U.S. Government Seeks to Limit Use of Antibiotics for Livestock
 Printer-friendly
|
 Email article |
Related subjects: Economy, Harvest & Food Supply, Health Science, Healthcare Policy, Legislation, Obama administration, U.S. Economy, U.S. Law, U.S. Politics Comments (2)
Preventive use of antibiotics has one salient effect: it speeds the evolution of targeted bacteria, allowing them to develop pervasive resistance to known treatments. In short, preventive administration of antibiotics makes diseases far more dangerous. The US government is now seeking to end the practice of administering antibiotics to livestock, which health officials believe is putting human health at risk.
In fact, as much as 70% of all antibiotics used in the US are used to treat healthy farm animals. In fact, factory farming practices may be promoting the spread of dangerous disease agents, for a variety of reasons. One of these is the use of antibiotics, which affect the evolution of resistant bacteria strains. But there are also suspicions that the outbreak of a previously unknown strain of flu virus, the A/H1N1 “swine flu” that reportedly emerged from La Gloria, Mexico, may have something to do with the massive factory pig farm nearby.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), H.R. 1549/S. 619, aims to prevent the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness due to overuse and has the support of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The bill would target the use by confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) of antibiotics in animal feed. The FDA would be empowered to review licenses for the use of antibiotics vital to human health in any ways that could promote resistance or otherwise put human health at risk.
According to the UCS:
CAFO operators add human antibiotics to the feed of animals to accelerate animal growth and prevent diseases common in overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions. An estimated 70 percent of antibiotics produced in this country—nearly 13 million pounds per year—are used in animal agriculture for these nontherapeutic purposes. This amount is estimated to be more than four times the amount of drugs used to treat human illness.
Antibiotic resistance linked to food animal operations is on the rise. New studies suggest that hog farms are a source of a new strain (ST398) of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a disease responsible for more deaths per year in the United States than AIDS.
As noted by Wired: “Other types of drug-resistant staph infections already kill 18,000 Americans every year. The new strain, which appears to have evolved on Dutch farms and is spreading through U.S. pigs and into people, will only add to the toll.” Efforts to combat such disease agents by blanket use of antibiotics are extremely counterproductive, actually enabling the bacteria to develop sustained, even complete resistance, to treatment with existing antibiotics.
The PAMTA bill would put 7 classes of antibiotics specifically vital to human healthcare under review, possibly allowing their use for healthy livestock to be entirely banned, based on the potential danger to human health. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production determined last year that “the present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health”.
Of 24 findings specified by the Pew Commission for its determination that the US livestock production system was unsafe, 5 related to the use of antibiotics in farm animals. Public health officials are increasingly concerned that continued habitual use of antibiotics in factory farming could lead to the evolution of a wide array of untreatable multi-resistant disease agents, like MRSA-ST398.
While the “farm lobby” has expressed opposition to the measure, testimony before Congress suggests there is no risk to food safety from banning the use of antibiotics on healthy animals. The FDA’s principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, gave written testimony saying that any use of antibiotics for “purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use“.
Dr. Sharfstein also specified that “Eliminating these uses will not compromise the safety of food”. Livestock producers have long suggested using preventive antibiotics in animal feed makes the animals healthier and reduces costs of production. They have tended to ignore studies showing the resulting microbial risk to human health due to drug resistance that develops from the practice. The Congressional fight is expected to be contentious, but some who favor PAMTA want the controls put into healthcare reform legislation.
| Printer-friendly
|
Email article |
CafeSentido Partner Sites:
So many words, so little truth.
Much of the information in this article is recirculated from other internet sources with the same bent which is to set animal agriculture back 100 years.
From the article: “New studies suggest that hog farms are a source of a new strain (ST398) of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a disease responsible for more deaths per year in the United States than AIDS.”
The truth is, MRSA ST398 has caused very, very, very few human illnesses and those were in Europe, not the United States. I don’t believe any deaths have been caused by MRSA ST398. The author of this information is intentionally misleading the reader by associating selected bits of information on specific types with all types. In truth, most every one (including your dog and cat) has various forms of MRSA on their skin\hair (referred to as being colonized). Most never cause any problems. The MRSA type causing problems in the US is acquired from other humans ins settings that put numerous people toghether in somewhat close proximity, ie. hospitals, prisons, locker rooms and gyms. You are in more danger of contracting MRSA from your cell mate or workout buddy than from a pig which you will most likely never see unless you visit a farm or meat processing plant.
Information about the PEW commission on farmed animals is also misleading. This commission was convened to search out information that would support pre-determined conclusions. In other words, it was a witch hunt.
This article has many other weak points for those looking for legitimate information. But my time is limited. For those that are truly concerned and seeking the truth, I suggest you look for sources of information that present balanced views. This article is not one of those sources.
@ Former Ag Teacher –
You appear to have misunderstood this article.
The need for regulation springs from the fact that sustained use of antibiotics in a population of animals present a significant risk of breeding pathogens that are resistant to those antibiotics. This is not in dispute, and has been extensively studied in human populations. Abuse of antibiotics by people has long been a hot topic in the medical world, and yet we have largely ignored the same sort of abuse in agriculture. Large pig farmers, ranchers, and dairies routinely administer antibiotics to animals that ARE NOT SICK, in order to increase profit margins. This debate pits those profit margins against a serious threat to public health, and for most people that’s not even a debate.
You, on the other hand, read like a shill for factory farming. Allow me to dissect:
- “Much of the information in this article is recirculated from other internet sources with the same bent which is to set animal agriculture back 100 years.”
This is laughably hyperbolic. Please explain how preventing the use of advanced antibiotics on HEALTHY animals will set agriculture back. And please don’t complain about profit margins; if that’s the only basis of your opposition, then your comments have no place in a debate about public health.
- “The truth is, MRSA ST398 has caused very, very, very few human illnesses…”
So what? The article isn’t claiming that it has; it merely points out how many people MRSA has killed. Go back and read that sentence carefully; it clearly refers to a new strain, of a disease that is responsible for more deaths per year in the United States than AIDS.
- “In truth, most every one (including your dog and cat) has various forms of MRSA on their skin\hair (referred to as being colonized). Most never cause any problems.”
This is completely irrelevant. We are surrounded by pathogens in every setting, every day. The problem comes when one of them causes an infection. A typical non-resistant staff infection can easily be treated with antibiotics. A necrotic MRSA infection often leads to amputation. If anything, the prevalence of a pathogen in our everyday environment makes the organism MORE of a concern, because it’s harder to rely on hygiene as a preventative measure.
- “The MRSA type causing problems in the US is acquired from other humans ins settings that put numerous people together in somewhat close proximity… You are in more danger of contracting MRSA from your cell mate or workout buddy than from a pig which you will most likely never see unless you visit a farm or meat processing plant.”
This is also completely irrelevant. It’s common sense that most virulent human diseases are spread by humans themselves. The question at hand is how these pathogens acquire their antibiotic resistance in the first place. It doesn’t matter that you’ll never get a disease directly from a pig; the pig is merely a (potential) vector.
- “Information about the PEW commission on farmed animals is also misleading. This commission was convened to search out information that would support pre-determined conclusions. In other words, it was a witch hunt.”
Evidence, please.