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The bill comes as the House on Wednesday repealed a provision of the 2012 agriculture spending bill that aimed to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from similarly restricting antibiotic use in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