THE CVMA URGES THE VDD TO PUBLISH MAXIMUM RESIDUE LEVELS AND WITHDRAWAL PERIODS FOR VETERINARY DRUGS USED IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) has received a flurry of calls and letters from concerned veterinary practitioners, livestock producers, processors, and various associations soliciting its support as Canadian federal agencies abruptly modified their procedures regarding the sampling and testing for veterinary drug residues in meat products. Tens of thousands of poultry carcasses had to be frozen to await additional residue test results because federal inspectors had no published Withdrawal Periods (WPs) and/or Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) from Health Canada with which to make decisions. Some of the veterinary drugs implicated are approved and have established WPs and MRLs. Similar complaints have also come from beef and swine veterinary practitioners and producer associations. Examples were given of lesser withdrawal periods for the same drug used in animal and meat products in the United States and allowed into the Canadian markets. An examination of the facts made it clear that the problems were not confined to one particular product, or to one particular species or interest group. Corrective action had to be taken. As a first step, the CVMA has written to the Veterinary Drugs Directorate urging action on this issue. It is CVMA's understanding that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has already undertaken some remedial action and has developed draft policy changes. (by Dr. Gordon Dittberner, Senior Advisor, Veterinary Affairs, and Suzanne Lavictoire, Director, Programs)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".