Antibiotic Use

 

 

Facts About Antibiotic Use

Farmers know that quality food begins with quality care for their animals.  This is why famers use antibiotics strategically and under the guidance of their veterinarian.  Responsible antibiotic use in farm animal production ensures that the safest food supply possible ends up in our grocery stores and on our tables.

Farm Bureau Policy

The American Farm Bureau Federation ("AFBF") supports "encourage animal drug companies to continue voluntary studies and research. Animal antibiotics undergo a stringent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA approval process. Regulatory agencies should continue to work with the animal drug companies and livestock producers to communicate to the public the benefits and safety of antibiotic use in animals."^[i]

Safety

Farmers must eliminate the use of antibiotics during a withdrawal period prior to harvesting an animal.  This withdrawal period is mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for each drug approved for use.  The withdrawal period ensures the safety of meat and animal products that enter the food chain.^[ii]

The FDA does not approve the use of antibiotics until they undergo a vigorous review for safety to animals, humans, and the environment.  The FDA approval process ensures that food products from animals treated with antibiotics are safe.

In 1996, the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System ("NARMS") was formed as a collaborative effort of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC").  To date, data collected by NARMS shows that multiple drug resistant types of Salmonella have shown stable or declining prevalence in food animals and humans.^[iii]

Farm organizations have procedures and programs in place to help farmers use antibiotics safely.  For example, the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program, which emphasizes judicious and strategic use of antibiotics, has been in place since 1989.^[iv]

Use and Resistance

Most of the antibiotics given to farm animals are to prevent or treat illness; relatively little is administered to promote growth.  Each ton of animal feed contains just 4 to 25 grams of antibiotics.  Only 13% of all antibiotics in animal feed are used for growth promotion^[v].

Antibiotic resistant bacteria develop from many factors including human use of antibiotics and routine use of disinfectants like antibacterial soap.  The USDA "believes that it is likely that the use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of antimicrobial resistance among humans and in animals themselves," said John Clifford, the department's chief veterinarian.^[vi]

However, "U.S. government studies indicate that livestock uses account for only about 10% of the problem with resistant bacteria and that misuse in human patients is the leading cause of antibiotic resistance."^[vii]  However, the consensus remains "that more research is needed to justify restricting antibiotic usage."^[viii]

The Danish Experience

Denmark banned the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in 1998.  Research conducted by the World Health Organization ("WHO") in 2002 showed that the ban did not have a significant positive impact on resistant diseases in humans.^[ix]

In fact, resistant rates in human Salmonellacases have increased, and Denmark is currently experiencing their largest outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) in its history. Denmark has seen the largest increase in human MRSA cases since it banned antibiotic growth promotion in animal agriculture.^[x]  The same WHO report also showed an increase in the incidence of diarrhea in pigs and an almost 25% increase in mortality rate after the ban was implemented.^[xi]

According to Gregory Conko, Director of Food and Drug Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute ("CEI"), "After the U.K., Denmark, and then the entire European Union banned antibiotic use for growth promotion, the incidence of many resistant bacteria increased, not decreased. Those bans have increased the cost of raising animals and made food more expensive, but they've done absolutely nothing to improve public health."^[xii]

In their haste to ban proactive antibiotics, these countries have compensated by ultimately increasing their reactive use of antibiotics.  Randal Singer, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota indicates that the ban has led to a "an increased reliance on therapeutic doses of medically important antibiotics to treat the ill animals."^[xiii]

---