Two-day workshop in Washington will explore changes in use of antibiotics on food animals, and the ramifications

Antibiotic use in food-animal production and related issues will be the focus of a workshop Sept. 6 and 7 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service is organizing the workshop in collaboration with Farm Foundation.

"In the last two years, private companies and producers have been considering when and how antibiotics are used to satisfy consumer demand for products from food animals that have been raised with few or no antibiotics, as well as to comply with the new rules the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has implemented regarding antibiotic use in food animal production," notes a Farm Foundation press release. "This rapidly-changing landscape has also sparked discussion about how to incentive the development of new animal pharmaceutical products to which antibiotic resistance is less apt to develop. Often lacking in these discussions is information about the economic costs and benefits of such initiatives."

ERS Research Economist Stacy Sneeringer says, "In order to be able to make good policy and management decisions, public and private decision makers may benefit from information on the volume of antibiotics used, the costs of reducing antibiotic use and the demand for products produced with fewer antibiotics. But there are challenges surrounding confidentiality, costs and benefits of reducing antibiotic use, as well as in defining appropriate metrics."

The agenda is designed for academics, federal analysts, policymakers, non-profit representatives and industry stakeholders. Here is a tentative agenda. The workshop will include presentation of new research on the economic aspects of changing antibiotic use on U.S. farms, as well as information on collection of data on the sale and use of antibiotics in U.S. food animal production. Other topics to be addressed include: Changes in costs, practices and structures in the U.S. livestock sector and associated industries due to the recent FDA policy changes on antibiotic use in food animal production; consumer demand for products raised without antibiotics and the associated price premiums; challenges of supplying U.S. beef raised with fewer antibiotics; the potential applicability to animal pharma of incentive mechanisms used in human pharma; and analysis of ongoing efforts to collect data on antibiotic use in U.S. food animal production. 

The workshop is free, but registration is required by close of business on Aug. 30. For more information, call Sneeringer at 202-694-5504 or Mary Thompson at Farm Foundation, 630-601-4152.

Major corporations leading the charge to produce a new bird free of human antibiotics

Several major corporations are leading the charge to change the way chicken is produced in the U.S., producing a new bird that is raised free of human antibiotics, Amanda Mascarelli reports for The Pew Charitable Trusts. Fast food giant McDonald's, which serves 27 million customers daily, has joined the cause, and the nation's largest chicken producer, Tyson Foods, which raises about two billion birds annually—21 percent of the U.S. market—said earlier this year it would also phase out antibiotics. (Pew photo)

Chick-fil-A last year promised "to convert 20 percent of its poultry supply to a 'no-antibiotics-ever' policy for 2015," Mascarelli writes. "Also, in 2014, Perdue Foods, one of the country’s leading chicken-processing companies, said it has removed all antibiotics from its hatcheries and announced that "it has introduced antibiotic-free chicken products for school lunch programs and has committed to a no-antibiotics-ever policy for additional school lunch items sold under various labels."

"In late May, Walmart, the nation’s largest grocery store chain, said it would ask its poultry, meat, seafood, dairy and egg suppliers to report annually on their use of antibiotics following the principles of the American Veterinary Medical Association," Mascarelli writes. "And in June, the White House convened its first forum on how to combat antibiotic resistance. The meeting included 150 food producers, agriculture groups and public health organizations and showed a new focus on the issue by the federal government."

Elizabeth Jungman, director of Pew’s public health projects, told Mascarelli, “This is unprecedented change in a relatively short amount of time. This changes how chickens will be produced for Americans and marks real progress for consumers’ health.”

The change has come about in the past year years after decades of poultry and meat producers "using antibiotics that are essential for people’s health to help promote the growth of their farm animals," Mascarelli writes. "Scientists explain that overuse of these medically important antibiotics enables germs to encounter them repeatedly in the environment and, over time, to become superbugs, by developing mutations that make them resistant to the drugs. People can be exposed to these bugs in soil and groundwater that is fouled with animal waste as well as through contaminated meat."

"A Pew analysis of data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shows that 7.7 million pounds of antibiotics were sold to treat sick people in 2011, compared with 29.9 million pounds sold for food animal production—a number that rose to 32 million pounds in 2012," Mascarelli writes. "An FDA report found that between 2009 and 2013, domestic sales and distribution of medically important antibiotics approved for use in food animal production grew by 20 percent."

Antibiotics used in chicken hatcheries are "injected into eggs to prevent bacteria from getting in during vaccination and causing disease when the chicks hatch," Mascarelli writes. "Chicken, cattle and pigs are routinely fed small amounts of antibiotics to promote growth. Another type of routine antibiotic use in livestock involves feed additives called 'ionophores,' which are thought to increase feed efficiency by as much as 10 percent. Ionophores are not used in human medicine and have not been found to result in resistance to medically important antibiotics." (Read more)

'Astroturf' campaign aimed at newspapers uses same letter to back Obama's move on antibiotics

The same letter, attributed to different local authors, sometimes with slight editing, has been popping up in newspapers across the country in defense of President Obama's plan to phase out antibiotic use in animals, reader Shawn Clubb alerted news-media watcher Jim Romenesko. Clubb, who works at a research and monitoring company, said the letter has appeared in at least 70 papers. It's the latest example of an "astroturf" campaign, which tries to fake grassroots support for a point of view.

The push to eliminate antibiotics has been widespread, with the White House releasing a memorandum earlier this month to phase out antibiotics and more than 150 companies agreeing to phase out use in animals. By the end of the year the Food and Drug Administration is expected to a release a comprehensive set of rules to limit the use of antibiotics in animals.

The letter circulating in papers reads like this, more or less:

"President Obama directed federal agencies to serve antibiotic-free meat and poultry in government cafeterias. The Food and Drug Administration will require animal producers to obtain authorization from a licensed veterinarian to use drugs to treat a specific disease, rather than just to promote rapid growth, as is current practice. As much as 80 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used in animal agriculture.

"The moves come amid growing concern about the link between routine antibiotic use in animal agriculture and human infections by bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics because of their excessive use. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that antibiotic resistance causes 2 million illnesses per year in the U.S. and 23,000 deaths. It also adds $20 billion per year in health care costs and $35 billion in lost productivity.

"And we thought that animal products were just linked to heart disease, cancer and stroke.

"While government agencies reduce antibiotics in animal products, the rest of us can do better with wholesome vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains and a rich variety of plant-based meats, cheeses, milks and ice creams available in every supermarket. These foods contain all the nutrients we require, without the deadly pathogens, antibiotics, carcinogens, cholesterol and saturated fats."

FDA opposes 'non-therapeutic' livestock antibiotics

The head of the Food and Drug Administration told Congress Monday that the agency favors banning the use of antibiotics in livestock except to prevent disease. FDA commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said "Purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use,” and added that the FDA believes all medications used for prevention and control of livestock should only be administered by veterinarians.

Critics have said overuse of the drugs, usually to encourage animal growth, has led to increased antibiotic resistance in humans. Activists groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists estimate 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used on food animals, typically to promote weight gain or improve food consumption; others say the bulk of animal antibiotics are used to fight disease.

Sharfstein testified at a House Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 1549, sponsored by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., the committee chair. "The bill generally would eliminate the use of 'non-therapeutic' antimicrobials in food-producing animals unless they can be proven to pose no danger to human health. These 'non-therapeutic' uses are defined in the bill as 'any use of the [critical antimicrobial animal drug] as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention or other routine purpose'," Tom Johnston of MeatingPlace reports. Slaughter's press release on the bill is here. A 2:49 video clip of Sharfstein's testimony, from Slaughter's site, is here.

Charles Abbott reports for Reuters: Last year, Denmark voluntarily banned its use of antibiotics for livestock growth promotion. The Pew Environment Group told Abbott that the ban had little or no effect on farm productivity, and human antibiotic resistance decreased, but the American Veterinary Medical Association says resistance in Denmark was unchanged while hog disease increased. (Read more)

Report puts pressure on animal agriculture and Congress to do something about issue of antibiotics

The federal Centers for Disease Control reported last month that 23,000 people die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections, but Congress continues to kill "every effort to restrict the feeding of farm animals the same antibiotics used in human medicine, even as antibiotics have grown less effective in treating infection," Melinda Henneberger reports for The Washington Post. "And regulation has gotten weaker under the Obama administration." (Graphic by Antimicrobial Resistance Learning Site)

Henneberger writes about a report by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Its director, Bob Martin, said studies "show that as much as 80 percent of the antibiotics sold in this country are fed to food animals," Henneberger writes. "The more a particular germ is exposed to antibiotics, the more rapidly it can develop resistance. Most scientists agree that over-prescribing the drugs to humans is the predominant cause for bacteria evolving to outsmart them. Feeding the drugs widely to control and prevent disease in cows, pigs and chickens also is believed to play a role."

Shelly Burgess, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told the Post in an email that their plan to address the issue “is to phase out the use of medically important antibiotics in food animals for growth promotion and feed efficiency. FDA believes these drugs should be used only in situations where they are necessary for treating, controlling or preventing a specifically identified disease—and only under the oversight of a veterinarian.” (Read more)

However, the FDA is "limited in ruled-making authority," Agri-Pulse notes. This means Congress should intervene, said Michael Blackwell, former dean of the college of veterinary medicine at the University of Tennessee and a member of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which in 2008 recommended phasing out non-therapeutic use of antibiotics.

Advocates of using antibiotics disagree. "Farm and pharmaceutical lobbies have blocked all meaningful efforts to reduce the use of antibiotics in raising livestock in the United States," Henneberger writes. Emily Meredith, a spokeswoman for the Animal Agriculture Alliance, told the Post that producers "have made significant progress over the past decade and have for years been using antibiotics judiciously."

Some people see the livestock industry's response as an indication that they are paying attention to the issues at hand and some compromise could be in the offing. "Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, who participated in the 2008 Pew Commission but did not contribute to CLF's new analysis, said he sees Tuesday's back-and-forth as a clear signal for all parties interested in antibiotics to come to the table," Agri-Pulse reports.

To read the full report click here. To read other items about this issue, click here, here and here.

Food industries gearing up to deal with FDA guidelines on use of antibiotics in animals

By the end of next year, a comprehensive set of rules will limit the use of antibiotics in animals. December 2016 is the end of a three-year phase-in of the new Food and Drug Administration guidelines, which require 280 antimicrobials considered important to human health "be labeled strictly to treat and prevent disease and no longer to accelerate weight gain," Agri-Pulse reports. An FDA directive on use of antibiotics in food and water is expected soon.

Some food industry players such as McDonald's are already supporting the initiative. The restaurant chain will soon stop buying meat that comes from animals treated with medically important antibiotics.

Critics have said the rules rely too much on voluntary compliance, but "Larry Granger, a leader in USDA's Antimicrobial Resistance Program, says a Southern rancher who's used to putting antibiotics in water during the summer to fight anaplasmosis (a wasting disease spread by ticks) will have to get a vet to approve the treatment before a pharmacy will dispense the drug," Agri-Pulse reports, noting that livestock owners who don't have convenient access to a veterinarian will need to get accustomed to the standards, which require the approval of a vet for antibiotic purchase and use.

The Farm Foundation held a roundtable discussion to help livestock owners learn how to adjust. In the summer and fall it will hold 10 public forums across the U.S. for producers. Although farmers and ranchers have questioned the FDA's broader regulatory reach, they aren't contesting it much because too many antibiotics can also make them less effective in farm animals. Also, overuse of antibiotics increases resistant strains of pathogens that can harm humans.

Grady Bishop, representing Animal Health, a top maker of animal health products, said those in the animal health industry can abide by the new rules by "using antibiotics intended for animals only, such as ionophores, a class of antibiotics never used on humans; using vaccines, enzymes or other products; or finding new animals husbandry practices to prevent or treat diseases."

Hog farmers warn of risks from reducing antibiotics

The Obama administration wants farmers to use fewer antibiotics in their livestock operations, but that approach isn't without its hurdles. Randy, Mark and Tom Hilleman raise hogs for Iowa cooperative Eden Farms, which markets pork to high-end restaurants under the condition hogs have not been given antibiotics for growth promotion. The approach brings its own challenges, Philip Brasher of the Des Moines Register reports, namely "Some of the black Berkshire hogs grunting and rooting around the Hillemans' barns are likely to get sick and die before they're ready for market. That's because it's sometimes impractical to treat them, the brothers say."

Following concerns that overuse of antibiotics in livestock is contributing to drug-resistant diseases in humans, "the Food and Drug Administration this summer proposed to phase out the use of antibiotics as growth promotion but still allow drugs to be added to feed or water for purposes of preventing specific diseases," Brasher writes. Newly weaned pigs arrive at the Hillemans' farm when they are three weeks old and only receive"antibiotics while in the nursery and again for their first two weeks or so in the open-ended hoop barns where they spend most of their seven-month-long lives." Then the pigs only receive antibiotics if they are sick.

"If a sick pig doesn't get better on its own, it's likely to get a shot of an antibiotic, unless the animal is under the 100-day drug ban," Brasher writes. "If the hogs are given antibiotics then, they can only be sold as conventional hogs, and that means keeping a treated animal in a separate pen or marking it in some way to make sure it wasn't mixed with the hogs that will be marketed under the Eden Farms label." The Hillemans say  it's impractical for them to treat the pigs and handle them separately. For every 100 hogs they raise, two or three die of pneumonia or some other illness.
Some members of the Eden Farms co-operative have gone completely antibiotic free, but the Hillemans say not giving infant hogs antibiotics would be too risky. "Experts say that it's especially challenging to keep young pigs healthy without the use of antibiotics, since the animals are weaned at 3 weeks old or younger, much earlier than they would be in nature," Brasher writes. "That's so the sows can be impregnated and produce another litter as soon as possible." (Read more)

Perdue Farms says its chickens have no antibiotics

Wall Street Journal photo by Melissa Golden

Perdue Farms says it has eliminated all antibiotics from its chicken supply, making it the first major poultry supplier to comply with a new federal standard, Jacob Bunge reports for The Wall Street Journal. Producers have faced growing pressure from consumer groups that "prompted big restaurant chains, including McDonald’s Corp. and Subway, to unveil plans in recent years to reduce the use of antibiotics in their chicken supplies, following earlier efforts by companies such as Panera Bread Co. and Chick-fil-A Inc."

Fear has grown that "heavy antibiotic use raises the risk that dangerous bacteria could evolve to resist antibiotics that normally kill them, reducing the effectiveness of medicines that for decades have been a key health defense," Bunge writes. "Perdue’s campaign to stop using antibiotics to raise the roughly 13 million chickens the Salisbury, Md., company processes each week follows concerns raised by U.S. and international health officials about the widespread use of antibiotics in both human and animal medicine."

In 2013 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "called on animal drugmakers to stop permitting the use of antibiotics to speed up animal growth," Bunge writes. Companies agreed to comply by 2017.

Consumers are the rising voice in the agriculture antibiotic fight, states Washington Post editorial

"After decades of inaction, concern about the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is finally gaining traction, not because of federal regulations or congressional legislation, but because smart people around the nation are listening to consumers and thinking creatively about new ways of doing things," states The Washington Post editorial board. "For decades, the agriculture industry has used antibiotics in feed and water to help farm animals grow faster and larger on the same amount of feed and to prevent disease in a whole flock or herd. It is entirely proper to give antibiotics to sick animals. But now there is real movement away from the practice of using them for growth promotion, and the wisdom of using the drugs for prevention is being questioned." (Graphic from the health and environmental report Chain Reaction)

The board cites two recent actions as showing a positive trend toward eliminating antibiotic use. The first is a law signed earlier this month by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) that "will impose restrictions on the use of farm antibiotics starting in 2018," states the editorial. "The law says that antibiotics important in human medicine cannot be used for growth promotion in animals, and it gives veterinarians an important role in decisions about when to use them."

"The law permits the use of antibiotics for prevention when there is an 'elevated risk' of disease spreading, but it prohibits the use of these drugs 'in a regular pattern,'" states the editorial. "What’s impressive about the California example is that the law came about as a result of cooperation among representatives of public health, medicine, government, academia and agriculture. The law also includes civil penalties for violations. It will be important to see how food producers adapt; ideally they will create methods for animal husbandry without antibiotics that could be applied nationwide."

The second action was by Subway, which announced that beginning next year it will "start serving chicken and turkey raised without antibiotics in all of its 27,000-plus outlets in this country," states the editorial. "The company pledged to phase out antibiotic use in pork and beef within a decade. The company made no secret that it was responding to consumer desires, and it thus joins several other major food producers, including Tyson Foods and McDonald’s, in restricting antibiotic use. The market is speaking—and companies are listening." (Read more)

Drug companies agree to federal plan to phase out antibiotics used to spur growth in livestock

Drug manufacturers appear to be on board with proposed limitations to antibiotic use on livestock. The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday "said 25 of 26 drug companies that were asked to phase out antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals have agreed to comply with the agency’s voluntary plan," David Pierson reports for the Los Angeles Times. The 25 companies make 99.6 percent of the targeted drugs.

"Farms use about 80 percent of the nation's antibiotics supply, sometimes in healthy animals to speed up growth or prevent illness in unsanitary conditions," Pierson writes. "Their widespread application is being blamed for the rise of superbugs that afflict 2 million people in the U.S. and contribute to 23,000 deaths each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

FDA has said it wants to phase out the of antibiotics, something critics have said should be mandatory in light of evidence that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has serious weaknesses in poultry inspection, and the FDA still allows use of antibiotics that don't meet agency's own standards. There has been no evidence that the antibiotics pose any direct harm to humans. (Read more)

"The FDA's "final Guidance 213, released in December 2013, asked the companies to stop selling antimicrobial drugs for growth promotion and directs them to change many drugs from 'over the counter' to a status requiring veterinary oversight and consultation," Aarian Marshall notes for Agri-Pulse. "The industry had 90 days from the guidance release date in December to respond to FDA's requests. On March 10, the Animal Health Institute and the Generic Animal Drug Alliance, which represent most animal drug companies, committed to the voluntary guidelines." (Read more)

Livestock antibiotics will need a veterinarian's prescription

Photo by Harry Grout, Unsplash

Beginning in June, livestock farmers must change how they obtain antibiotics. "Most over-the-counter livestock antibiotic medications will no longer be available for purchase without a veterinary prescription," reports Courtney Love of Successful Farming. "Since 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has been trying to bring all approved livestock antibiotics under veterinary oversight. . . . This is the final phase of the FDA’s Guidance on livestock antibiotic labels."

It is also the end of a long battle to regulate the use of antibiotics in animals, driven by concern that overuse of the drugs encouarges the evolution of pathogens that are resistant to them.

Jennifer Roberts, a veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim, told Love, "The public has an interest in what farmers are doing to care for livestock, and there's an expectation that we are going to use antibiotics judiciously with livestock . . . . This regulation allows us to have a little more input on the farm and to have conversations with farmers about following medication protocol. . . . It will allow farmers to communicate directly with their veterinarian when using those products, making sure they're using the correct dose and following the appropriate withdrawal time."

Love explains, "Most over-the-counter medication for any species of livestock, including cattle, will be affected by this new rule. . . . However, there will be some exceptions for vaccines, dewormers, fly control. . . .The new regulation will also exempt over-the-counter products purchased before the June date and will be honored as an over-the-counter medication until it expires, says Hayley Springer, a veterinarian for Penn State Extension."

In response to the changes, retail farm stores may no longer carry certain medications. "Businesses that sell, dispense, or fill orders for animal prescription drugs must have a state pharmacy permit," Love writes. "Because of this, most brick-and-mortar farm stores might decide not to sell antibiotics once FDA requires a prescription, says Craig Payne, veterinarian, University of Missouri Extension."

Prior to June, farmers will want to prepare. "If a producer doesn’t have a veterinary-client-patient relationship with a local veterinarian, they need to establish one. This means farmers will have to find a veterinarian that is willing to become familiar with their farm and style of animal care by either one examination or timely visits to the farm," Love reports. "Producers should check the requirements in their state, as some areas have stricter guidelines. For example, South Carolina nullifies a farm's veterinary-client-patient relationship if a veterinarian has not seen the farm within one year, says the American Veterinary Medical Association."

"It's a change, but I think farmers will get used to it," Roberts told Love. "For those that have a relationship with a veterinarian, it's going to be an effortless change. For farmers that need to establish a relationship with a veterinarian, it's going to be a positive experience." Love adds, "However, Roberts acknowledges it's a change for most farmers that have valued the convenience of purchasing antibiotics whenever the need arises on their farms."

Advocate of controls on use of antibiotics in animals reveals most are used in animal feed

A letter from the Food and Drug Administration "indicates 74 percent of the 28.6 million pounds of antibiotics given to food-producing animals in 2009 were distributed through medicated feed," Agri-Pulse reports. "Another 16 percent were disseminated via water, and only 3 percent were sold for use via injection."

Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, right, went public with the letter last week, saying "These statistics tell the tale of an industry that is rampantly misusing antibiotics in an attempt to cover up filthy, unsanitary living conditions among animals. As they feed antibiotics to animals to keep them health, they are making our families sicker by spreading these deadly strains of bacteria."

Slaughter, the only microbiologist in Congress (with a degree from the University of Kentucky), believes distributing drugs through feed causes inconsistent dosing which leads to the "development of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in cattle, hogs and chickens consumed by humans," Agri-Pulse reports. Slaughter has been pushing "legislation aimed at 'preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of human disease'" since 2007. For Slaughter's news release, click here.

FDA confirmed that 80 percent of antibiotics are sold for agricultural use, adding "the majority of drugs used in animal feed are approved for both therapeutic and production purposes." The agency plans to release updated data that rates the importance of certain antibiotics in human medicine as a companion document to its current guide on antibiotic use in livestock, Agri-Pulse reports. The weekly Washington newsletter is a subscription-only service, but offers a free trial subscription.

Fast-food chains are phasing out antibiotics in chickens, but are slow to do so in beef and pork

It's more difficult to ensure that cattle and swine are
raised without antibiotics (Tribune photo: Antonio Perez)

While major fast-food chains such as McDonald's have promised to phase out using chickens that are fed antibiotics, they have been much slower to do likewise with cows and pigs, Samantha Bomkamp reports for the Chicago Tribune. McDonald's, the world's largest burger chain, told Bomkamp it's more difficult to phase out antibiotics in beef and pork, "because it doesn't purchase the entire cow or pig as it does with chickens." The company said that limits its "ability to directly influence change."

McDonald's said it's difficult to monitor cows and pigs, because they often move from farm to farm, leading to a "lack of traceability," Bomkamp writes. Also, McDonald's "buys beef from thousands of ranches, each with an average of just 50 cows," while there are only two main U.S. suppliers of chicken. McDonald's said that with chickens, it "has a clear line of sight from farm to table."

McDonald's also claimed "it could see meat shortages if it moves too quickly to antibiotic-free pork and beef," Bomkamp reports. "While chicken are slaughtered in just weeks, cattle can be two years old when they go to market, leaving far more time in which an animal can get sick. That raises the likelihood that a farmer would need to use antibiotics, even if they weren't using them routinely in the animal's feed as is commonplace in many industrial farms."

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "more than 70 percent of antibiotics important to human medicine in the U.S. are sold for livestock use," Bomkamp writes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization "have said the overuse of antibiotics has led to a global health crisis because the more people are exposed to them, the less effective they are."

Feds, even USDA, say use of antibiotics in animals leads to drug-resistant diseases in humans

"There is a clear link between the use of antibiotics in livestock and drug resistance in humans, President Barack Obama's administration says, a position sharply at odds with agribusiness interests." That's the pithy report from Philip Brasher, Washington correpsondent from The Des Moines Register, on yesterday's hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held in the wake of the Food and Drug Administration's suggestion to ban the use of most antibiotics as promoters of growth in hogs, chickens and other livestock. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D.-N.Y., has a bill (HR 1549) to do that, but administrative regulation seems more likely.

"Even the Agriculture Department, which livestock producers have traditionally relied on to advocate for their interests, backed the idea of a link between animal use of antibiotics and human health," Brasher notes, citing testimony from USDA's chief veterinarian. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also weighed in, buttressing the argument that overuse of antibiotics creates resistant strains of disease in animals and humans. Richard Carnevale of the Animal Health Institute, a lobby for animal-antibiotic manufacturers, said there is "no unequivocal evidence" of a connection between them and human drug resistance. (Read more) For a detailed report on the issue, see this week's edition of the Washington newsletter Agri-Pulse.

Livestock industry wary of FDA's crackdown on antibiotics

Many in the livestock industry have been vocal in their disapproval of the Food and Drug Administration restricting antibiotic usage in healthy animals. Now, some are alleging the decision is being made for political rather than medical reasons. In a letter to Congress in July, Dr.Thomas R. Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cited "compelling evidence" of a "clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans," Erik Eckholm of The New York Times reports. Still, the National Pork Producers Council claims, "There is no conclusive scientific evidence that antibiotics used in food animals have a significant impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics in people."
"In the end, the producers will do what is right," Craig Rowles, proprietor of Elite Pork and a trained veterinarian, told Eckholm. "We will make sure we deliver a product that meets the needs of consumers. My only concern is that we make decisions in a scientific fashion, not a political fashion." FDA appears ready to "issue its strongest guidelines on animal antibiotics yet, intended to reduce what it calls a clear risk to human health," Eckholm writes. Final version of the rules are expected within months. You can read our most recent item about antibiotic use in the livestock industry here.

 Drug use in humans has been linked to antibiotic resistant infections, but now scientists say mounting evidence of antibiotic use in agriculture is contributing, as well. "Is producing the cheapest food in the world our only goal?" asked Dr. Gail R. Hansen, a veterinarian and senior officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which has campaigned for new limits on farm antibiotics. "Those who say there is no evidence of risk are discounting 40 years of science. To wait until there’s nothing we can do about it doesn’t seem like the wisest course." (Read more)

Pigs could be spreading MRSA, columnist warns; Purdue research says link is 'highly speculative'

There is growing concern that the use of antibiotics to treat prevent disease in healthy livestock may be increasing the amount of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. "We continue to allow agribusiness companies to add antibiotics to animal feed so that piglets stay healthy and don’t get ear infections," writes Nicholas Kristof for The New York Times. "Seventy percent of all antibiotics in the United States go to healthy livestock, according to a careful study by the Union of Concerned Scientists — and that’s one reason we’re seeing the rise of pathogens that defy antibiotics."

Agribusinesses typically adds antibiotics in livestock feed to prevent the outbreak of disease, which spreads quickly if animals are kept in crowded pens. "The peer-reviewed Medical Clinics of North America concluded last year that antibiotics in livestock feed were 'a major component' in the rise in antibiotic resistance," adds Kristof. "The article said that more antibiotics were fed to animals in North Carolina alone than were administered to the nation’s entire human population."

Health experts are growing more concerned with the increase in the number of cases of MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, that kills 18,000 Americans annually. That is more than the number of Americans that die annually from AIDS. Hog farms seem especially prone to spreading MRSA. "Public health experts worry that pigs could pass on the infection by direct contact with their handlers, through their wastes leaking into ground water (one study has already found antibiotic-resistant bacteria entering ground water from hog farms), or through their meat, though there has been no proven case of someone getting it from eating pork," writes Kristof. "Five out of 90 samples of retail pork in Louisiana tested positive for MRSA. . . according to a peer-reviewed study published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology last year."

Legislation to eliminate the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture has been blocked through strong lobbying efforts by agribusinesses, but some see President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack as hope for curbing the practice. (Read more)

Experts at Purdue University said that the link between pigs and the increase in the number of MRSA cases was "highly speculative." They insist that skin-to-skin contact between humans is a much more common way for MRSA to spread. (Read more)

Industrial farms pose health and environmental risks and must change their ways, commission says

Confined animal feeding operations often pose "unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves," and major overhauls are needed in the way the operations are run, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production said this week, concluding a study that lasted two and a half years. Rick Weiss of The Washington Post summed it up this way: "Factory farming takes a big, hidden toll on human health and the environment, is undermining rural America's economic stability and fails to provide the humane treatment of livestock increasingly demanded by American consumers."

Ann Bagel Storck of MeatingPlace.com, which covers the red-meat industry, writes that the study "raises issues such as the huge amount of animal waste industrial farms generate, use of antibiotics by such facilities leading to the development of drug-resistant bacteria and the high concentration of animals on industrial farms increasing the risk of disease spreading. The report's recommendations include phasing out the most inhumane production practices within 10 years; implementing federal performance-based standards to improve animal welfare; and expanding and reforming animal agriculture research."

Weiss reports, "Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests. In the end, however, even industry representatives on the panel agreed to such controversial recommendations as a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals -- a huge hit against veterinary pharmaceutical companies -- a phaseout of all intensive confinement systems that prevent the free movement of farm animals, and more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the increasingly consolidated agricultural arena." (Read more)

For the full report, click here. For the commission's press release, click here. For a rebuttal from the Animal Agriculture Alliance, click here.

GAO: Feds need more data needed on antibiotics and resistance, and it's looking at use in animals

The federal government needs to collect more information about the use of antibiotics and the increase in antibiotic-resistant infections, a Government Accountability Office report said this month. The report said in a footnote that "GAO has ongoing work examining antibiotic use in food animals," so it seems likely to have more to say about the topic.

Critics have blamed rising antibiotic resistance partly on heavy use in animals raised for food; about three-fourths of antibiotics in the U.S. are used on animals, according to the Food and Drug Administration. However, the GAO report says in a footnote that those data are limited "because they combine therapeutic and subtherapeutic uses of antibiotics and all species of animals. Further, these data do not take into account the dose size, which varies by individual antibiotic and species of animal, or the total number of animals that received antibiotics."

The GAO said the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lack sources of data, such as inpatient use of antibiotics by hospitals, to evaluate the extent and causes of rising resistance. "Monitoring overall antibiotic use in humans, including in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings, is also needed to evaluate the contribution of such use — relative to other causes, such as animal use — to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance," the 66-page report concluded. For a copy, click here.

More than 150 companies join White House in agreeing to phase out antibiotics in animals

More than 150 food companies, retailers and human and animal health stakeholders are joining the White House in an effort to combat antibiotic resistance as part of the “White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship,” the White House said in a statement. The event will "bring together key human and animal health constituencies involved in antibiotic stewardship—the development, promotion and implementation of activities to ensure the responsible use of antibiotics."

President Barack Obama will sign a memorandum today directing "Federal departments and agencies to create a preference for meat and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use in the meat supply chain by supporting the emerging market for meat produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies."

The memorandum "directs a three-tiered, phased approach using Federal purchasing authorities to offer options for meats from animals raised according to responsible antibiotic-use policies within Federal agencies’ facilities."

The memorandum includes three phases:

• Initiating a process within 120 days of issuance of the proposed memorandum to make available meats and poultry from animals raised according to responsible antibiotic-use policies in certain Federal cafeterias. The General Services Administration, which operates a significant number of Federal cafeterias, will lead this approach, although other departments and agencies may join.
• Broadening the availability of meats and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies for sale in all Federal cafeterias serving civilian Federal employees by 2018 for poultry and 2020 for other meats, not solely those operated by GSA.
• Developing an acquisition strategy for applying a preference by 2020 in Federal acquisitions for meats and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies sold or served in all Federal facilities. 

At the same time, Foster Farms "said it plans to largely eliminate from its poultry supplies all antibiotics used to treat human illnesses, adding to chicken companies’ responses to growing health concerns over antibiotic-resistant bacteria," Jacob Bunge reports for The Wall Street Journal.

"Foster Farms is at least the fourth top U.S. poultry company to unveil plans over the past year to reduce or eliminate the use of antibiotics in their chicken supplies, bowing to growing pressure from consumer groups and public-health officials who have argued that the widespread use of antibiotics in commercial livestock and poultry operations has contributed to a rise in bacteria that have become resistant to such drugs," Bunge writes. "Foster Farms is tied for 10th among U.S. chicken producers by pounds produced, according to meat industry publication Watt Poultry USA."

The top two chicken producers, Tyson Farms and Pilgrim's Pride, have previously released plans to phase out antibiotics. Other major companies that said they would make changes are: Perdue, McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, Panera Bread, Chipotle, Whole Foods and Applegate.

Perdue Foods says it has removed all antibiotics from its chicken hatcheries

A major poultry distributor is phasing out antibiotics. Perdue Foods announced on Wednesday that it has removed all antibiotics from its chicken hatcheries, a move that took five years to implement and that goes above and beyond voluntary guidelines by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, reports Agri-Pulse, a Washington newsletter. "The company completely phased out the use of antibiotics approved for use in humans as well as antibiotics used for growth promotion in chicken production."

The company said "it will continue to use antibiotics approved for animal use to combat an intestinal parasite as well as for the treatment and control of illness in sick chicken flocks," Agri-Pulse writes. Bruce Stewart-Brown, senior vice president of food safety, quality and live operations said in a statement: “It is not realistic or responsible to eliminate all antibiotics. No matter how carefully you raise animals, some are going to be exposed to infections that can only be treated with antibiotics. As veterinarians, we have a responsibility to properly treat those animals." (Read more)