So -- rather than quote the story that led to this, we will simply report Merck's response to it; full response courtesy AGProfessional.com (a PDF file):
. . . .The health and well-being of animals is the first and foremost priority of Merck Animal Health. We believe in the science that supports Zilmax, which is approved by FDA and international regulatory authorities, and are confident in its safety and performance. Only a well-designed clinical study, in a real world setting coupled with analysis of data by third-party industry experts, can thoroughly confirm the safety profile and performance of a product. In more than 30 studies, totaling 65,000 head of cattle, conducted by well-respected universities and third-party experts using sound scientific principles, no increase in death loss for cattle fed Zilmax compared to controls was observed. The results from Zilmax studies have been published in well-respected, peer-reviewed publications such as the Journal of Animal Science, The Professional Animal Scientist and Meat Science.
In contrast, Dr. Loneragan’s opinions are based on observational information and we disagree with them. Using observational analyses where cattle are not randomized and where rigorous scientific procedures are not utilized, is not a respected scientific method to rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of any product. For these reasons, caution should be used in drawing conclusions from analyses such as those conducted by Dr. Loneragan. . . .
We will keep an eye on this, but we are still several months away from the recommendations of the independent blue ribbon panel being published, and then a few months after that -- would be the earliest that Merck might return the product to the cattle feed additive markets, here in the US and Canada. To my knowledge -- it is not being used anywhere else in the world right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment