achieving a goal. This would allow them to be searchable, comparable, and “mashable”;
• Ideally, there would be a finite number of goals and indicators, allowing for comparability and measurement. This is different from the “randomness” of the more than 350 partnerships launched at Johannesburg 2002.

This invitation to register specific commitments could help shift responsibilities to the governments that must refine and then adopt it. The best way to give this process focus in the coming months would be for governments, with support and inspiration from civil society, to identify specific and timebound targets they are prepared to commit to and be held accountable for at home and on the global stage. Through these specific commitments, it should become clearer what governments are prepared to achieve both individually and collectively following Rio+20.

Three Demands Campaign: A Model for Stocking the Compendium

The many partners of TAI have been making demands through the “Three Demands Campaign” for open government in sustainable development decision-making. TAI partners have made specific requests that their respective governments come to Rio+20 with commitments in hand, to fulfill the promise of the original Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’s Principle 10. This principle enshrined essential pillars of sustainable development decision-making: access to information, public participation and access to justice. From demanding better freedom of information laws, to requesting stronger systems of public participation in environmental impact assessments, or improving courts with environmental jurisdiction (so-called “green tribunals”), the Three Demands Campaign has put concrete proposals on Principle 10 into the hands of heads of state around the world.

TAI members already have cultivated a number of exciting commitments and initiatives from governments, which will be announced at “Choosing Our Future: Open Government and Sustainable Development,” the premiere governance-oriented event in Rio on June 19.

There are a number of additional steps which must be taken to secure commitments between now and Rio+20:

• Civil society, the private sector and governments can develop commitments around those issues where there is already a critical mass of buy-in and existing global norms (e.g. the Secretary General’s Sustainable Energy for All or Principle 10), similar to the approach of the Three Demands Campaign.
• UN Secretariats, other non-UN multilateral bodies, and national governments can signal their willingness to serve as thematic hubs that will house partnerships and commitments around particular themes, goals or targets.
• Civil society members and governments supportive of the Compendium must make the idea “real,” with concrete proposals for digital interfaces and for realistic “accountability frameworks.” They must do a better job of “selling” the Compendium.

At the moment, much of the Rio+20 process is awash in general statements of principle. Those government, civil society, and private sector actors who wish the process to come up with clear, meaningful outcomes should concentrate their efforts towards identifying specific and time-bound targets, and setting up structures that encourage accountability. Mandating and populating a Compendium of Commitments would send a resounding message that Rio+20 is about implementation, about credibility and about keeping promises.

Font: environmental-expert.com

That’s because the same life-saving drugs that are prescribed to treat everything from ear infections to tuberculosis in humans also are used to fatten the animals that supply the chicken, beef and pork we eat every day.

Farmers say they have to feed the drugs to animals to keep them healthy and meet America’s growing appetite for cheap meat. But public health advocates argue that the practice breeds antibiotic-resistant germs in animals that can cause deadly diseases in humans.

The U.S. government moved to ban the use of some of the drugs in animals in the 1970s, but the rule was never enforced. Then last week, the Food and Drug Administration outlined plans to phase out the use of antibiotics in farm animals for nonmedical purposes over three years.

The U.S., the biggest global consumer of meat by far, follows Europe and other developed nations in restricting the use of penicillin and other antibiotics in animals. The issue has moved to the front burner as documentaries such as Meet Your Meat and Food Inc. have led Americans to focus more on what goes into their food. Sales of antibiotic-free meat, for instance, are up 25 percent to $175 million in the past three years.

“Consumers are beginning to understand the cost of eating cheap meat,” said Stephen McDonnell, CEO of Applegate Farms, which markets antibiotic-free meats and cheeses. “As people really understand what it takes to create a healthy animal they will probably eat less meat, but they are going to eat better meat.”

The history

Antibiotics have been hailed as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the 20th century since their first use in humans in the 1940s. They’ve enabled doctors to cure deadly bacterial diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid fever and meningitis.

The FDA approved the use of antibiotics in livestock in the 1950s after studies showed that animals that got the drugs in their feed put on more weight in less time than animals on a traditional diet. For example, pigs that got an antibiotic were shown to need 10 to 15 percent less feed to reach the same weight as pigs on regular diets.

Since feed can account for as much as 70 percent of total animal production costs, the discovery was a windfall for farmers. It meant they could produce more meat for less money, resulting in fatter profits.

But by the 1970s, researchers began warning regulators that routine use of antibiotics was contributing to a surge in drug-resistant germs, or superbugs, that render antibiotics powerless against deadly infections. Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University conducted the first study in 1976 showing highly-resistant E. coli bacteria could pass from chickens to farm workers who worked with the animals in just a few weeks.

The study contributed to the FDA’s decision to ban nonmedical use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals a year later. But farmers and drugmakers pushed back, and the FDA rule was never enforced.

“Why did no one act on it? Because there was a strong lobby,” said Levy, who is co-founder and president of the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors restrictions on the drugs. “They said, ‘Well, show us the deaths. Show us the real problem. Otherwise, this isn’t so terrible.”

But it’s difficult to link the overuse of antibiotics to deaths. It’s tough to find the source of bacteria-resistant germs, which can spread from animals to humans through a number of ways, including undercooked meat and drinking water contaminated by animal waste. And bacteria mutate when passing between species, meaning that the same strain of drug-resistant bacteria in chicken can take on a different form once it enters the human body.

The debate

While the issue mostly was tabled in the U.S., it was gaining momentum elsewhere in the world.

In 1999, the European Union backed a ban on penicillin and other human antibiotics for growth in farm animals. Within four years, the use of antibiotics on animals fell 36 percent in Denmark, 45 percent in Norway and 69 percent in Sweden.

Levy, the Tufts University professor, and his colleagues had hoped that the EU’s ban would bolster the case for restricting the use of antibiotics in the U.S. But instead, the data has been used to argue both sides of the issue.

U.S. farmers have seized on reports that cases of diarrhea among young pigs increased in the first year after the EU ban, suggesting that animal health had declined. But public health advocates say that the outbreaks among pigs decreased once farmers improved the sanitary conditions by cleaning feedlots more frequently and giving animals more space.

U.S. groups like the National Chicken Council warn that restricting use of antibiotics will result in sicker animals, increasing costs for farmers — and the price of meat and poultry for consumers. Some industry groups have projected costs for farmers would rise by $1 billion over 10 years, though those estimates have not been backed by outside groups.

Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian of the National Pork Producers Council, said the modern farming system is designed to keep animals healthy and produce large quantities of meat.

“The bottom line is that if these products go away, it may result in sicker pigs, more expensive food, and we don’t think it will improve public health,” Wagstrom said.

Meat prices in Europe have not risen dramatically since the EU’s ban. Danish authorities estimate the total costs for pig farmers increased by just 1 percent, or about $1.35 for every pig slaughtered — far below food industry estimates.

U.S. health experts suggest the increase here would be modest, too. The Institute of Medicine, a non-partisan nonpartisan group of medical experts who advise the federal government on public health issues, estimates the average U.S. consumer would spend between $5 and $10 more per year on meat if antibiotics were restricted.

The result

Farmers continue to argue that antibiotics are necessary to have a steady supply of low-cost, disease-free meat for Americans, who eat about three-quarters of a pound per day — roughly twice the global average. They acknowledge that antibiotic-free animals can be raised by small, organic farms but say large-scale meat production requires antibiotics to keep animals healthy.

“We’re pretty darn committed to our cattle, and our goal is to not have them get sick,” said Mike Apley, a cattle farmer and professor of veterinary medicine at Kansas State University.

Farmers like Apley also point to a handful of studies that conclude the risk to humans is extremely low. One 2004 estimate conducted by scientists consulting for the meat industry, for instance, placed the likelihood that antibiotic would not work in a human due to animal use at 1 in 82 million.

And, they argue, it’s the overuse of antibiotics in humans — not animals — that’s causing a rise in drug-resistant bacteria. Indeed, for decades, doctors have prescribed antibiotics for common ailments like the flu and sinus infections that are not caused by bacteria. Studies show doctors often feel pressured to prescribe the drugs.

“The problem is not an animal or human issue per se,” said Dr. Tom Chiller, associate director for epidemiologic science at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “It’s about using the antibiotics as judiciously as we possibly can in situations where they are needed.”

Some Americans are becoming more aware of the issue. Liza Greenfield, 33, said she will only buy organic, antibiotic-free meat at farmers markets because she doesn’t think animals should be given antibiotics for growth.

“A cow is supposed to eat grass,” said Greenfield, an administrator at New York University. “I want to know it was out on the pasture eating grass.”

As Americans show more interest, so are companies. Some of the largest restaurant and grocery chains including Kroger and Safeway now offer antibiotic-free meat. And last month, executives from companies such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Bon Appetit food services that offer antibiotic-free meat and poultry gathered in Washington to lobby for restrictions on the use of antibiotics in animals.

The FDA last week said it would ask drugmakers to voluntarily stop marketing antibiotics for non-medical uses on their labels with a goal of completely stopping the practice in a few years. Animal drugs can only be legally prescribed for uses listed on the label, so the change is expected to have a major impact on how farmers use them.

Some public safety advocates complained that the FDA, which worked with drugmakers on the proposal, should have mandated the change. But the FDA said a formal ban would have required individual hearings for each drug, which could have taken decades.

“We think the science is very solid in showing that largely indiscriminate use of antibiotics contributes to resistance,” said FDA Deputy Commissioner MichaeI Taylor. “I don’t think there’s really any question about it.”

Font: www.theeagle.com

Total emissions of the six main greenhouse gases in 2010 were equivalent to 6,822 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. The report indicates that overall emissions have grown by over 10 percent from 1990 to 2010.

The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010 is the latest annual report that the United States has submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. EPA prepares the annual report in collaboration with experts from multiple federal agencies and after gathering comments from stakeholders across the country.

The inventory tracks annual greenhouse gas emissions at the national level and presents historical emissions from 1990 to 2010. The inventory also calculates carbon dioxide emissions that are removed from the atmosphere by “sinks,” e.g., through the uptake of carbon by forests, vegetation and soils.

More on the greenhouse gas inventory report: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

Font: environmental-expert.com

It is estimated that around 200 000 tons of obsolete pesticides, nearly half the world’s stockpiles, can be found in twelve former Soviet Union republics. Kept in tens of thousands of unprotected sites, they pose a serious threat to the health of the people around them and to the environment.

For the next four years, the EU and FAO will invest €7 million to assist these countries — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan — in managing obsolete pesticides and reducing the risks of current stocks. At the same time, the project will build capacity to reduce risks from pesticides used in agriculture and avoid build-up of additional stockpiles in future.

“In the past decades, we were able to increase food production significantly, but at a huge toll on the environment,” said José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of FAO.  “One of the consequences of this chemical-input, intensive agriculture we adopted are the barrels of obsolete pesticides lying abandoned around the world.

“Pesticides may be an important input for farming, but they need to be used responsibly while protecting human health and the environment from their adverse effects. In our quest for sustainability and to meet the challenge of feeding a growing population while preserving our environment, we also need to take a good look at the different options we have to protect crops and improve productivity. This includes using natural means to protect and improve crop yields through sustainable crop intensification, or ’save and grow’ techniques as we call it at FAO,” Graziano da Silva added.

Catalyst

“The EU has an established policy dialogue and co-operation on environment related issues with its eastern neighbours and Central Asian partners,” said the EU Ambassador Laurence Argimon-Pistre.

“In its new Neighbourhood Policy, the EU will continue to pursue a higher level of environment protection with its eastern partners and be committed to combat environmental degradation,” she added. “This includes obsolete pesticides and other hazardous chemicals, whose environmental and health risks are not only at stake for the region but also for the EU”.

The EU is contributing €6 million to the initiative, and FAO, which is to act as implementing agency, has allocated €1 million in funding. This initiative aims to act as a catalyst for the development of obsolete pesticide and hazardous waste management in the region, by helping provide the resources needed for technical and policy support to enable countries to help themselves.

Work together

Although activities will include the actual disposal of stockpiles, the priority lies in building capacities, for example in the areas of legislative reform, pesticide registration processes, the promotion of alternatives to the most hazardous chemicals in use and the development of communication strategies to raise awareness among farmers and the public.

Another important goal is to establish a regional forum geared to the mobilisation of the additional resources needed for full-scale clean-up and the constitution of a region-wide system capable of dealing with future challenges posed by pesticides. Other cross-cutting activities include a survey of regional waste management capacity and the creation of a regional training centre.

Key to achieving the overall aim of removing toxic materials from the region is the development of linkages between initiatives already active to ensure that all partners are working together.

In this initiative, FAO and the EU are working together with partners such as WHO, UNEP, the Secretariats of the Convention of Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel, international NGOs, including the Green Cross and the International HCH and Pesticide Association and the private sector, among others.

FAO

Based on a consideration of relevant reports and scientific data, FDA is proposing a voluntary initiative to phase in certain changes to how medically important antimicrobial drugs are labelled and used in food-producing animals. FDA is taking this action to help preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials for treating disease in humans.

Yesterday, the FDA issued three documents that will help veterinarians, farmers and animal producers use medically important antibiotics judiciously in food-producing animals by targeting their use to only address diseases and health problems. Under this new voluntary initiative, certain antibiotics would not be used for so-called “production” purposes, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency in an animal. These antibiotics would still be available to prevent, control or treat illnesses in food-producing animals under the supervision of a veterinarian.

“It is critical that we take action to protect public health,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “The new strategy will ensure farmers and veterinarians can care for animals while ensuring the medicines people need remain safe and effective. We are also reaching out to animal producers who operate on a smaller scale or in remote locations to help ensure the drugs they need to protect the health of their animals are still available.”

The FDA published three documents in the Federal Register.

1. A final guidance for industry, The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals, that recommends phasing out the agricultural production use of medically important drugs and phasing in veterinary oversight of therapeutic uses of these drugs.
2. A draft guidance, open for public comment, which will assist drug companies in voluntarily removing production uses of antibiotics from their FDA-approved product labels; adding, where appropriate, scientifically-supported disease prevention, control, and treatment uses; and changing the marketing status to include veterinary oversight.
3. A draft proposed Veterinary Feed Directive regulation, open for public comment, that outlines ways that veterinarians can authorize the use of certain animal drugs in feed, which is important to make the needed veterinary oversight feasible and efficient.

“USDA worked with the FDA to ensure that the voices of livestock producers across the country were taken into account,” said Dr John Clifford, USDA Chief Veterinary Medical Officer, “and we will continue to collaborate with the FDA, the American Veterinary Medical Association and livestock groups to ensure that the appropriate services are available to help make this transition.”

TheCattleSite News Desk