A ban on disease prevention uses of antibiotics in food-animal production being advocated by the World Health Organization would be ill-advised and wrong according to a statement this week by the NPPC. America’s pork farmers share the WHO’s concern about the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is why they have taken steps over the past 30 years to ensure they’re using antibiotics strategically and responsibly to keep animals healthy and to produce safe food, says the NPPC. They are complying with an FDA directive that prohibits the use of antibiotics important to human medicine for promoting animal growth and that requires feed and water uses of those same antibiotics to be under a veterinary prescription. They also participate in pork industry-developed programs that include responsible antibiotics use and support federal efforts to track antibiotic resistance in foodborne bacteria from humans, retail meats and food animals. Veterinary involvement in the decision-making process associated with the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs not only is an important aspect of ensuring appropriate use, but for feed and water uses it’s the law. Additionally, using antibiotics to prevent disease, in most cases, supplants the need to use more potent medically important antibiotics to treat disease. The U.S. pork industry’s goal is to reduce the need for antibiotics, and it has devoted time and resources to that end, including adopting good antibiotic stewardship practices and studying alternatives to antibiotics.

(NAFB) The Government Accountability Office will investigate an appearance by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt in a video by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Pruitt appeared earlier this year in a promotional video against the EPA Waters of the U.S. rule. In the video, Pruitt called for public comments in favor or repealing the rule. The GAO has been asked to check if Pruitt violated laws “on the use of appropriated funds for lobbying and publicity or propaganda purposes and the Antideficiency Act,” according to Politico. In August, critics and so-called government experts suggested that the video makes EPA seem like “it is not really open-minded and that public participation doesn’t really matter.” In the video, NCBA suggests that viewers take action and “tell EPA to kill WOTUS.”

The Department of Agriculture has withdrawn a proposed rule to revisit biotech regulations and says it will “re-engage” with stakeholders. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said Monday it wants more information from stakeholders to “determine the most effective, science-based approach for regulating the products of modern biotechnology, while protecting plant health.” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue says USDA needs to “take a fresh look, explore policy alternatives, and continue the dialogue,” regarding biotech regulations. APHIS oversees the importation, interstate movement and environmental release of genetically engineered organisms to ensure they do not pose a plant pest risk. Perdue says the U.S. needs regulations and policies that are “are flexible and adaptable” to the ongoing biotechnology innovations in the industry today.

The National Corn Growers Association issued this statement today, in response to the Administration’s announcement that it will withdraw the Part 340 proposed rule in favor of taking a closer look at reforming biotechnology regulatory processes.

“The National Corn Growers Association is encouraged by today’s announcement and applauds USDA’s reconsideration of the proposed rule,” said NCGA President and North Dakota Farmer Kevin Skunes.

“The proposed rule had desirable elements, but the deficiencies found in key areas would have rendered the overall product unworkable for innovation and America’s farm families.

On behalf of America’s corn farmers, I commend Secretary Perdue for the serious nature with which he has approached this important and sizable task. The intent he has expressed in regard to working with stakeholders is heartening. We look forward to collaborating with him to ensure that our nation’s system for regulating agricultural biotechnology facilitates both the current and future needs of innovations important to families on and off the farm.”

(NAFB) The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology announced that it may soon hold a hearing on the International Agency for Cancer Research’s 2015 assessment that glyphosate is a carcinogen. The Committee has been looking into the IARC, which receives American taxpayer funding, and it sent a letter to the agency’s director citing concerns over the “scientific integrity” of the group. The letter also sheds light on the allegations of data manipulation in the IARC review of glyphosate. It also questions the involvement of Christopher Portier, a statistician with no previous experience regarding glyphosate, who testified during a high-profile European hearing that he was in favor of banning the herbicide. At the same time Portier chaired the IARC Working Group that proposed the assessment on glyphosate, he was also a private litigation consultant for two law firms, directly benefitting from the classification of glyphosate as a “probable” carcinogen. The House Committee may soon be asking IARC officials to appear before them to give testimony about the methodology they used to come up with their findings.

The National Pork Producers Council wants Congress to renew its commitment to funding ag research. That was the message during testimony on Thursday before a subcommittee of the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee. NPPC Chief Veterinarian Dr. Liz Wagner told the Subcommittee on Research and Technology that the U.S. is the most technologically innovative food producer in the world. America also has the safest and most affordable food supply in the world. All of that is because of a commitment to agricultural research. As an example, Wagner said research helped the pork industry deal with the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Virus, as well as the H1N1 virus. Wagner says a virus that the pork industry is particularly concerned about is Foot-and-Mouth Disease. The U.S. doesn’t have enough FMD vaccine on hand to deal with a potential outbreak. An unchecked outbreak of FMD would cost the pork, corn, and soybean sectors over $200 billion dollars through the next ten years. Wagner said the federal commitment to research has dropped off in recent decades. Between 1970 and 2008, half of the USDA budget went to research. By 2013, that number had dropped to 30 percent.

President Trump often cited withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement as a way to reduce America’s trade deficit with Mexico. However, a Forbes Dot Com article says that isn’t the way it works. If the U.S. should no longer be involved in NAFTA, all three countries revert to Most Favored Nation trade status under the World Trade Organization. In order to join the WTO, each country had to agree to limit its tariffs to a certain level. The average U.S. tariff on imports from non-FTA countries is 2.8 percent. The World Bank says Mexico’s average tariff is 4.5 percent. If freed from NAFTA, the president could increase tariffs on Mexican imports to help reduce the imbalance. However, WTO rules require the U.S. to also raise tariffs by an equal amount to all of its other partners that don’t have a free trade agreement with America. Most economists say there is no scenario under which withdrawing from NAFTA will be a good thing for America. Should the U.S. follow through on the withdrawal threat, Mexico and Canada would look elsewhere for free trade agreements. Canada has a new free trade agreement with the European Union, while Mexico and the EU are currently negotiating a free trade agreement of their own.