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The bill comes as the House on Wednesday repealed a provision of the 2012 agriculture spending bill that aimed to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from similarly restricting antibiotic use in livestock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.  

Genetically Engineered Salmon

FDA advisors to vote on genetically engineered salmon


It grows faster, eats less and has sparked intense debate about modifying animals for our food supply.

By Andrew Zajac, Tribune Washington Bureau
7:28 PM PDT, September 18, 2010
latimes.com

In a step that may move genetically engineered meat and fish closer to the American dinner table, an FDA advisory committee will vote Monday on whether to approve preliminary findings that a modified salmon is as safe as an ordinary salmon.

The vote is not binding on the FDA, but approval would lend powerful support for a final decision by the agency charged with protecting the nation's food and drug supplies. The fish, a North Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. would be the country's first genetically engineered food animal.

It grows to market size in half the time of other salmon and consumes 25 percent less feed in the process, according to the company, which is based in Waltham, Mass.

The FDA will hold a separate hearing on what, if any, labeling should be required if the fish is approved. The FDA says it does not have the power to mandate labeling that describes how a food was made, only the content variation that results from a different production process.    Read More

This will be an interesting test to watch.  But rather than a strictly scientific and rational discussion, I’m guessing that plenty of misinformation and irrational fear will be used by some.  There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of new products and processes for growing our food.  The ultimate goal of everyone involved should be to have more and better food but unfortunately that doesn’t always seem to be the case.  I’ll keep you updated on how this turns out. 

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.

Bad Food Inc. Numbers??

June 20, 2009, 10:04 pm
Eating Up “Food, Inc.”
By Nicholas Kristof

My Sunday column was inspired by “Food, Inc.,” the new documentary playing in theaters nationwide. I argue that at the same time we examine our health care system, we should also take a look at our agribusiness system, which — I argue — tends to promote an unhealthy diet.

One window into journalism: A good chunk of Friday afternoon was spent chasing one elusive fact. Food, Inc. reported that the number of FDA food safety inspections had fallen from 50,000 in 1972 to 9,164 in 2006. I thought that was a telling statistic and included it in my draft, but I also asked my assistant, Natasha Yefimov, to double-check the figures with the FDA.

The FDA said the figures were wrong — both of them. The FDA acknowledged that the number of inspections had dropped, but said the 1972 figure was 10,610, while the fiscal year 2006 figure was 7,498 domestically and 125 abroad. The FDA said it had no idea where the other numbers could have come from. Read More

I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised by the fact that Kristof is the first to question any numbers given in the Food Inc. movie. However, maybe he’s disappointed that he wasn’t involved in this latest attack on American agriculture and family farmers. I have never made a movie, and chances are I never will. But if I did, and I was interested in having my film be as accurate as possible, I would double check any numbers being used. Apparently, the makers of this film weren’t interested in doing that. Simple things like this should make people wonder what else isn’t accurate in this movie.

New Antimicrobial Developed

New Invention Effectively Kills Foodborne Pathogens In Minutes

ScienceDaily (June 25, 2008) — University of Georgia researchers have developed an effective technology for reducing contamination of dangerous bacteria on food. The new antimicrobial wash rapidly kills Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 on foods ranging from fragile lettuce to tomatoes, fruits, poultry products and meats. It is made from inexpensive and readily available ingredients that are recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The new technology, which has commercial application for the produce, poultry, meat and egg processing industries, is available for licensing from the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., which has filed a patent application on the new technology. Read More

As always, we continually look to improve what is already the safest food supply in the world. This new antimicrobial technology shows great promise to being another tool that we can use. However, it will always be important that consumers still follow proper food handling guidelines.

Rise against ag

Why We Need to Rise up Against Industrial Agriculture (Again)
By Will Allen, AlterNet

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle described the most disgusting practices in the preparation, preservation, and canning of rotten meat. His expos helped create the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which came into being to watch over food safety issues. That was a hundred years ago. Our food supply is now worse than ever, filled with pesticides and pharmaceuticals that are both unnecessary and which are radically harming our ability to survive in an increasingly fragile planet.

As many people know-or at least suspect-the FDA does not do much to protect us from hidden dangers in our food supply. It exists to protect large businesses, large-scale farmers, and corporations that produce various chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays a similar role, as recent reports document.

When Sinclair wrote the above description, most cows, pigs, and chickens were raised on pastures. Consequently, most animals arrived at the meat packers in a healthy state. That is definitely not the case today. Read More

This article claims that our food supply is poisoned in the United States and it is because producers have been tricked into thinking they should make their operations efficient. If someone wants to raise organic food, I think that is just fine, however, to insult the rest of agriculture by saying we poison food and torture animals is ridiculous. Our life span has never been longer and our food supply has never been safer.

New Feed Rule Coming

FDA to Expand Restrictions on Livestock Feed
By BILL TOMSON
April 24, 2008; Page C6

The Food and Drug Administration will unveil this week a federal rule that will place new restrictions on what U.S. livestock can be fed.

The primary objective is to reduce the risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, among cattle, but it is also expected to help persuade foreign countries to remove import restrictions on U.S. beef, according to a pre-publishing copy of the document.

South Korea last week agreed to lift restrictions on U.S. beef and, according to one U.S. government official, the country did so on the condition that the U.S. strengthen its livestock feed rules. Read More

The goal of agriculture should always be to continue improving the safety of the world’s safest food supply. The new rule should act as an additional firewall against the transmission of BSE.