Download Antibiotics in food

Antibiotics in food
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 20, 2012
The U.S. Food and Drug Administrationonce again took timid steps last week to address
the danger posed to human health by the use of antibiotic drugs in food-animal
production.
The FDA has taken this go-slow approach to the problem for nearly four decades. In the
meantime, the agency -- caught between science and duty on one side and the crushing
political muscle of Big Farm and Big Pharma on the other -- has allowed the danger to
grow.
The problem arises from two related phenomena:
First, large-farm production of animals for human consumption now includes the
administration of low doses of antibiotics through feed and water. The dosages are too
small to treat or prevent infections, but they increase the efficiency of the feed and make
the animals bigger.
And over time, enough gets distributed throughout animal herds to foster the evolution of
bacteria strains that are resistant to treatment with the antibiotics. That puts people at
increased risk of more serious disease and death when they become infected with the
drug-resistant strains of E. coli, salmonella and other dangerous diseases.
Last week, the FDA, the federal agency responsible for drug safety and effectiveness,
announced a multi-part voluntary program to address part of the animal-antibiotic
problem.
The agency released guidance for farmers, ranchers and agricultural production
companies recommending -- but not requiring -- that they gradually stop using antibiotics
identified as important in the treatment of human diseases.
The FDA also asked drug manufacturers to voluntarily change their package labels to say
that the antibiotics should not be used to improve production but still may be used, when
recommended by a veterinarian, to prevent or treat animal disease.
Finally, the agency published the draft text of a proposed regulation aimed at helping
veterinarians accommodate their increased (voluntary) oversight responsibilities for the
use of the antibiotics.
Obviously, "voluntary" only goes so far. In addition, critics of agricultural antibiotic use
point out that the FDA created a huge loophole through which producers could continue
current dangerous practices by claiming that the drugs were needed for "preventive"
purposes.
The political pressure on the FDA is no illusion. The final order it issued in January, for
example, banning most agricultural animal uses of just one class of antibiotics -cephalosporins -- began with a rule that first was published in 2008, then withdrawn in a
storm of industry complaints, modified and reissued in softer form.
Last month, a clearly irritated federal magistrate in New York ordered the FDA to finally
complete an animal antibiotic rule-making process it began, astonishingly, in 1975.
Under considerable political pressure from Congress, the agency has since done its best
to avoid its own findings regarding overuse of penicillin and two kinds of tetracycline.
Medical infectious disease specialists note that misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture
clearly produces dangerous drug-resistant bacteria. But overprescription and overuse of
antibiotics by people, they say, is a more significant factor.
Nevertheless, there is no scientific doubt that the misuse of antibiotics in food-animal
production puts human health at increased risk. The FDA's first priority must be
protecting human health. It needs to find the courage to start taking more definitive
action.
Copyright © 2012, South Bend Tribune
sbt-20120420sbtmicha-05-03-20120420