Harrington's Sort & Cull
Urban C. Lehner Editor Emeritus

Monday 12/16/13

The Puzzle in FDA's Curb on Animal Antibiotics

It's easy to understand why the Food and Drug Administration wants to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Antibiotic resistance is a frightening problem. It kills 23,000 Americans a year. Without effective antibiotics "cured" diseases become uncured; hip replacements and organ transplants are too dangerous to contemplate; simple infections turn life threatening. So dire are the consequences that it's natural for FDA to want to curb every possible abuse and overuse of antibiotics.

It's also easy to understand why animal agriculture, while promising cooperation with the new FDA rules, continues to feel picked on. The antibiotics used for animals are, as livestock groups say, mostly different from those used for humans. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as concerned as it is about the use of antibiotics in animals, says most antibiotic infections come from hospitals and nursing homes. Yet there's so much focus on the possibility of resistance from eating meat and so little on doctors who over-prescribe antibiotics and patients who don't finish their courses.

What isn't easy to understand is how the manufacturers of animal antibiotics can say two seemingly contradictory things: that they expect everyone to cooperate with FDA, and that they don't see the new rules hurting their sales.

Here are two possible solutions to this puzzle. If you have others I'd love to hear them.

-- Animal ag's critics are wrong: Livestock raisers aren't overusing antibiotics now and thus will have little cutting back to do. Contrary to what the critics think, producers only use them now to cure disease, or to prevent disease in situations where disease is a clear and present danger.

-- The critics are right: FDA's new rules are riddled with loopholes, and not just because they're voluntary. One big loophole is allowing antibiotics to be used for "preventing" disease, even under a veterinarian's supervision. As long as animals are raised in crowded conditions, as many are today, there will always be a danger of disease, and thus a justification for antibiotic use.

Neither explanation satisfies. The first seems contrary to fact. There's little doubt that at least some animals are being given small doses of antibiotics to promote growth, which is a big part of what the FDA wants stopped. If this use stops, sales will fall.

The second seems too sweeping. Granted, some preventive uses meet the standard of medical necessity: When the animals at a neighbor's operation have a communicable disease your animals are at risk no matter how much space you give them. Other preventive uses, though, are to prevent diseases that are remote or even theoretical. Those uses would end if everyone's playing by the FDA's new rules, and sales will be affected.

Yes, growth in our animal herds might offset the impact, but that's not the same as saying, as one manufacturer did, that the new rules aren't a material event.

A final thing that's hard to understand is how requiring a veterinarian to sign off on antibiotic usage will work in a country with a shortage of large-animal vets. In some states the few vets around are stretched thin with too much work. Sometimes they're a hundred or more miles down the road. Who is going to do all this supervising?

Livestock guys: Educate me, please.

Urban Lehner can be reached at urbanity@hotmail.com


Posted at 4:45PM CST 12/16/13 by Urban C Lehner
Comments (3)
we have reduced our water medication in poultry production to zero its very important to us
Posted by Jack J DeGroot at 5:46PM CST 12/16/13
If unit cost for antibiotics goes up in proportion to potential reduction in usage, its a net zero for drug suppliers. Hmmmm, maybe there should be "raised with/without the use of antibiotics" label requirement and let the consumer decide with their wallet if antibiotic resistance is a concern?
Posted by Tom Trick at 1:52PM CST 12/17/13
The antibiotics that are metabolized and truly disappear are going to be naturally safe as long as withdrawal times are observed. The problem must lay with those antibiotics that are excreted but do not breakdown in the environment. They could hang around to be recycled in the drinking water and can be a vector for resistance. Some products used in animals have no similar product used in people. Does the FDA think the resistant strains are developing in the animal and then transmitting to humans, actual antibiotic residue passing to humans in food, or antibiotic buildup in the environment is the problem? How could the animal antibiotics that have no similar product in human medicine cause any problem at all? One size fits all regulation?
Posted by BRYAN COOVER at 7:17AM CST 12/29/13
Post a Blog Comment:
Your Comment:
DTN reserves the right to delete comments posted to any of our blogs and forums, for reasons including profanity, libel, irrelevant personal attacks and advertisements.
Blog Home Pages
April  2014
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30         
Subscribe to Harrington's Sort & Cull RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • Behind the PED Curve
  • Efficiency in Another Key
  • The Feeder Pit as Broken Rain Gauge
  • The Great Ghost Rally
  • Ambushed?
  • Let the Games End
  • Brawley Plug Pulled
  • Confession of a Cash Market Piker
  • Seed Caps Fill Early Year Bleachers
  • Polar Vortex It Ain't
  • The Danish Experience With Animal Antibiotics
  • A Proposal to Tax Animal Antibiotics
  • The Puzzle in FDA's Curb on Animal Antibiotics
  • Black & Blue Friday
  • All Dressed Up With No Place to Grow
  • Order the Turkey, And Make It a Big One
  • Can Supply Bulls Go It Alone?
  • Time for "The Talk"
  • Into the Reporting Breach
  • They Call It "Cash Trading"