A more printable version of Swine News in Adobe Acrobat.
| December, 2006 | Volume 29, Number 11 |
|
|
|
THE POLITICAL SITUATION SURROUNDING ANTIMICROBIAL USE IN AGRICULTURE
By Liz Wagstrom, DVM, MS, DACVPM
The use of antimicrobials in agriculture has been controversial for several decades. The issue has been studied by numerous committees. expert panels, agencies. organizations. and researchers. The number of reports issued by the various bodies is impressive, and the data cited within those reports is used to support differing opinions about the issue. Because the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance is complex and varies according to different microbe/compound interactions, it is difficult to talk about resistance as a whole. However; this complexity makes it difficult for the lay person to understand, and generalities about resistance often become accepted as truths. While concerns about antimicrobial resistance have existed almost since the discovery of penicillin , in the fairly recent past (10-15 years) these concerns have become more of a mainstream debate, rather than a discussion among scientists. While public health drives some of the concern, the more strident voices belong to activist groups. These groups have selected antimicrobial resistance as one avenue in their campaign to limit or abolish modern agriculture. The information developed by these organization s typically ties the issue of antibiotic use to the "factory farm " and often paints the picture of the "factory farm" as dirty. stressful, lacking in animal husbandry , and environmentally damaging.
Chronology
In 1970 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assembled a task force that issued the report "The Use of Antibiotics in Animal Feeds." That report concluded that the use of subtherapeutic antimicrobials favored selection and/or development of resistant bacteria and that animals receiving antimicrobials may serve as a reservoir of antibiotic resistant pathogens in humans. Based on the recommendations from the report , the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) began requiring microbiological safety studies for subtherapeutic uses. The first action by FDA to withdraw a label claim for subtherapeutic uses of an antibiotic was in 1977 when they proposed limiting the use of tetracyclines and penicillin in animal feeds when used alone or in combination. This action was criticized because of lack of epidemiologic evidence to show that resistant organisms of animal origin were impacting human health . These criticisms led to a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), commissioned by FDA. The study concluded that existing data had neither proved nor disproved the potential risks to human health due to subtherapeutic use of antimicrobials in animal feeds. In 1987 FDA issued another report, "Antibiotic s in Animal Feeds: An Assessment of Scientific Data Concerning Their Safety." That report concluded that due to the shorter duration of treatment and the more limited number of animals treated, therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal feeds would not significantly contribute to the frequency of resistant organisms. In 1988 the Institute of Medicine did another review of antibiotic use in animal feeds focusing on the subtherapeutic use of penicillin and tetracycline. They concluded that although there was indirect evidence implicating both subtherapeutic and therapeutic uses as a potential human health hazard, there was no direct evidence that would implicate these uses in human mortality; they urged further study of the issue. Numerous other reports domestically and internationally have been issued. Most of them raise concerns over the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics and suggest limitations of those uses in animal agriculture . The debate on uses of antibiotics in animals broadened with the action to withdraw the label for the use of ftuoroquinolones as a treatment in poultry. This action was initiated due to an increase in the number of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections reported in humans.' Since the products were used for treatment, not for improvement of nutritional efficiency, this represented an increasing scope of discussion. While this action was taken to limit therapeutic use of an antimicrobial that was available by prescription only, consumer groups and others have often represented this as proof of the hazard of subtherapeutic uses of antimicrobials.
Primary players
While each of these organizations may have their own objectives, the stated campaign principles of KAW are to:
One member of KAW is the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Its stated mission is "To promote research and to develop and communicate information about the complex interrelationships among diet, food production, environment, and human health; to advance an ecological perspective in reducing threats to the health of the public; and to promote policies that protect health, the global environment, and the ability to sustain life for future generations,"3 The Center for a Livable Future gains cred¬ibility among various audiences by the association with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. One of the center's activities has been the production of the video "The Meatrix," a cartoon depicting horrendous conditions of animal care, antibiotic abuse, and environmental contamination at a "factory farm." The center also advocates "Meatless Mondays" as well as the purchase of only locally grown seasonal foods.
Recent events
In June 2006 the Institute for Food Technologists Foundation (IFT) issued an expert report, "Antimicrobial Resistance, Implications for the Food System," compiled by an expert panel chaired by Dr. Michael Doyle, Regents Professor and Director, Center for Food Safety, University of Georgia . IFT is a 22,000-member, nonprofit, scientific and educational society. One of the report conclusions was "Eliminating antibiotic drugs from food animal production may have little positive effect on resistant bacteria that threaten human health"4. The report also acknowledges that preliminary evidence points toward, but does not prove, antimicrobial use in animals results in human health impacts. The panel encourages the responsible use of antimicrobials in food production. It also concludes, "There is evidence that there are significant human health benefits from subtherapeutic antibiotic use to prevent subclinical disease in food animals and reduce levels of Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of poultry carcasses." Efforts to pass legislation on a nation al level to limit uses of antimicrobials in food animal s have not been successful. However, there have also been activities at the state level. Recently, the state of Maine adopted a policy that, according to the Bangor Daily News, will "tell meat producers that the state prefers to buy products from animals that have not been given antibiotics for nontherapeutic purposes. It also encourages Maine school districts to engage in contracts with suppliers whose products meet that preference5." However, the policy also states that those products should be of similar price, quality, and availability.
Industry activities
Summary The issue of antimicrobial use in food animals has in many ways moved out of the arena of scientific debate, and into the arena of consumer activism. The issue often gets generalized and tied to the structure of industrial agriculture. The "factory farm" is characterized by groups opposed to intensive agriculture as dirty, stressful, lacking in adequate animal husbandry, and environmentally damaging. It is often suggested by these groups that excessive antibiotic use is required for pigs to survive in these suboptimal conditions. Antibiotic use is often viewed as size -linked, with large farms using antibiotics more often than small. References
|
