Antibiotics in agriculture are essential for animal and human health
By Peter Silley, professor of applied microbiology at the University of Bradford - 07/13/10 02:06 PM ET
Antibiotic resistance is a significant global public-health challenge that has created an emotional public response among critics, public-health experts, and animal-health advocates. It involves debate over antibiotic use in both humans and animals, and demands improved monitoring and surveillance, more research and, ultimately, the development of a range of tools that will help reduce reliance on antibiotics. This week’s Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, “Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,” will further examine how these products are used in agriculture and their impact on human health.
The emotional rhetoric surrounding this issue has resulted in knee-jerk legislative proposals to ban certain uses of antibiotics. Blunt policy instruments could be harmful when dealing with such a critical and complicated issue. It is easy to point fingers and suggest that eliminating some uses in animals would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. But it is important to act on specific, data-driven evidence. Simple widespread bans on certain uses — including those in animals — would be detrimental to animal health and, more importantly, human health.
If we are to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we need careful, data-driven understanding of the sources and causes of that spread. Antibiotic resistance is a collection of specific problems, or specific pathogens resistant to particular drugs. Specific bacterial/drug combinations, or “bug-drug combos,” must be considered separately from other combinations.
Scientific risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by private researchers demonstrate that none of these three bacterial/drug combinations are related to the use of antibiotics in animals. Read More
Healthy livestock are essential for safe and healthy food. But as usual, the anti-animal agriculture groups are using this debate to further their agenda. It’s clear that in order to make any meaningful reform of antibiotic use, the human side must be addressed first. A perfect example would be how antibiotics are distributed in other parts of the world. In some countries you can buy them right over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They are greatly misused in the US as well by the over-prescribing doctors and the careless patients who fail to follow directions. In the livestock industry you will never see them being used incorrectly. It costs too much money and is too important to the health of the livestock for that to happen. No one who is advocating for antibiotic use changes in livestock only can be taken seriously. ~Troy
Showing posts with label animal health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal health. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
FDA Wants Antibiotic Use in Livestock Limited
FDA seeks less use of antibiotics in animals to keep them effective for humans
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A04
The Food and Drug Administration urged farmers on Monday to stop giving antibiotics to cattle, poultry, hogs and other animals to spur their growth, citing concern that drug overuse is helping to create dangerous bacteria that do not respond to medical treatment and endanger human lives.
Joshua M. Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy commissioner, said antibiotics should be used only to protect the health of an animal and not to help it grow or improve the way it digests its feed.
"This is an urgent public health issue," Sharfstein said during a conference call with reporters. "To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible."
The FDA issued a draft of its guidance, and the public has 60 days to comment on the draft.
Sharfstein said that the guidance was a first step, and the agency would issue new regulations if the industry does not comply voluntarily.
"We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that," he said. "We also think things can be done voluntarily. We're not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy, but I'm not ruling out anything that we can do to establish these important public-health goals."
Read More
Human health is certainly a top priority but one of the things that has helped us avoid any large health disasters is the fact that we have kept our livestock very healthy as well. Along with that, there isn’t any good scientific data to suggest that this will make a difference. After all, livestock producers would have to treat disease after the fact rather than prevent it. The last thing to consider is the fact that until human usage is of antibiotics is better controlled any changes to livestock use would be pointless. The very same drugs that require a prescription here can be bought over the counter in other countries. We definitely need to protect the efficacy of antibiotics but only focusing on livestock use is a lazy solution to a difficult problem.
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A04
The Food and Drug Administration urged farmers on Monday to stop giving antibiotics to cattle, poultry, hogs and other animals to spur their growth, citing concern that drug overuse is helping to create dangerous bacteria that do not respond to medical treatment and endanger human lives.
Joshua M. Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy commissioner, said antibiotics should be used only to protect the health of an animal and not to help it grow or improve the way it digests its feed.
"This is an urgent public health issue," Sharfstein said during a conference call with reporters. "To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible."
The FDA issued a draft of its guidance, and the public has 60 days to comment on the draft.
Sharfstein said that the guidance was a first step, and the agency would issue new regulations if the industry does not comply voluntarily.
"We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that," he said. "We also think things can be done voluntarily. We're not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy, but I'm not ruling out anything that we can do to establish these important public-health goals."
Read More
Human health is certainly a top priority but one of the things that has helped us avoid any large health disasters is the fact that we have kept our livestock very healthy as well. Along with that, there isn’t any good scientific data to suggest that this will make a difference. After all, livestock producers would have to treat disease after the fact rather than prevent it. The last thing to consider is the fact that until human usage is of antibiotics is better controlled any changes to livestock use would be pointless. The very same drugs that require a prescription here can be bought over the counter in other countries. We definitely need to protect the efficacy of antibiotics but only focusing on livestock use is a lazy solution to a difficult problem.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Katie Couric's Report on Antibiotic Use in Livestock
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Tonight will begin the two part series on CBS News about antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately by the looks of the preview, Katie is going to be more interested being an activist rather than a journalist. Just count how many times she uses the undefineable term "factory farm" in this preview.
I am very concerned about "superbugs" and antibiotic resistance, just like everyone else. However, attacking one area of usage, mostly the low hanging fruit, will not help. All of us use products that are designed to kill bacteria every single day. If we want to have a serious discussion about antibiotic resistance, we are going to need to evaluate everything. I will be disappointed if Katie doesn't address that.
This should open up many opportunities for family farmers and ranchers to explain how and why they use antibiotics. Their is a big misconception that all livestock are fed antibiotics all the time. The phrase most commonly used is "they are pumped full of antibiotics". They are just too expensive to do such a thing. I don't know who she refers to everytime she talks about a factory farm, but everyone that I know who raises livestock tries to give them the very best care possible.
That's the story I am looking forward to sharing with people.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Florez's Antibiotic Bill Rejected
June 4, 2009
Food-safety bill stalls in Senate
By JAKE HENSHA
Wjhenshaw@gannett.com
SACRAMENTO A food-safety campaign to tighten up the standard for meat served in schools and to give the state new power to recall contaminated food largely stalled Wednesday in the Senate.
Senators rejected Senate Bill 416 by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, that would have authorized schools to buy meat and poultry that hadn't been routinely treated with antibiotic drugs.
It also would have required state school officials to collect and report to the Legislature on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the use of antibiotics in meat going to California schools.
Originally, SB 416 would have banned serving meat and poultry in schools that had been routinely treated with antibiotics. Read More
The bill in California that would have required schools to purchase as much meat as possible from livestock that hadn’t been fed antibiotics was defeated. Sen. Florez has introduced a flurry of anti-agriculture bills in the CA Senate since the passage of Proposition 2. All of the bills he has brought forward have been based on emotional feeling rather than rational thought. Bills such as this one would actually decrease our ability to keep livestock healthy. I truly believe the mark of a good elected official is not the one that gets the most bills passed, rather it’s the one the gets the most bills killed.
Food-safety bill stalls in Senate
By JAKE HENSHA
Wjhenshaw@gannett.com
SACRAMENTO A food-safety campaign to tighten up the standard for meat served in schools and to give the state new power to recall contaminated food largely stalled Wednesday in the Senate.
Senators rejected Senate Bill 416 by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, that would have authorized schools to buy meat and poultry that hadn't been routinely treated with antibiotic drugs.
It also would have required state school officials to collect and report to the Legislature on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the use of antibiotics in meat going to California schools.
Originally, SB 416 would have banned serving meat and poultry in schools that had been routinely treated with antibiotics. Read More
The bill in California that would have required schools to purchase as much meat as possible from livestock that hadn’t been fed antibiotics was defeated. Sen. Florez has introduced a flurry of anti-agriculture bills in the CA Senate since the passage of Proposition 2. All of the bills he has brought forward have been based on emotional feeling rather than rational thought. Bills such as this one would actually decrease our ability to keep livestock healthy. I truly believe the mark of a good elected official is not the one that gets the most bills passed, rather it’s the one the gets the most bills killed.
Protecting Our Pigs
Humans Cause More Concern at World Pork Expo than the Pigs
06/03/2009
H1N1 is also responsible for some changes at World Pork Expo. Nineteen-hundred hogs and pigs entering the Iowa State Fairgrounds before the Wednesday opening had to be inspected and confirmed as disease free. The H1N1 scare last month prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to recommend additional monitoring of animal health at major animal events - including fairs, major sales and exhibitions like the Expo. But since the virus can be borne from humans to animals, Iowa veterinarian Shawn Nicholson is more worried about humans making the pigs sick, with 71 confirmed H1N1 cases in Iowa. No pigs in the U.S. have been reported with the virus.
This year - for the first time - the Expo has stands with hand wipes installed in the animal barns - and visitors will receive hand wipes at the front gates. As for the animals – a veterinarian will inspect each one and producers must provide veterinary records to verify the pig is virus-free. Nicholson says vets will look for signs of respiratory problems - like coughing and hacking - as well as skin lesions. The veterinarians will also walk through pens throughout the show. Link
We have all seen images of people walking down the street shortly after the H1N1 outbreak wearing masks over the faces. The fact is that our pigs are the ones that we need to be concerned about. Livestock producers always take precautions to protect the health of their herd. But these days, our pork producers need to take extra steps to protect their pigs, and our food supply, from H1N1. This level of care is a great example of the commitment our farmers and ranchers have.
06/03/2009
H1N1 is also responsible for some changes at World Pork Expo. Nineteen-hundred hogs and pigs entering the Iowa State Fairgrounds before the Wednesday opening had to be inspected and confirmed as disease free. The H1N1 scare last month prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to recommend additional monitoring of animal health at major animal events - including fairs, major sales and exhibitions like the Expo. But since the virus can be borne from humans to animals, Iowa veterinarian Shawn Nicholson is more worried about humans making the pigs sick, with 71 confirmed H1N1 cases in Iowa. No pigs in the U.S. have been reported with the virus.
This year - for the first time - the Expo has stands with hand wipes installed in the animal barns - and visitors will receive hand wipes at the front gates. As for the animals – a veterinarian will inspect each one and producers must provide veterinary records to verify the pig is virus-free. Nicholson says vets will look for signs of respiratory problems - like coughing and hacking - as well as skin lesions. The veterinarians will also walk through pens throughout the show. Link
We have all seen images of people walking down the street shortly after the H1N1 outbreak wearing masks over the faces. The fact is that our pigs are the ones that we need to be concerned about. Livestock producers always take precautions to protect the health of their herd. But these days, our pork producers need to take extra steps to protect their pigs, and our food supply, from H1N1. This level of care is a great example of the commitment our farmers and ranchers have.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
H1N1 Vaccine for Pigs
ISU Researcher Develops H1N1 Vaccine For Pigs
POSTED: 4:18 pm CDT May 6, 2009UPDATED: 5:24 pm CDT May 6, 2009
AMES, Iowa -- Iowa State University officials said Wednesday that one of their researchers has developed a vaccine to protect pigs from the H1N1 flu virus.
Dr. Hank Harris developed the vaccine after a Canadian swine herd was found to be infected with the H1N1 virus. He's a professor in animal science and veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine at ISU.
"Now that H1N1 virus is in pigs, we're seeking funding to conduct a proof-of-concept study to demonstrate how rapidly we can produce an effective and safe vaccine for pigs," said Harris, in a statement released by ISU on Wednesday.
Harris owns a start-up company at the ISU Research Park called Harrisvaccines, Inc., which uses a technology to help produce vaccines faster than older techniques.
Harris said that his new vaccines are waiting for governmental approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Approval could come as early as 2011. Read More
Even though there has only been one isolated case of any pigs actually contracting H1N1, a vaccine may be available soon. This vaccine would hopefully protect the pigs from us humans. Even thoughyou can’t get H1N1 from eating pork, this could add another level of protection to our food supply by keeping our pigs healthy.
POSTED: 4:18 pm CDT May 6, 2009UPDATED: 5:24 pm CDT May 6, 2009
AMES, Iowa -- Iowa State University officials said Wednesday that one of their researchers has developed a vaccine to protect pigs from the H1N1 flu virus.
Dr. Hank Harris developed the vaccine after a Canadian swine herd was found to be infected with the H1N1 virus. He's a professor in animal science and veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine at ISU.
"Now that H1N1 virus is in pigs, we're seeking funding to conduct a proof-of-concept study to demonstrate how rapidly we can produce an effective and safe vaccine for pigs," said Harris, in a statement released by ISU on Wednesday.
Harris owns a start-up company at the ISU Research Park called Harrisvaccines, Inc., which uses a technology to help produce vaccines faster than older techniques.
Harris said that his new vaccines are waiting for governmental approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Approval could come as early as 2011. Read More
Even though there has only been one isolated case of any pigs actually contracting H1N1, a vaccine may be available soon. This vaccine would hopefully protect the pigs from us humans. Even thoughyou can’t get H1N1 from eating pork, this could add another level of protection to our food supply by keeping our pigs healthy.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Free-Range Debate
April 10, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Free-Range Trichinosis
By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Austin, Tex.
IS free-range pork better and safer to eat than conventional pork? Many consumers think so. The well-publicized horrors of intensive pig farming have fostered the widespread assumption that, as one purveyor of free-range meats put it, “the health benefits are indisputable.” However, as yet another reminder that culinary wisdom is never conventional, scientists have found that free-range pork can be more likely than caged pork to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites. It’s not only pistachios and 50-pound tubs of peanut paste that have been infected with salmonella but also 500-pound pigs allowed to root and to roam pastures happily before butting heads with a bolt gun.
The study published in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease that brought these findings to light last year sampled more than 600 pigs in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. It discovered not only higher rates of salmonella in free-range pigs (54 percent versus 39 percent) but also greater levels of the pathogen toxoplasma (6.8 percent versus 1.1 percent) and, most alarming, two free-range pigs that carried the parasite trichina (as opposed to zero for confined pigs). For many years, the pork industry has been assuring cooks that a little pink in the pork is fine. Trichinosis, which can be deadly, was assumed to be history. Read More
This is an interesting article, especially when he contradicts his entire argument in the last paragraph. Aside from that, his points are quite valid. There are some very good reasons that our methods of livestock production have come to be. The safety of the animal and the safety of the food supply being the top two reasons. Some, I suppose really believe that free-range meat tastes better, but when groups like HSUS try force production outside, it is because they are well aware of the food safety issues and their hope is that people will quit eating it altogether.
Op-Ed Contributor
Free-Range Trichinosis
By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Austin, Tex.
IS free-range pork better and safer to eat than conventional pork? Many consumers think so. The well-publicized horrors of intensive pig farming have fostered the widespread assumption that, as one purveyor of free-range meats put it, “the health benefits are indisputable.” However, as yet another reminder that culinary wisdom is never conventional, scientists have found that free-range pork can be more likely than caged pork to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites. It’s not only pistachios and 50-pound tubs of peanut paste that have been infected with salmonella but also 500-pound pigs allowed to root and to roam pastures happily before butting heads with a bolt gun.
The study published in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease that brought these findings to light last year sampled more than 600 pigs in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. It discovered not only higher rates of salmonella in free-range pigs (54 percent versus 39 percent) but also greater levels of the pathogen toxoplasma (6.8 percent versus 1.1 percent) and, most alarming, two free-range pigs that carried the parasite trichina (as opposed to zero for confined pigs). For many years, the pork industry has been assuring cooks that a little pink in the pork is fine. Trichinosis, which can be deadly, was assumed to be history. Read More
This is an interesting article, especially when he contradicts his entire argument in the last paragraph. Aside from that, his points are quite valid. There are some very good reasons that our methods of livestock production have come to be. The safety of the animal and the safety of the food supply being the top two reasons. Some, I suppose really believe that free-range meat tastes better, but when groups like HSUS try force production outside, it is because they are well aware of the food safety issues and their hope is that people will quit eating it altogether.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Livestock Antibiotics Ban Introduced in Congress
Bill would ban nonmedical drug use in US livestock
Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:43pm EDT
By Christopher Doering
WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - Despite growing public support to ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food animals, a U.S. representative said on Tuesday efforts to move legislation through Congress this year could be met with resistance.
The bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Louise Slaughter and in the Senate by Edward Kennedy, would ban the use of antibiotics important to human health from being used on cattle, hogs, sheep and poultry unless animals are ill.
Drug manufacturers would be allowed to sell antibiotics for uses other than humans if they can show there is no danger to public health from microbes developing resistance to them.
"We're up against a pretty strong lobby. It will really come down to whether members of Congress want to protect their constituents or agribusiness," said Slaughter. "I do believe the chance are good, at least getting it through the House."
The bill has been introduced several times since the 1980s but has been blocked by agribusiness interests. Read More
As with most stories concerning antibiotics and livestock, the players are always described as evil agribusiness versus the unsuspecting public. There are no big secrets being hidden from anybody in this discussion. Antibiotics are a very effective tool for keeping livestock healthy. Even the CDC has said there is no evidence to suggest that the livestock industry is responsible for any problems nor would it solve anything if antibiotics weren’t used anymore. Livestock producers always want their livestock to be as healthy as possible. Just like parents hate seeing their kids being sick, the same goes for our animals.
Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:43pm EDT
By Christopher Doering
WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - Despite growing public support to ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food animals, a U.S. representative said on Tuesday efforts to move legislation through Congress this year could be met with resistance.
The bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Louise Slaughter and in the Senate by Edward Kennedy, would ban the use of antibiotics important to human health from being used on cattle, hogs, sheep and poultry unless animals are ill.
Drug manufacturers would be allowed to sell antibiotics for uses other than humans if they can show there is no danger to public health from microbes developing resistance to them.
"We're up against a pretty strong lobby. It will really come down to whether members of Congress want to protect their constituents or agribusiness," said Slaughter. "I do believe the chance are good, at least getting it through the House."
The bill has been introduced several times since the 1980s but has been blocked by agribusiness interests. Read More
As with most stories concerning antibiotics and livestock, the players are always described as evil agribusiness versus the unsuspecting public. There are no big secrets being hidden from anybody in this discussion. Antibiotics are a very effective tool for keeping livestock healthy. Even the CDC has said there is no evidence to suggest that the livestock industry is responsible for any problems nor would it solve anything if antibiotics weren’t used anymore. Livestock producers always want their livestock to be as healthy as possible. Just like parents hate seeing their kids being sick, the same goes for our animals.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Livestock Antibiotics
Pork Industry Says Antibiotics Are Necessary for Animal Agriculture
Sunday, March 08, 2009 :: Staff infoZine
By Heather Lockwood
Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - The Food and Drug Administration puts all antibiotics used in animal agriculture through a "very vigorous approval process" that considers the safety of the animals, their human handlers, consumers and the environment, said Jennifer Greiner, a veterinarian and director of science and technology for the Pork Producers Council. She is the daughter of pork producers.
The FDA approves antibiotics in animal agriculture for four uses: treatment, prevention, bacterial control and growth promotion. The FDA considers all but growth promotion to be therapeutic uses.
"We truly believe ‘nontherapeutic' is just a bad term. Any time you use an antibiotic, whether it be a lower dose or a higher dose, that antibiotic is going to kill some kind of bacteria," she said. "All antibiotics have some sort of therapeutic value." Read More
In order for producers to give the best possible care to their animals, antibiotics need to be available to use. No matter the dosage, it is benefitting the animal by contributing to its health and well-being. These products are too expensive to use haphazardly, so precise usage is always implemented by the producers so that that they are producing a safe affordable food product.
Sunday, March 08, 2009 :: Staff infoZine
By Heather Lockwood
Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - The Food and Drug Administration puts all antibiotics used in animal agriculture through a "very vigorous approval process" that considers the safety of the animals, their human handlers, consumers and the environment, said Jennifer Greiner, a veterinarian and director of science and technology for the Pork Producers Council. She is the daughter of pork producers.
The FDA approves antibiotics in animal agriculture for four uses: treatment, prevention, bacterial control and growth promotion. The FDA considers all but growth promotion to be therapeutic uses.
"We truly believe ‘nontherapeutic' is just a bad term. Any time you use an antibiotic, whether it be a lower dose or a higher dose, that antibiotic is going to kill some kind of bacteria," she said. "All antibiotics have some sort of therapeutic value." Read More
In order for producers to give the best possible care to their animals, antibiotics need to be available to use. No matter the dosage, it is benefitting the animal by contributing to its health and well-being. These products are too expensive to use haphazardly, so precise usage is always implemented by the producers so that that they are producing a safe affordable food product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)