Livestock Antibiotic Use Bill Introduced

Senators unveil bipartisan bill to restrict use of antibiotics in food animals

By Julian Pecquet - 06/16/11 05:27 PM ET

Four senators - three Democrats and a Republican - have introduced legislation that would restrict the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture.

The bill is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier in the House by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). It would ban farmers from using seven classes of antibiotics critical for human health expect to treat sick animals.

The bill comes as the House on Wednesday repealed a provision of the 2012 agriculture spending bill that aimed to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from similarly restricting antibiotic use in livestock and poultry. The amendment, from Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), drew concerns from Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) because of its wide-ranging policy implications.

"Congressman Rehberg has been working with Chairman Upton to highlight his concerns about FDA's burdensome and unscientific regulations on Montana's ag community while avoiding any unintended consequences that could come through the appropriations process," Rehberg spokesman Jed Link told The Hill.   Read More

Theres a couple of things that never get talked about when this issue comes up.  First is that healthy livestock contribute to a healthy human population.  And the other is that by not preventing disease, we will end up treating the disease.  This means that we will end up using more antibiotics in the long run.  I have always used antibiotics in a very judicious manner because I want them to continue to work as well.  The added expense is also  a big deterrent for anyone to use them inappropriately.  

Along with that, any serious reform must involve discussions about how doctors prescribe, and patients use, antibiotics as well.  Livestock use is only part of the total equation.  

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.

Farmers Know Best

Farmers, not bureaucrats, know best (Rep. Steve King)
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET

Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.

During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.

The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.

When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.

The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More

Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.

Complete Picture of Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic Resistance: A Complete Picture
By Pork news staff Monday, November 30, 2009

It’s almost popular to point to antibiotic use in animal agriculture as the primary driver behind the antibiotic resistance phenomenon, but that’s falling short of the complete picture. According to a report by the American Academy of Microbiology, the causes of antibiotic resistance are varied and complex.

Suggesting that antibiotic resistance occurs mainly as a result of antibiotic abuse or misuse doesn’t accurately portray the complete picture. In a report called “Antibiotic Resistance: An Ecological Perspective on an Old Problem,” AAM indicates that even appropriate antibiotic use can contribute to the spread of resistance, underscoring the complexity of explaining its causes and the error in focusing on any one area.

According to the report, “There are no scapegoats.” The report is based on a colloquium that AAM brought together in October 2008.

“Responsibility is partly due to medical practice, including patient demand; veterinary practice; industrial practices; politics; and the antibiotics themselves. Ultimately, resistance development is founded in the inevitability of microbial evolution,” the report states.

It also states that antibiotic resistance is essentially uncontrollable. “Antibiotic resistance is an international pandemic that compromises the treatment of all infectious diseases,” it outlines.

LINK

When it comes to the discussion of antibiotic resistance, the low hanging fruit to attack is the use of antibiotics in livestock. For most of my life, anytime I have seen a situation like this where one particular use of a product is being singled out as the “problem”, it’s never worked out that way. And that’s what this report is confirming for us. It’s not just the fact that the farmers and ranchers use antibiotics for animal health, it’s every way that antibiotics have been used that is contributing to this emerging problem.

Antibiotics Increase Food Safety

November 1, 2009
Restrictions could make food less safe
By Don Villwock

Livestock farmers across Indiana and the U.S. are absolutely committed to the production of safe, affordable and abundant food. To do this, farmers must have access to approved, safe and effective technologies, including animal health products.

That's why Farm Bureau opposes HR 1549 and S 619, the legislation currently before Congress that would restrict the use of antibiotics. Rather than protecting the efficacy of antibiotics and the safety of our food, the legislation:

Won't reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance.

Won't result in a safer food supply.

Will make it harder for farmers to raise healthy animals that will, in turn, produce healthy food.

Might result in food that is less safe for human consumption.

Livestock farmers do not routinely overuse antibiotics in animals. When Indiana Farm Bureau saw the accusations against livestock farmers being used as justification for this legislation, we asked livestock producer members if they use antibiotics at the levels that critics claim. The answer? A resounding "no." Read More

Antibiotics are a great tool that, when properly used in livestock, benefit all of us. These exaggerated claims of livestock being pumped full of antibiotics are frustrating to hear when we know it isn’t the truth. In addition to that, the reasons that antibiotics are used is much different than the claims that say it’s because of the diet we feed them. This is absolutely one of the most commonly asked questions I get from consumers. It’s a confusing subject for those not involved in animal agriculture and it’s especially important that we share this information with them.

Antibiotic Use Being Challenged Again

Administration Seeks to Restrict Antibiotics in Livestock

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.

In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.
Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.

The hearing was held to discuss a measure proposed by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. It would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses. Read More

The use of antibiotics as a health tool in livestock continues to receive a lot of criticism. The problem is that no one seems to want to talk about the consequences of ending the practice. An ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention. Countries that have banned the practice have found that they are now using more antibiotics than ever before. The health of our livestock shouldn’t be jeopardized.

CA's Antibiotic Limiting Bill

Antibiotics bill takes the next step
By Dairy Herd staff Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics by licensed veterinarians to prevent and control disease in animal agriculture was approved last week in California by the Senate Appropriations Committee and now goes to the Senate floor for consideration.

Bill SB416, amended earlier this month by the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to make every effort to purchase poultry and meat products that have not been treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics.

Any school district that purchases poultry or meat products from treated animals (or doesn’t know the status of the products) would be required to report annually to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the reasons those products were purchased. The bill would require the Superintendent to compile those reports and report to Legislature starting Jan. 1, 2012.

The original bill prohibited schools from serving poultry or meat products from animals that had been treated with antibiotics at any time during the life of the animal.

In addition, this bill would prohibit a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product as of Jan. 1, 2015.

State Senator Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, introduced this legislation.

Western United Dairymen opposes the bill, along with the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, California Dairies Inc., California Farm Bureau Federation, California Poultry Federation, California School Nutrition Association, and the California Teamsters.

Read the entire bill SB416. Article Link

I would argue that the levels of antibiotics used in animal feed currently are therapeutic. After all, the levels used are helping prevent the possibility of an animal catching a disease. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that a ban on the current practice of using feed-based antibiotics will actually increase the usage. In addition to this, the cost for these meat products will also increase. The only message that can be heard from legislation like this is that the state of California no longer welcomes animal agriculture because sound science doesn’t agree. Judging by the state of their budget, increasing costs based on emotional thinking is the last thing they need.