Lawmakers Urged to Examine All Sides of Antibiotic Use
7/19/2010 9:28:58 AM
Tom Block
|
|
|
All farm uses of antibiotics improve animal health, which in turn improves human health, University of Minnesota veterinarian and epidemiologist Randal Singer said last week during a congressional hearing on antibiotic use in livestock production and antibiotic resistance in humans.
“The best way to manage antibiotic uses in animal agriculture is through sound, rational, science-based policy,” Singer told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
Legislation sponsored by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., would ban the use in livestock and poultry of antibiotics that prevent or control diseases and improve feed efficiency and weight gain.
“The scientific evidence is now strong enough to create consensus among major public health groups and experts around the world that the time has come to reduce the use of antibiotics in animals,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee.
A pair of Iowa lawmakers countered Waxman’s statement, urging lawmakers to consider the serious ramifications of the proposed legislation.
Iowa First District Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said that there are production concerns with restricting the drugs.
“There is still significant disagreement in some sectors about the specific relationship between the use of antibiotics in feed products and how that affects antibiotic resistance in humans,” Braley said. “Rather than come to conclusions based upon ideology, I think we need to look through the entire body of research available.”
Witnesses at the congressional hearing, testifying in favor of such a ban, cited the results of a 1998 ban in Denmark on antibiotic growth promoters and preventatives as a model to follow.
However, Iowa 3rd District Rep. Leonard Boswell said in a statement that lawmakers must consider all of the science instead of drawing conclusions from one or two studies.
“What the proponents never seem to discuss are the other effects of that ban,” said Boswell. “While overall use of antibiotics in Denmark declined, there has been a marked increase in the therapeutic use of antibiotics. Today, the use of therapeutic antibiotics in Danish pigs now surpasses what was used to prevent disease and promote growth prior to the ban.”
A ban similar to Denmark’s would raise the cost of production by $6 per pig in the first year after such a prohibition, Boswell said, citing a 2009 Iowa State University study.
The government’s own experts have sent mixed messages regarding the science of antibiotic resistance.
As recently as April, the top scientists for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health testified that there is no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food-animal production with antibiotic resistance in humans.
However, at last week’s hearing, the CDC said, “Multiple studies about the Danish experience have demonstrated the link between non-therapeutic use of antimicrobial agents in food-producing animals, particularly swine and broiler chickens, and antimicrobial resistance.”
John Clifford, the Agriculture Department’s chief veterinarian, said the department is looking for opportunities to reduce usage of medically important antibiotics in livestock production.
“The USDA believes that it is likely that the use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of antimicrobial resistance among humans and in animals themselves,” Clifford testified.
| Comments: (disabled) |
|
|