iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Shelley A. Hearne

GET UPDATES FROM Shelley A. Hearne
 

Save Lives, Save Animals by Saving Antibiotics

Posted: 03/23/10 10:26 AM ET

Antibiotics are one of the pillars of public health in the 21st century. These drugs can literally mean the difference between life and death when we contract a bacterial infection-from Staph to salmonella to bacterial pneumonia. But overuse of these drugs is making bacteria resistant to essential antibiotics. As a result, these vital drugs are becoming ineffective.

The American public is largely doing its part to prevent overuse by following the advice of our doctors. We are getting better about not taking antibiotics when we don't need them and using prescriptions as directed. Unfortunately, some industrial farms are not so prudent.

Experts estimate that up to 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States are given to healthy food animals on industrial farms to grow the animals faster and compensate for often crowded, unsanitary conditions. Of course antibiotics should be administered to food animals when they are sick. We should always administer antibiotics judiciously -- to humans as well as animals -- since any use diminishes the effectiveness of the drugs.

A recent two-part investigative series on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric revealed not only the widespread use of antibiotics in industrial farming, but also the threat it poses to human health.

Three decades of scientific research has demonstrated that feeding low doses of antibiotics to food animals over a long period of time promotes the development of dangerous strains of drug-resistant bacteria that can spread to humans. And contrary to claims by vested interest groups, the dissemination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from industrial farms to the surrounding environment including air and water is well supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies.

The scientific evidence has compelled the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the European Union to independently conclude that routine use of antibiotics in food animal production should be curtailed in order to protect human health.

These conclusions have been recently echoed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Last year, Dr. Frederick Angulo, who serves as the CDC's lead veterinarian for environmental health issues, stated, "There is scientific consensus that antibiotic use in food animals contributes to resistance in humans." In testimony to Congress last July, FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein said: "Antimicrobial use in animals has been shown to contribute to the emergence of resistant microorganisms that can infect people." Dr. Sharfstein also testified that antibiotics used on industrial farms should be phased out for growth promotion and feed efficacy, and should be more rigorously overseen for disease control and prevention.

Last month, a CBS Evening News report also documented how other countries have created a more balanced system for producing food without undermining the foundations of human health. Denmark, one of the world's largest exporters of pork, has found a way to raise swine on industrial farms without relying on the routine use of antibiotics. In 1998, the country began mandatory restrictions on antibiotic use in food animals. Since an all-time high of antibiotic use in swine production in 1992, the Danes have reduced antibiotic use in pigs by 50 percent while achieving a 47 percent increase in production. Denmark's success provides the United States with an effective model to protect public health from the overuse of antibiotics in food animal production.

Congress has before it a solution to phase out the overuse of antibiotics. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), introduced by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) would withdraw the use of seven classes of antibiotics on industrial farms unless animals are sick with disease or unless drug companies can demonstrate that their routine use does not harm human health. Some agribusinesses are resisting the prudent approach embodied in PAMTA. But the evidence makes clear that Congress should act now to pass this important legislation to protect the life-saving medicines on which our public health system depends.

 
Antibiotics are one of the pillars of public health in the 21st century. These drugs can literally mean the difference between life and death when we contract a bacterial infection-from Staph to salmo...
Antibiotics are one of the pillars of public health in the 21st century. These drugs can literally mean the difference between life and death when we contract a bacterial infection-from Staph to salmo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 146
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
spytheweb
Black Democrat
08:10 AM on 03/26/2010
See the movie "FOOD INC" about our food supply.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Beth Boyle
03:44 AM on 03/26/2010
This is a very huge threat to every one! It is ridiculous people worry about people taking too many antibiotics when animals are fed mountains of it just so they can grow fast under crowded conditions and make some corporation richer.
02:18 PM on 03/24/2010
Dr. H. Scott Hurd Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Iowa State University should be contacted for an article on this subject. 515-294-7905.

He has written that Key Facts disagree with CBS evening news segment on antibiotic resistance.

He is the former deputy undersecretary of Food Safety, USDA
Director of WHO Collaborating Center for Risk Assessment and Hazard Indentification in foods of animal origion.

Antimicrobial use in animals are regulated and proper withdrawal times must be followed. Many of the lastest antimicrobials on the market do not have a human equivalent drug being used. One must not forget that over prescribing and not fully taking all of the medicines that are prescribed play a significant role in resistance as well. Maybe we should be talking about a law requiring proof that consumers have consumed all of the prescription drugs that were prescribed?
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
09:56 PM on 03/25/2010
So you think eating antibiotic laced meat is good for you? If animals need antibiotics that means they are sick. Is eating a sick animal good for you?

Personally I prefer free range grass fed animals. They rarely, if ever require antibiotics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
snickers413
Moderate Liberal
01:14 PM on 03/24/2010
Not only do they give antibotics to all the farm animals, now they want to open up fish farms in the ocean, and give them antiboitic's also. Our oceans are already polluted from runoff from factorys farms and garbage, but now they want to pollute it even more with fish farming. When will we wake up? Dirty water kills more people every year then all the wars combined! It's time to wake up and save our planet. Without clean water none of us will live let alone the next generation.
02:19 PM on 03/24/2010
Don't forget about all of the overuse of commercial nitrogen on lawns and golf courses. That needs more focus if you are concerned about water quality.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cosatjockomo
10:34 AM on 03/24/2010
I get a tooth infection that obviously requires antibiotics, but I can't just get some. I have to make a dentist appointment, hope I can see one within a month, suffer the whole time I'm waiting and hope that it doesn't spread to my skull and kill me in the mean time, all because some super bug might develop (just like the avian and swine flu bogus scares). But a farmer can buy it up in lots and pour it into his animals to increase his business profits without impediments. I loathe the health care industry.
09:48 AM on 03/24/2010
If anything, we all need to use more and more antibiotics. The development of MRSA is bad, but once we can genetically engineer bacterial phages that eat MRSA and other pathogens, we'll be on easy street. We need to continue to support our pharmaceutical industries so they will be nice to us and only raise prices in the single digit percentages.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidgoldmandg
08:12 AM on 03/24/2010
Better than antibiotics (the chemical ones) are natural ones. Turmeric, Goldenseal, and more. They have been casually used for thousands of years, and still remain effective.
05:59 AM on 03/24/2010
It is no good protesting the horrors of mass farming, unless at the same time we protest the increasing masses.

Current inhumane farming practices are not only about money; they are also about the need to feed growing populations.

So if we protest the inhumane treatment of farm animals, we have to make sure we follow through with no more than two children per person (throughout life; not throughout each marriage).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anniebuddy
07:02 AM on 03/24/2010
Huh? Sorry, I wouldn't follow your leadership.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidgoldmandg
08:14 AM on 03/24/2010
What? You want to breed like a bunny and eat like a pig???
05:25 AM on 03/24/2010
Keep off the beef except in occasional small amounts and make veggies the biggest part of the meal, organic to the extent you can do that. Free range, non-hormone and medication chicken and turkey are good choices. But you knew that.
10:38 AM on 03/24/2010
some of the largest food-related bacterial outbreaks in the US have been caused by vegetables.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rob Halpin
08:32 PM on 03/25/2010
Wrong. The problems haven't been "caused" by vegetables. The problems - mostly e coli infections- have been caused by waste runoff from factory farms polluting vegetable crops.

Plants don't produce e coli and if it weren't for factory farms we wouldn't be poisoned by it either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dukedraven
04:33 AM on 03/24/2010
Experts also say that cattle are developing drug-resistant bacteria due to the corn they're now being fed. Cows are supposed to eat grass while grazing. Instead, they are kept in these feedlots and given corn because it's cheap and allows them to rapidly put on weight. It's unhealthy for the cattle and humans who consume the beef. Much of our corn is genetically modified, further worsening the situation. It's no wonder why these animals develop mad cow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScapeGoat
Facts are stubborn things. Science Rocks!
09:28 AM on 03/24/2010
We should follow the lead of some European countries and ban antibiotics for cattle and other farm animals unless they are sick. Cows should be taken off the corn and given grass to eat. The result will be healthier cattle and heather humans who eat the beef.

faved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dukedraven
04:29 PM on 03/24/2010
I agree.
02:29 PM on 03/24/2010
If you would go to the feedlot, you would be surpised to find that there is less corn being fed now than there has been in the past due to ethanol byproducts. Corn is actually a grass and cattle can consume both. For the majority of an animals life, it eats grass. The diet is transitioned to slowly increase microbial populations of the forage digesting bacteria to the grain digesting bacteria. The use of corn does improve feed efficiency and average daily gain. As we discuss our carbon footprint, feeding animals less food is actually good for the environment.

There is no link to feeding corn and mad cow. Ethanol byproducts are actually digested like a forage and can be up to 40-50% of the corn requirement in the ration. The ration is balanced with vitamin and mineral packages to meet an animals nutritional requirement for maintainence and gain. This ration is far more balanced in terms of meeting nutritional requirments than grass alone.
In terms of using feed grade antibiotics it does improve feed efficiency and average daily gain. While the work was never done, its believed that feeding this product takes care of subclinical sickness in animals. Most if not all of these feed products are past their livecycle and are generics. The likelyhood of a generic company doing research on this issue is slim to none.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rougebaisers
03:43 AM on 03/24/2010
Our food, or what they pass off as food in america, is the main reason we now have the highest cancer rates in the world. March is colorectal cancer awareness month, a cancer dramatically on the rise and being found in the fastest growing age group fron 19-30 years if age at an alarming rate, with the food we eat as the main cause of this horrible disease. With our FDA no more than a revolving door to and from corporations like Monsanto, things dill never change.
02:43 AM on 03/24/2010
I am currently attending a veterinary school and articles like this just make me smile. As a vet, I won't be bothered by the insane bill that was just passed. I will be able to dispense drugs however I see fit. Quite frankly, I would much rather dispense antibiotics to a sick animal than to one of you ungrateful liberals who hates the entire agriculture industry, but knows very little about it. How about some of you leave the big cities once in a while and come see how a real farm functions. You should be careful what you wish for also. In a few years you all may be begging your local vets to give you a shot when the doctors are backed up two years because of legal nonsense. I'm sure they'll get around to vets eventually, but by fall there likely won't be a democrat left in the house. Sorry to bother you... gripe away about how much food you have and how awful it is that the animals get antibiotics when they are sick. Sounds contradictory to me, but what do I know?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aspiecelia
04:07 AM on 03/24/2010
Clearly you are not in veterinary school because if you were you would have some understanding of microbiology and realize that the food industry is giving them the antibiotics continually at low doses. This is not about giving them antibiotics when they are sick. Everyone wants them have antibiotics when they are sick at regular therapeutic levels so resistant strains are less likely to evolve. Dumb and dishonest.
11:01 AM on 03/24/2010
But your statement is also incorrect.

Drugs approved by the FDA for use in food animals are approved only for specific diseases. A disease does not include prevention, it does not include growth promotion etc.
There are some anti-coccidiostats (or anti-parasitics) that as a side effect do increase rate of gain, but these are not considered a risk to human health.

What you may be considering is extra-label drug use (ELDU) of approved drugs. But this is highly regulated by the FDA as well. Taken directly from the FDA website: (ELDU can only be used...) "if the health and well-being of an animal or a group of animals is threatened. ELDU shall not be considered if the purpose is for growth promotion, reproductive performance or alteration of cost of therapy...ELDU must NOT lead to a violative drug residue." Additionally, ELDU in animals can only be handled by a veterinarian, producers do not have access to these drugs.

If this is violated, the FDA forces the farm to toss their product (milk, meat, eggs etc) and the veterinarian responsible for dispensing the drug or the veterinarian found to have any working relationship with that farm, risks the loss of their license.

Drug use in animals is not taken lightly.

References:
http://www.sdbqa.com/pdfs/Using%20FDA%20Approved%20Medications%2009.pdf
http://www.sdbqa.com/pdfs/Using%20FDA%20Approved%20Medications%2009.pdf
05:02 AM on 03/24/2010
Did you read the article, Fredrickdouglas? She clearly stated that sick animals should receive antibiotics. Administering meds to healthy animals is the cause of problems. I've included the quote from the article in case you skimmed past it and ended up misunderstanding. (I can see that you are angry, by the way, but clearly misinformed.)

from the article above (3rd paragraph):

"...Experts estimate that up to 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States are given to healthy food animals on industrial farms to grow the animals faster and compensate for often crowded, unsanitary conditions. Of course antibiotics should be administered to food animals when they are sick. We should always administer antibiotics judiciously -- to humans as well as animals -- since any use diminishes the effectiveness of the drugs...."

Denial does not change the truth.

http://adatingconfessional.blogspot.com
02:32 PM on 03/24/2010
In generating data, some like to include the product Rumensin as an antibiotic. Rumension is not a feed grade antibiotic and it's used to help feed efficiency.
02:10 AM on 03/24/2010
The new enforcement of rules on calorie count on menus in restaurants is really a comedy considering all the chemicals,drugs and preservatives that are being loaded in our bodies.
The calories,though not to be totally forgotten should be on the bottom of our concerns.
Spending money on inspections of calorie count while food manufacturers,growers and breeders
are getting away with poisoning us is just another corporate money-first scheme pulled over on us.
Unless you grow your own pretty much everything,we are at their mercy,organic choices my butt.We may live longer lives,but comparing to our great-grandparents ours will be spent on multiple pills,diabetes,high bloodpressure,sexdysfunctions,heart trouble - do I need to go on ?What a mess to look forward to.Thank you progress and pharma.
01:13 AM on 03/24/2010
I buy vegetarian fed ground beef and also eat venison, along with organic milk. I drank soy milk for a year and as a result I think it had something to do with developing thyroid problems. Soy suppresses thyroid function.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rob Halpin
08:37 PM on 03/25/2010
Absolutely false. The claims that soy causes thyroid problems have been widely debunked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hulagirrrl
12:22 AM on 03/24/2010
If it will fatten the pig it will fatten the consumer...