Total Pageviews

Wednesday, 14 August 2019

Pencepat Tumbuh


Ractopamine




Ractopamine is a feed additive, banned in many countries, to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Pharmacologically, it is a phenol-based TAAR1 agonist and β adrenoreceptor agonist that stimulates β1 and β2 adrenergic receptors.[1][2] It is most commonly administered to animals for meat production as ractopamine hydrochloride.[3] It is the active ingredient in products known in the US as Paylean for swine, Optaflexx for cattle, and Tomax for turkeys.[4] It was developed by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.
As of 2014 the use of ractopamine was banned in 160 countries,[5] including the European Union, mainland China and Russia[6][7] while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption.[8][9]
Commercial ractopamine is a mixture of all four possible stereoisomers.[10]

 

 

Mode of action

When used as a food additive, ractopamine added to feed can be distributed by the blood to the muscle tissues, where it serves as a full agonist at mouse (not necessarily human) TAAR1.[1] It is also an agonist at beta-adrenergic receptors.[2] A cascade of events will then be initiated to increase protein synthesis, which results in increased muscle fiber size. Ractopamine is known to increase the rate of weight gain, improve feed efficiency, and increase carcass leanness in finishing swine. Its use in finishing swine yields about 3 kg (6.6 lb) of additional lean pork and improves feed efficiency by 10%.[11] In cattle on 28 January 2004 Elanco Animal Health made Optaflexx commercially available in the US. Optaflexx is a "medicated feed additive that is labeled only for use in steers or market heifers (not breeding heifers or bulls) during the last 28-42 days on feed."[12]

 

 

Regulation around the world


On 6 July 2012, the international reference standard Codex Alimentarius Commission narrowly approved the adoption of an maximum residue limit (MRL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for muscle cuts of beef and pork.[13] Setting any limit was a controversial move. Countries with major meat export markets had been lobbying for the establishment of such a standard for several years to use it as leverage to erode individual national-level bans in World Trade Organization disputes.[13] Consumers International, a world federation of consumer groups that represents 220 consumer organizations in 115 countries, strongly opposed the move.[13]
As of 2013, ractopamine use in food animals has been banned in over 160 countries.[14] Because the traditional Chinese diet embraces pig offal, and because ractopamine is concentrated by the gastro-intestinal system of animals, Chinese officials have banned ractopamine. Other countries in Asia, whose traditional diet is similar to that of the Chinese, have had similar thoughts but the American use of tied trade access as a proxy for conflict has somewhat mitigated their reactions, as seen below.[15]

EU

Ractopamine has not been allowed in the 28 member countries of the European Union, based on the 2009 European Food Safety Authority's opinion on its safety evaluation, which concluded that available data were insufficient to derive a maximum residue limit as a 'safe residue level for human consumption'. The uncertainty was particularly great for people who might be thought to be more susceptible than most to an increase in β adrenergic stimulation from consuming the additive, such as people with cardiovascular disease or children, and that simply increasing the "uncertainty factor" built into the calculation as a safety factor would rapidly become arbitrary.[16][17]


NAFTA-USMCA

As of 2015, ractopamine use as a feed additive is authorized in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.[16] In the U.S., ractopamine is allowed to be used at a feed concentration of 5–20 mg/kg feed for finishing pigs and in dosages of 5–10 mg/kg feed for finishing pigs heavier than 109 kg. The maximum residue limit for ractopamine for meat in the USA is 50 parts per billion (ppb), or five times the standard set by the Codex Alimentarius. 

In 2017, the USDA approved of a new label, "no ractopamine — a beta-agonist growth promotant" to be used.[18] As of June 2019 the CFIA maintained the Canadian Ractopamine-Free Pork Certification Program (CRFPCP) so that Canadian exports to Asian countries are not disallowed by their authorities.[15][19][20] As of 22 May 2019, hundreds of commercial feed facilities, including some from overseas, were enrolled in the CRFPCP, a programme that was essentially based on self-certification and backed up by a randomized testing policy.[21]
 
Currently, the label for USDA organic means no synthetic compounds can be used other than those on the list of allowed synthetics, therefore, ractopamine would not be allowed in certified organic production.[22]
For Canadian domestic consumption of non-CRFPCP pork, ractopamine hydrochloride is permitted to be sold over the counter with applications in meal or pellet feed for finishing barrows and gilts (up to 10 mg/kg for last six weeks), confined finishing cattle (up to 30mg/kg for last 42 days), and finishing heavy turkeys (up to 9 mg/kg for 14 days). The withdrawal period was set to 0 days.[23]

Japan, South Korea

Japan, which had permitted its feed additive use at least until 2009,[16]:1 and South Korea only allow import of meat with ractopamine residues up to the maximum residue limit (MRL), but do not permit its use in beef production.[24]


Taiwan

In October 2006, Taiwan banned ractopamine along with other beta-adrenergic agonists,[25] In a 2012 climb-down its legislature passed amendments to its Act Governing Food Sanitation, authorising government agencies to set safety standards for ractopamine.[26] The Taiwanese Department of Health ultimately established an MRL of 10 ppb for ractopamine in beef on 31 July 2012.[27] The American Institute in Taiwan, which represents U.S. interests in Taiwan, claims that these "and many other countries have determined that meat from animals fed ractopamine is safe for human consumption";[8] this is in the context of an ongoing trade dispute between Taiwan and the US on this subject, which threatened to prevent Taiwan's entry to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.[28]


China, Russia

In 2013, Russia and China banned ractopamine in pork,[29] and Russia also in beef,[14] deeming it unfit for human consumption.

 

 

WADA proscription

In 2015, an 18-year-old female karateka from Egypt gave a urine sample in order for her anti-doping control to be administered. It was found that the urine contained too much ractopamine and the athlete was sanctioned with ineligibility for four years. The sole arbitrator from the Court of Arbitration for Sport said that ractopamine "is not specifically mentioned by name in the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”), but is an Other Anabolic Agent prohibited under S1.2 of the 2015 Prohibited List under the WADC... Athlete did not fulfil her burden of proof to establish the origin of the prohibited substance, [and thus] she has committed an anti-doping rule violation".[30]
 
In October 2017 at a World Anti-Doping Agency conference, it was suggested in relation with ractopamine[31]
“
  • that scientific solutions could "allow discrimination between meat contamination and pharmacological intake";
  • "Information on risk of meat contamination should be continued";
  • "Countries affected by meat contamination should continue their efforts, in particular sanitary measures, to reduce risks of exposure of the national and international athletic population."
”
One conclusion reached in October 2017 was that there was a "clear risk for athletes to be tested positive" when consuming meat with residues at the MRL concentration

 

 

International disputes

 

US-EU WTO dispute

In the late 1990s, the World Trade Organization authorized the United States and Canada to impose retaliatory tariffs of US$116.8 million per year on the European Union after it found the EU beef hormone ban to be in violation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).[32][33] In September 2009, the United States and the European Commission signed a memorandum of understanding, which established a new EU duty-free import quota for grain-fed, high-quality beef as part of a compromise solution.[33]

 

 

China

In July 2007, officials of the People's Republic of China seized US-produced pork for containing ractopamine residues.[34] Further shipments of ractopamine-fed pork were seized in September, though this time they were Canadian in origin.[35]

In June 2019, customs inspectors in China detected ractopamine in a batch of Canadian pork products destined for Chinese consumption. The Chinese government thereupon suspended not only pork but also beef imports from Canada.[36] Canadian Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said that the CRFPCP certificate was a forgery and called in the RCMP, while Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale stressed that the Federal government would vigorously defend Canadian meat producers.[36] Also at the press conference it was revealed that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association said in a statement that "We are fully confident in our meat production systems in Canada and the safeguards we have in place."[36] In a desperate rear-guard action intended for domestic consumption, Canadian Trade Minister Jim Carr questioned the good faith and integrity of the Chinese.[19] Meanwhile, holes were found in the CRFPCP programme because the meat packer at the centre of the maelstrom is a chilled butcher shop only.[37] It was disclosed on 3 July that the Chinese authorities had discovered 188 falsified CRFPCP certificates.[38]

 

 

Taiwan

Ractopamine has been banned in Taiwan since 2006.[39] In the summer of 2007, two US shipments including ractopamine-laced pork were rejected by Taiwan's health authorities, while the Taiwan government had been considering lifting the ban on such imports.[40] This resulted in mass protests in the capital city, Taipei, by swine farmers insisting that the ban remain in place. Health Minister Hou Sheng-mou (侯勝茂) declared no lifting of the ban would occur unless related laws were amended. Although the use of ractopamine in livestock is still banned and enforced on the domestic industry, and the government has maintained a “zero tolerance” policy on pork imports that contain it, Taiwan's legislature amended the food safety act in August 2012 to allow the import of beef products containing up to a maximum residue level of 10 parts per billion of the additive.[41] The remaining restrictions have been an obstacle to the two nations signing a free-trade agreement, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)’s 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report assert that these remaining restrictions “...are not based upon science...” and highlights their removal as among the main priorities for the US in its trade with Taiwan.[41]

 

 

Malaysia

According to the Malaysian Food Act 1983 and Regulations (as of 5 January 2010), ractopamine is allowed in pig muscle and fat (MRL of 10 ppb), pig liver (MRL of 40 ppb), and pig kidney (MRL of 90 ppb).[42] Ractopamine is allowed as its half-life is lower, leading to reduced residues in the food, and the dose required to affect humans is much higher than other beta agonists.[43] On 30 December 2008, the Malaysian Veterinary Services Department quarantined 10 of the 656 pig farms in Malaysia, as the livestock were found to contain the banned chemical.[44][45]

 

 

Russia

The use of ractopamine in Russia is prohibited. On 6 June 2011, the Russian Ministry of Agriculture notified key meat import/exporters in Russia of a future prohibition of ractopamine in meat imported to Russia.[citation needed]
On 7 December 2012, the prohibition went into force, and pork and beef export to Russia required submission of compliance certificates confirming absence of ractopamine in exported meat.[citation needed]

 

 

Pharmacokinetics in humans

A study was conducted to define the pharmacological response of humans to ractopamine. A single oral dose of 40 mg of ractopamine hydrochloride was given to human volunteers. The drug was rapidly absorbed; the mean blood plasma half-life was around 4 hrs and it was not detected in plasma 24 hrs after dosing. Less than 5% of total ractopamine excreted represented the parent drug, while the urinary metabolites were monoglucuronide and monosulfate conjugates, with ractopamine monosulfate being the major metabolite present.[46]
 
The metabolic fate of ractopamine hydrochloride is similar in the target species (pigs and cattle), laboratory animals, and humans. Besides the pharmacology effect, ractopamine may cause intoxication effect; therefore, any consumption by humans of a meat and/or byproducts of animals that consumed ractopamine with feed for growth stimulation, may result in such clinical effects as tachycardia and other heart rate increases, tremor, headache, muscle spasm, or high arterial blood pressure.[47] The effect of ractopamine on humans is not entirely known, but consumption of products that contain ractopamine residues is not advisable for persons with cardiovascular diseases.

 

 

Safety concerns

Target animal safety

In swine ractopamine is correlated with adverse effects, especially hyperactivity, trembling, and broken limbs, leading to censure by animal rights groups.[48]
In a conversation with Boulder Weekly newspaper Colorado State University Professor of Animal Science Temple Grandin, an expert on animal welfare, described harmful effects of ractopamine on feedlot animals, such as cattle with stiff, sore, and lame limbs, and increased heat stress.[49] In the same column she also opines that meat from ractopamine-treated animals may be tougher.[49]
Ractopamine use is a factor in the development of downer pigs, animals that are unable to move or stand.[50][51]
When a winning show lamb tested positive for ractopamine in 2014, the owner claimed it was due to negligent feed contamination by the manufacturer, rather than intentional and illegal doping.[52]

 

 

Adverse effects

 

Acute toxicity

Oral LD50 levels in mice and rats are 3547–2545 mg/kg body weight (male and female) and 474–365 (male and female), respectively.[53]

 

Genotoxicity and mutagenicity

Mutation studies in prokaryotes and eukaryotes show that ractopamine is not mutagenic. However, the results of several in vitro studies, including chromosome aberration tests in human lymphocytes, are positive. The positive genotoxic results are explained with limited evidence to be due to a secondary auto-oxidative mechanism from ractopamine-catechol-producing reactive intermediates.[which?][citation needed]

 

Carcinogenicity

Ractopamine is not considered to be a carcinogen and not listed by IARC, NTP, ACGIH, or OSHA.

 

Cardiovascular effects

Dose-dependent changes of heart rate and cardiac output are observed within the first hour after administration of ractopamine and gradually return to baseline values. The systolic blood pressure will also increase in a dose-dependent manner, while the diastolic pressure remains unchanged.

 

Musculoskeletal effects

Skeletal muscle tremor is the most common adverse effect of beta-agonists, and is more likely to be seen after oral administration than after inhalation. Tremor results from an imbalance between fast- and slow-twitch muscle groups of the extremities, and its severity varies greatly between individuals.

 

Behavioral changes in humans

Restlessness, apprehension, and anxiety were reported effects after the use of various beta-agonists, particularly after oral or parenteral treatment. In pilot clinical trials with ractopamine, four patients showed little evidence for central nervous system stimulation. Whether long-term treatment with these drugs results in the development of tolerance to these adverse effects is unclear.[






..

Kajian Penggalak Tumbesaran







1. Introduction

The contamination of veterinary drugs in the environment has been an important issue because their residues could result in the increase of drug resistance bacteria and antibiotic-resistance infection (Lombardo-Agüí et al., 2015). In Malaysia, sulfonamides have been detected in effluents from swine farms (Malintan andMohd, 2006), and the residues have been detected in chicken meat products (Cheong et al., 2010). Additionally, broiler manure and manure-amended agricultural soils have been contaminated by veterinary antibiotics and progesterone (Ho et al., 2014). These facts indicate that veterinary drugs are commonly used in Malaysia, and drug resistance bacteria or antibiotic-resistance infection could become a serious environmental issue. Beta-agonists are one of the most common veterinary drugs to treat cardiogenic shock, acute heart failure, bradyarrhythmias, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for livestock as well as to treat diseases and infections for humans (Yu et al., 2011). However, they have been abused as a growth promoter for live-stock, which could lead to a considerable muscle mass increase as well as a decrease in fat accumulation (Mersmann, 1998). In Malaysia, swine farms had been alerted to the possibility of abusing beta-agonists for producing leaner meat by the Ministry of Health Malaysia (Ponniah et al., 2004). Beta-agonist residues produced via improper use could lead to adverse effects as a long-term treatment of beta-agonists in patients with obstructive airway disease, including an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events (Salpeter et al., 2004). All drugs approved for use in food-producing animals have a withdrawal time to prevent residues in food of animal origin that are potentially harmful to consumers (Gehringa et al., 2004). The withdrawal time is defined as the time that should be elapsed after the administration of a pharmacologically active substance to the time when treated animals can be slaughtered for the production of safe food stuff (Damte et al., 2012). In other words, a residual concentration in a tissue must be below a given maximum residue limit (MRL) when the animals are slaughtered and sold on the market. Beta-agonists, except ractopamine for swine, are listed as prohibited drugs for food in Malaysia (Din et al., 2015); however, beta-agonist residues (terbutaline, salbutamol and clenbuterol) have been detected in swine liver specimens (Ponniah et al., 2004). Regular inspections of veterinary drug residues in animal products are conducted in certified poultry processing plants and slaughter houses by the Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia, whereas those in wet markets are under jurisdiction of the Ministryof Health Malaysia (personal communication). Therefore, it is a concern that beta-agonists and other veterinary drugs could be abused among some livestock farms. Given the illegal use of beta-agonists among livestock farms, their waste water could be contaminated by the abused drugs and discharged from the farms. There is no specific regulation or federal law for livestock effluent standards except for the regulations that are enforced through various state enactments and by-laws (Sakaiet al., 2016). Waste water treatment depends on livestock farms, except for swine farms that have been obliged to attach at least 3 retention ponds. There are a number of livestock farms in the Langat River basin; this basin has a major role in supplying tap water to the capital region, whereas the contamination of beta-agonists in their waste water has not been elucidated. To scruti-nize a potential for their environmental impacts, their occurrence and spatial distribution in the Langat River basin need to be clarified. In the present study, cattle, chicken and swine liver specimens were purchased at 14 wet markets in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor state, and 14 beta-agonists were analyzed to identify their residues and elucidate the health risks caused by them in local consumers. Four wastewater samples were collected at swine and cattle/cow farms, and the 14 compounds were analyzed to spatially assess their environmental impacts in the Langat River basin using a geographic information system (GIS). The main objective of thisstudy is to holistically elucidate the environmental and human health risks caused by the use of beta-agonists.


2.5. Health risk assessment of beta-agonist residues in meat 

The health risks of ractopamine and clenbuterol residues incattle, chicken and swine meat were assessed at an estimated maximum daily intake by a local consumer using an average weight (62.65 kg) (Azmi et al., 2009). The observed maximum concentra-tions in liver specimens (i.e., parent compound) were converted tothe total residue concentrations (i.e., parent compound and its metabolites) based on the percentage of their parent compounds in liver after oral administration (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committeeon Food Additives, 2004). Their concentrations in muscle were estimated by the biodistribution data in liver and muscle after oral administration (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 2004). The maximum daily intake of these residues from cattle, chicken and swine meats was calculated from the estimated concentrations in muscle multiplied by a daily con-sumption of the respective meat in Malaysia (Ministry of HealthMalaysia (2014a)). The estimated maximum daily intake wasdivided by an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of ractopamine (JointFAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 2004) and clen-buterol (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives,1998) to calculate a hazard quotient, which indicates health risks if its value exceeds 1.



3.1. Beta-agonist residues in cattle, chicken and swine livers 

Table 3 shows concentrations of residues of beta-agonists detected in cattle, chicken and swine liver specimens collected at 14 wet markets. Ten beta-agonists (salbutamol, cimbuterol, ractopamine, clenbuterol, brombuterol, tulobuterol, mabuterol, hydroxymethyl clenbuterol, clenpenterol and mapenterol) were detected in the specimens (Tables S1eS3). In particular, ractopamine was detected in almost all swine liver specimens, and its maximum concentration (21.6mg/kg) was much higher than that of the other detected compounds. The wide range of residual con-centration (0.42e21.6mg/kg) of ractopamine was derived from its rapid excretion and was dependent on the withdrawal period because 84.7% was excreted during the first day after the oral administration of 14C-ractopamine hydrochloride (Dalidowiczet al., 1986). Chicken liver specimens had the most positive detection of 9 compounds; ractopamine and mabuterol were detected in more than half of the specimens. In Malaysia, ractopamine is permitted for swine, and its MRLs are established by the Ministry of Health Malaysia (2014b), whereas ractopamine for other live stockand any other beta-agonists are a prohibited treatment (Din et al.,2015). Therefore, the compounds other than ractopamine detected in swine liver were suspected to be illegally abused among livestock farms. Tulobuterol is used as a feed supplement to increase feed efficiency to induce the production of leaner meat (Huang et al., 2016), and brombuterol and mabuterol had been detected in cattle urine and feed samples in the Netherlands (Kuiper et al., 1998). Therefore, all the prohibited compounds with similar chemical structures could be abused for producing leaner meat without considering their withdrawal period.3.2. Health risk assessment of beta-agonist residues in meat. A health risk assessment of ractopamine and clenbuterol was carried out based on ADIs set by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (1998, 2004). Their hazard quo-tients calculated from the estimated maximum intakes from cattle, swine and chicken meats were 7.82104 and 2.71103, respectively, which means that the observed concentrations in the liver specimens were 3e4 digits lower than health risk levels (Table 4). An ADI for zilpaterol (0.04mg/kg body weight/day) has also been set by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (2013), but there was no detection in all the liver specimens. There are neither ADIs nor MRLs for the other 8 compounds (salbutamol, cimbuterol, brombuterol, tulobuterol, mabuterol, hydroxymethyl clenbuterol, clenpenterol and mapenterol) set by international commissions such as the 38th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2015), Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (2004) and Health Canada (2015). Alternatively, no-toxic-effect dosages of salbutamol, tulobuterol and mabuterol by subacute administration in rats have been re-ported at 20 mg/kg/day, 5 mg/kg/day and 2.5 mg/kg/day, respectively (Gopinath and Gibson,1987; Fort et al.,1984; Amemiya et al.,1983). The values are higher than that of clenbuterol, which has been reported at 1 mg/kg/day (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committeeon Food Additives, 1998), suggesting that health risks caused by these compounds would be minimal in the observed concentrations as the hazard quotient of clenbuterol was 3 digits lower than the health risk level (i.e., hazard quotient>1). Health risks caused by the other 5 compounds were difficult to assess because there was no toxicological evaluation report. Their detections in the present study recommend further investigations to elucidate their adverse effects.

3.3. Contamination of beta-agonists in wastewater from livestockfarms


All the waste water samples contained high nutrients, and the dissolved oxygen was exhausted because of high microbial activities (Table S4). In the swine farms, the waste water was channeled to 3 retention ponds comprising an anaerobic and 2 facultative ponds in series, and the effluent from the last pond was discharged into a drain outside the farms. This treatment system is applied to all swine farms in Malaysia that had been enforced by the Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia. In contrast, the waste water from the cattle/cow farms was temporarily retained ata solid trap, and the supernatant was discharged into a drain outside their farms without further treatments. This is a common system of ruminant farms in Malaysia, and the simply treated waste water is discharged into the environment. Five beta-agonists (ractopamine, clenbuterol, brombuterol, tulobuterol and mabuterol) showed values over the limit of detection in the 4 waste water samples (Table 5). The waste water at the first swine farm contained 30.1mg/L of ractopamine, while other compounds were not detected except for a detection of brombuterol from the second farm. In the cattle/cow farms, ractopamine was the highest contamination (0.138 and 0.498mg/L) followed by clenbuterol (0.019mg/L), tulobuterol (0.004mg/L) and mabuterol (LOQ). It is difficult to generalize the illegal use of beta-agonists in livestock farms from such a limited number of samples, but the detection of these beta-agonists could be associated with the residues in the liver specimens (Table 3). Ractopamine detected in the swine farms was also detected in most of the swine liver specimens, and ractopamine, tulobuterol and mabuterol detected in the cattle farm were also detected in some cattle liver specimens. Likewise, the 9 compounds detected in the chicken liver specimens could also be abused at chicken farms. Beta-agonists are usually administered as feed additives to stimulate skeletal muscle growth,and many feed additive products containing beta-agonists exist, such as Optaflexx and Paylean containing ractopamine hydro-chloride and Zilmax containing zilpaterol hydrochloride (Centneret al., 2014; Shelver et al., 2005). Therefore, different animal feeds among chicken, cattle and swine farms could be a significant factorof the different residual levels. The contamination source, partic-ularly animal feeds, needs to be investigated to elucidate the res-idue of 10 beta-agonists detected in liver at the wet market.

4. Conclusions 

In the present study, 10 beta-agonists were detected in cattle,chicken and swine liver specimens purchased at 14 wet markets. Ractopamine is permitted for swine by the Malaysia government, and the residual concentration in swine liver was in an admissible range. In contrast, another 9 compounds that are not permitted by the government could be illegally abused among livestock farms for producing leaner meats. Health risks of ractopamine and clenbu-terol were assessed to be minimal, but the detection of the 10 compounds should be not overlooked, and regular inspections by the government are recommended to minimize the health risksdue to their illegal use. The detection of these beta-agonists in the liver specimens was associated with the contamination in the waste water collected from swine and cattle/cow farms. The envi-ronmental impacts of the detected beta-agonists were concluded to be minimal in the Langat River basin. However, negative impacts due to the contamination of ractopamine in coastal areas near the swine farms were concerning, and environmental impacts of chicken droppings sold off as organic manure or fertilizer need further investigation. Thus, we conclude that some beta-agonists were illegally abused among livestock farms in Selangor State, and the meats sold at the wet markets contained their residues. The detection of beta-agonists in liver specimens was associated with the contamination in waste water, and its insufficient treatment at the livestock farms should be improved to minimize environmental impacts.


Acknowledgments

This study was funded by UM/MOE HIR Grant (E000005-20001)and JSPS Bilateral Programs entitled “Human health risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals based on multi-racial as-pects in Malaysia”. Additionally, this work was supported under the framework of “Research and Education Center for Risk Based Asian Oriented Integrated Watershed Management” funded by the JSPS Asian CORE Program and Ministry of Education Malaysia. We would like to give special thanks to Marni SAPAR, Roslan MOHD YUSOF and Marzura MD RODZI in the Veterinary Public Health Laboratory in Malaysia for rendering help in this project.








.
..