Cutting back on antibiotics use poses hurdles for hog farmers
BY PHILIP BRASHER • PBRASHER@DMREG.COM • AUGUST 22, 2010
State Center, Ia. - The Obama administration would like to see more hog farmers raising hogs the way the Hilleman brothers do - using fewer antibiotics.
But raising hogs with fewer antibiotics has its challenges, the brothers say. One big one: Some of the black Berkshire hogs grunting and rooting around the Hillemans' barns are likely to get sick and die before they're ready for market. That's because it's sometimes impractical to treat them, the brothers say.
Randy, Mark and Tom Hilleman raise the hogs for a local cooperative, Eden Farms, that markets Berkshire pork to high-end restaurants.
Farmers who raise Eden Farms pork earn a premium price for the pigs, because the Berkshires are valued by chefs at high-end restaurants because of the hogs' fatter, darker meat.
But farmers who supply Eden Farms cannot use antibiotics for growth promotion, a common practice on conventional farms, and they cannot use the drugs at all if the hogs are within 100 days - more than three months - of going to slaughter.
If a sick pig doesn't get better on its own, it's likely to get a shot of an antibiotic, unless the animal is under the 100-day drug ban. If the hogs are given antibiotics then, they can only be sold as conventional hogs, and that means keeping a treated animal in a separate pen or marking it in some way to make sure it wasn't mixed with the hogs that will be marketed under the Eden Farms label. But the Hillemans say it's impractical for them to treat the pigs and handle them separately. For every 100 hogs they raise, the brothers figure that two or three die of pneumonia or some other illness. The Hillemans send about 100 to 150 hogs to market each week. Read More
When we hear people outside of ag demanding antibiotics be limited or banned for use in livestock, they rarely seem aware of the consequences of those demands. The bottom line is more livestock will suffer through disease or die as a result. Regardless of production method, all livestock will be more prone to disease, suffer more because of it, and put more pressure on our food production system. There will always be ways we can improve our use of these tools, but making demands of livestock producers without changes in other antibiotic uses will only contribute to the unnecessary suffering of livestock.
Showing posts with label antibiotic resistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antibiotic resistance. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Antibiotics In Ag Essential
Antibiotics in agriculture are essential for animal and human health
By Peter Silley, professor of applied microbiology at the University of Bradford - 07/13/10 02:06 PM ET
Antibiotic resistance is a significant global public-health challenge that has created an emotional public response among critics, public-health experts, and animal-health advocates. It involves debate over antibiotic use in both humans and animals, and demands improved monitoring and surveillance, more research and, ultimately, the development of a range of tools that will help reduce reliance on antibiotics. This week’s Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, “Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,” will further examine how these products are used in agriculture and their impact on human health.
The emotional rhetoric surrounding this issue has resulted in knee-jerk legislative proposals to ban certain uses of antibiotics. Blunt policy instruments could be harmful when dealing with such a critical and complicated issue. It is easy to point fingers and suggest that eliminating some uses in animals would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. But it is important to act on specific, data-driven evidence. Simple widespread bans on certain uses — including those in animals — would be detrimental to animal health and, more importantly, human health.
If we are to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we need careful, data-driven understanding of the sources and causes of that spread. Antibiotic resistance is a collection of specific problems, or specific pathogens resistant to particular drugs. Specific bacterial/drug combinations, or “bug-drug combos,” must be considered separately from other combinations.
Scientific risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by private researchers demonstrate that none of these three bacterial/drug combinations are related to the use of antibiotics in animals. Read More
Healthy livestock are essential for safe and healthy food. But as usual, the anti-animal agriculture groups are using this debate to further their agenda. It’s clear that in order to make any meaningful reform of antibiotic use, the human side must be addressed first. A perfect example would be how antibiotics are distributed in other parts of the world. In some countries you can buy them right over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They are greatly misused in the US as well by the over-prescribing doctors and the careless patients who fail to follow directions. In the livestock industry you will never see them being used incorrectly. It costs too much money and is too important to the health of the livestock for that to happen. No one who is advocating for antibiotic use changes in livestock only can be taken seriously. ~Troy
By Peter Silley, professor of applied microbiology at the University of Bradford - 07/13/10 02:06 PM ET
Antibiotic resistance is a significant global public-health challenge that has created an emotional public response among critics, public-health experts, and animal-health advocates. It involves debate over antibiotic use in both humans and animals, and demands improved monitoring and surveillance, more research and, ultimately, the development of a range of tools that will help reduce reliance on antibiotics. This week’s Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, “Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,” will further examine how these products are used in agriculture and their impact on human health.
The emotional rhetoric surrounding this issue has resulted in knee-jerk legislative proposals to ban certain uses of antibiotics. Blunt policy instruments could be harmful when dealing with such a critical and complicated issue. It is easy to point fingers and suggest that eliminating some uses in animals would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. But it is important to act on specific, data-driven evidence. Simple widespread bans on certain uses — including those in animals — would be detrimental to animal health and, more importantly, human health.
If we are to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we need careful, data-driven understanding of the sources and causes of that spread. Antibiotic resistance is a collection of specific problems, or specific pathogens resistant to particular drugs. Specific bacterial/drug combinations, or “bug-drug combos,” must be considered separately from other combinations.
Scientific risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by private researchers demonstrate that none of these three bacterial/drug combinations are related to the use of antibiotics in animals. Read More
Healthy livestock are essential for safe and healthy food. But as usual, the anti-animal agriculture groups are using this debate to further their agenda. It’s clear that in order to make any meaningful reform of antibiotic use, the human side must be addressed first. A perfect example would be how antibiotics are distributed in other parts of the world. In some countries you can buy them right over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They are greatly misused in the US as well by the over-prescribing doctors and the careless patients who fail to follow directions. In the livestock industry you will never see them being used incorrectly. It costs too much money and is too important to the health of the livestock for that to happen. No one who is advocating for antibiotic use changes in livestock only can be taken seriously. ~Troy
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Trent Loos Interviews Dr. Scott Hurd
To learn more about antibiotic use in livestock let's hear from an expert on the subject, Dr. Scott Hurd.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Congress Learns About Livestock Antibiotic Use
AVMA Briefs Congress On Importance Of Antibiotics
TheCattleSite.com
US - The nation's largest veterinary association briefed Congress yesterday (29 March) on the uses of antibiotics and how they help protect animal health, providing in-depth scientific information on the necessity of antibiotic use for preventing and treating disease in companion animals and livestock.
Two educational sessions were held by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) with honorary hosts Representative Kurt Schrader, DVM, (Oregon) and Senator John Ensign, DVM, (Nevada), the only veterinarians serving in Congress. The discussions allowed congressional staffers to learn about when and how veterinarians utilise antibiotics to keep both food supply animals and household pets disease-free.
Speaking at the briefings as an expert in livestock medicine, Dr Lloyd Keck, a worldwide animal health consultant to the poultry industry and former AVMA Congressional Science Fellow, dispelled arguments related to human antibiotic-resistance risks.
Dr Keck said: "Antibiotics are necessary for veterinarians to protect the health and well-being of animals. Benefits to animals and people outweigh the current risk associated with bacterial resistance. Going forward, we need to let good sense and good science guide this issue." Read More
For those who raise livestock, keeping them healthy is your job. Restricting the use of antibiotics would prevent them from doing that job. The idea that you should let animal get really sick before you could start treating them flies in the face of good animal husbandry. Not only that but keeping our livestock healthy is also an important step in keeping ourselves healthy.
TheCattleSite.com
US - The nation's largest veterinary association briefed Congress yesterday (29 March) on the uses of antibiotics and how they help protect animal health, providing in-depth scientific information on the necessity of antibiotic use for preventing and treating disease in companion animals and livestock.
Two educational sessions were held by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) with honorary hosts Representative Kurt Schrader, DVM, (Oregon) and Senator John Ensign, DVM, (Nevada), the only veterinarians serving in Congress. The discussions allowed congressional staffers to learn about when and how veterinarians utilise antibiotics to keep both food supply animals and household pets disease-free.
Speaking at the briefings as an expert in livestock medicine, Dr Lloyd Keck, a worldwide animal health consultant to the poultry industry and former AVMA Congressional Science Fellow, dispelled arguments related to human antibiotic-resistance risks.
Dr Keck said: "Antibiotics are necessary for veterinarians to protect the health and well-being of animals. Benefits to animals and people outweigh the current risk associated with bacterial resistance. Going forward, we need to let good sense and good science guide this issue." Read More
For those who raise livestock, keeping them healthy is your job. Restricting the use of antibiotics would prevent them from doing that job. The idea that you should let animal get really sick before you could start treating them flies in the face of good animal husbandry. Not only that but keeping our livestock healthy is also an important step in keeping ourselves healthy.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Couric Was Short on Facts
Antibiotic Report Short on Facts, Long on Speculation
Marlys Miller Thursday, February 11, 2010
Pork Magazine
"Like many stories on this issue, it was rather short on facts and science and long on speculation," says Richard Carnevale, DVM, and vice president of the Animal Health Institute, about this week's CBS Evening News report on antibiotic use in animal agriculture and potential antibiotic resistance.
"Bacteria do not fly through the air and cause human infection, despite what the PEW spokesperson claimed in the story," he adds. "And, antibiotics are not simply used to produce cheap meat; they are used with at-risk animals to prevent disease, which is far more humane than waiting for them to get sick."
Among the plethora of misleading information was the failure to illustrate that all antibiotics used in animal agriculture are approved by the Food and Drug Administration and that the potential for residues and bacterial resistance are monitored and measured repeatedly throughout the food production and processing chain. "FDA has a very rigorous approval process," Carnevale says, and all of the products "are subject to follow-up surveillance to assure they're being used properly. The agency operates under a strict risk-assessment paradigm." As a matter of fact, FDA is the lead entity of international risk-assessment guidelines.
The CBS story failed to put into perspective the actual risk to consumers from resistant bacteria, he contends. "The CBS story focused on MRSA, which is a problem in humans, but failed to note that MRSA found in animals is not the same strain responsible for human infections," Carnevale notes. In fact last year, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention sent a letter to Congress stating that food animals have not been identified as risk factors and that MRSA is not acquired through eating or handling meat. More specifically, CDC’s surveillance division reports that of the 10,000 MRSA investigated cases, none have been associated with animals. Read More
As more professionals have had more time to break down the piece about antibiotics by Katie Couric, more inaccuracies and half truths are being revealed. The information in this article is important for livestock producers to share with friends, neighbors and consumers. This serves as an important reminder for everyone that no one else is going to accurately explain what happens on our family farms and ranches. If we want it done right then we need to be actively doing it ourselves. Obviously Couric wasn’t interested in sharing the whole story with her viewers
Marlys Miller Thursday, February 11, 2010
Pork Magazine
"Like many stories on this issue, it was rather short on facts and science and long on speculation," says Richard Carnevale, DVM, and vice president of the Animal Health Institute, about this week's CBS Evening News report on antibiotic use in animal agriculture and potential antibiotic resistance.
"Bacteria do not fly through the air and cause human infection, despite what the PEW spokesperson claimed in the story," he adds. "And, antibiotics are not simply used to produce cheap meat; they are used with at-risk animals to prevent disease, which is far more humane than waiting for them to get sick."
Among the plethora of misleading information was the failure to illustrate that all antibiotics used in animal agriculture are approved by the Food and Drug Administration and that the potential for residues and bacterial resistance are monitored and measured repeatedly throughout the food production and processing chain. "FDA has a very rigorous approval process," Carnevale says, and all of the products "are subject to follow-up surveillance to assure they're being used properly. The agency operates under a strict risk-assessment paradigm." As a matter of fact, FDA is the lead entity of international risk-assessment guidelines.
The CBS story failed to put into perspective the actual risk to consumers from resistant bacteria, he contends. "The CBS story focused on MRSA, which is a problem in humans, but failed to note that MRSA found in animals is not the same strain responsible for human infections," Carnevale notes. In fact last year, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention sent a letter to Congress stating that food animals have not been identified as risk factors and that MRSA is not acquired through eating or handling meat. More specifically, CDC’s surveillance division reports that of the 10,000 MRSA investigated cases, none have been associated with animals. Read More
As more professionals have had more time to break down the piece about antibiotics by Katie Couric, more inaccuracies and half truths are being revealed. The information in this article is important for livestock producers to share with friends, neighbors and consumers. This serves as an important reminder for everyone that no one else is going to accurately explain what happens on our family farms and ranches. If we want it done right then we need to be actively doing it ourselves. Obviously Couric wasn’t interested in sharing the whole story with her viewers
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Katie Couric's Report, Part 2
Pork Industry Strives to Set the Record Straight in Wake of CBS Story
FarmFutures.com
2/11/10
A two-part report aired on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric focused on antimicrobial use in food animal production and it got the attention of the agriculture industry.
Among other things, the report suggests antibiotic use in livestock is leading to more resistance in humans, a trend Dr. Jen Greiner says isn't supported by the science.
"We're just not seeing those trends," Greiner said. "Our producers are working on using antibiotics responsibly on farms each and everyday."
Greiner is Director of Science and Technology for the National Pork Producers Council. She notes Denmark placed a ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the late 1990s, and while CBS called it a great success story, Greiner says that's just not the case.
"When you go to Denmark and talk to producers in that country they will tell you that banning antibiotic growth promoters not only created more pig deaths and caused their pigs to suffer, but also it didn't have a positive public health outcome," Greiner said.
Greiner says that legislation that has been introduced in the House would not only ban antibiotic growth promoters but would also ban antibiotics for preventing disease as well as controlling disease. Meaning producers would only have the ability to treat a clinically sick animal. Greiner says that would be an unmitigated disaster for the industry and ultimately impact consumers.
Read More
In a classic example of one-sided reporting, Katie Couric told her audience last night that there are no reasons good reasons to use antibiotics in livestock. She said the only reason that it was being done in factory farms in this country was to make more money. Increasing the level of sickness and death in our livestock herd doesn’t sound like a great idea to me. All of us are concerned about keeping antibiotics effective, which is why strict usage guidelines are followed. While Couric had the opportunity to tell the whole story of antibiotic use and how that affects livestock health and food safety, she chose not to.
FarmFutures.com
2/11/10
A two-part report aired on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric focused on antimicrobial use in food animal production and it got the attention of the agriculture industry.
Among other things, the report suggests antibiotic use in livestock is leading to more resistance in humans, a trend Dr. Jen Greiner says isn't supported by the science.
"We're just not seeing those trends," Greiner said. "Our producers are working on using antibiotics responsibly on farms each and everyday."
Greiner is Director of Science and Technology for the National Pork Producers Council. She notes Denmark placed a ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the late 1990s, and while CBS called it a great success story, Greiner says that's just not the case.
"When you go to Denmark and talk to producers in that country they will tell you that banning antibiotic growth promoters not only created more pig deaths and caused their pigs to suffer, but also it didn't have a positive public health outcome," Greiner said.
Greiner says that legislation that has been introduced in the House would not only ban antibiotic growth promoters but would also ban antibiotics for preventing disease as well as controlling disease. Meaning producers would only have the ability to treat a clinically sick animal. Greiner says that would be an unmitigated disaster for the industry and ultimately impact consumers.
Read More
In a classic example of one-sided reporting, Katie Couric told her audience last night that there are no reasons good reasons to use antibiotics in livestock. She said the only reason that it was being done in factory farms in this country was to make more money. Increasing the level of sickness and death in our livestock herd doesn’t sound like a great idea to me. All of us are concerned about keeping antibiotics effective, which is why strict usage guidelines are followed. While Couric had the opportunity to tell the whole story of antibiotic use and how that affects livestock health and food safety, she chose not to.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Couric's Antibiotic Piece Part 1
Katie Couric's 3-minute “Factory Farm” Barrage
By Dairy Herd Management staff Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Editors Note: Dairy Herd Management is a sister publication of Pork.
The fact that she used the term “factory farm” or “factory farming” five times in a three-minute period probably showed her bias.
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric left the confines of her New York City TV studio to visit an Iowa hog farm and ask some questions related to antibiotic use in livestock — and whether such use could be contributing to drug-resistant bacteria. The first of a two-part series aired Tuesday night.
Here’s an exchange between Couric and Liz Wagstrom, DVM, vice president, science and technology, National Pork Board:
Couric: “Some people say giving animals antibiotics to prevent illiness or promote growth is like putting antibiotics in a child’s cereal. You know, save them so they’ll work when they’re really needed.”
Wagstrom: “I’d say that we do strategically place them. It’s not an all day, every pig gets antibiotics every day of its life.
Couric: “So you don’t think they’re being overused by farmers anywhere in this country?”
Wagstrom: “The vast majority of producers use them appropriately.”
Couric also interviewed some poultry plant or hatchery workers in Arkansas who reportedly became infected with methicillin-resistant staph or MRSA. In the case of one worker, doctors had to try several drugs that usually work on this type of infection before finding one that saved his life.
“Public-health officials are concerned,” she reported. “If workers who handle animals are getting sick, what about the rest of us? Drug-resistant infections have skyrocketed over the past two decades, killing an estimated 70,000 Americans last year alone. It’s an emerging health crisis that scientists say is caused not only by the overuse of antibiotics in humans, but in livestock as well,” she said.
See the entire broadcast. The broadcast runs 7 minutes, 37 seconds. There is one three-minute stretch where Couric makes five references to "factory farms" or "factory farming."
Tonight (Feb. 10), CBS Evening News will air part two. It will reportedly focus on Denmark and what happened to farmers, livestock and people in that country when the use of antibiotics "in healthy farm animals" was banned. Link
It seemed that Couric made a very conscious effort to paint the picture that only faceless “factory farms” use antibiotics. The reason this was done is because she knows that it’s popular to attack so-called factory farms, but not family farms, even though the two are one in the same most of the time. She also ignored much of the real science that is available on this subject in favor of personal opinion and lay person expertise. After tonight’s portion, we will be get the full picture of what this report is saying, but unfortunately I think I already know.
By Dairy Herd Management staff Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Editors Note: Dairy Herd Management is a sister publication of Pork.
The fact that she used the term “factory farm” or “factory farming” five times in a three-minute period probably showed her bias.
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric left the confines of her New York City TV studio to visit an Iowa hog farm and ask some questions related to antibiotic use in livestock — and whether such use could be contributing to drug-resistant bacteria. The first of a two-part series aired Tuesday night.
Here’s an exchange between Couric and Liz Wagstrom, DVM, vice president, science and technology, National Pork Board:
Couric: “Some people say giving animals antibiotics to prevent illiness or promote growth is like putting antibiotics in a child’s cereal. You know, save them so they’ll work when they’re really needed.”
Wagstrom: “I’d say that we do strategically place them. It’s not an all day, every pig gets antibiotics every day of its life.
Couric: “So you don’t think they’re being overused by farmers anywhere in this country?”
Wagstrom: “The vast majority of producers use them appropriately.”
Couric also interviewed some poultry plant or hatchery workers in Arkansas who reportedly became infected with methicillin-resistant staph or MRSA. In the case of one worker, doctors had to try several drugs that usually work on this type of infection before finding one that saved his life.
“Public-health officials are concerned,” she reported. “If workers who handle animals are getting sick, what about the rest of us? Drug-resistant infections have skyrocketed over the past two decades, killing an estimated 70,000 Americans last year alone. It’s an emerging health crisis that scientists say is caused not only by the overuse of antibiotics in humans, but in livestock as well,” she said.
See the entire broadcast. The broadcast runs 7 minutes, 37 seconds. There is one three-minute stretch where Couric makes five references to "factory farms" or "factory farming."
Tonight (Feb. 10), CBS Evening News will air part two. It will reportedly focus on Denmark and what happened to farmers, livestock and people in that country when the use of antibiotics "in healthy farm animals" was banned. Link
It seemed that Couric made a very conscious effort to paint the picture that only faceless “factory farms” use antibiotics. The reason this was done is because she knows that it’s popular to attack so-called factory farms, but not family farms, even though the two are one in the same most of the time. She also ignored much of the real science that is available on this subject in favor of personal opinion and lay person expertise. After tonight’s portion, we will be get the full picture of what this report is saying, but unfortunately I think I already know.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Katie Couric's Report on Antibiotic Use in Livestock
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Tonight will begin the two part series on CBS News about antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately by the looks of the preview, Katie is going to be more interested being an activist rather than a journalist. Just count how many times she uses the undefineable term "factory farm" in this preview.
I am very concerned about "superbugs" and antibiotic resistance, just like everyone else. However, attacking one area of usage, mostly the low hanging fruit, will not help. All of us use products that are designed to kill bacteria every single day. If we want to have a serious discussion about antibiotic resistance, we are going to need to evaluate everything. I will be disappointed if Katie doesn't address that.
This should open up many opportunities for family farmers and ranchers to explain how and why they use antibiotics. Their is a big misconception that all livestock are fed antibiotics all the time. The phrase most commonly used is "they are pumped full of antibiotics". They are just too expensive to do such a thing. I don't know who she refers to everytime she talks about a factory farm, but everyone that I know who raises livestock tries to give them the very best care possible.
That's the story I am looking forward to sharing with people.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Farmers Know Best
Farmers, not bureaucrats, know best (Rep. Steve King)
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Antibiotic Story More Opinion Than Fact
US Ag alliance not happy with antibiotic review
12 Jan 2010
www.vetsweb.com
The Animal Agriculture Alliance in the US is offended by the unbalanced claims in the widespread Associated Press article entitled "Pressure Rises to Stop Antibiotics in Agriculture".
Released on Dec. 29, the story (437 initial pages in Google) was the third installment of a five-part series about antibiotic resistance in the United States. Unfortunately, AAA says, the authors did not offer a balanced analysis of the complex issue, instead relying on biased sources to portray America's food producers in a negative light. “Antibiotics are a judiciously-used tool employed by farmers and ranchers with veterinarian oversight to further their goal of raising healthy animals,” AAA says in a press release.
"America's farmers, ranchers and veterinarians are committed to ensuring the health of their animals and the safety of their products," said Kay Johnson Smith, Alliance Executive Vice President. "Antibiotic use in agriculture is carefully monitored to provide a healthy, plentiful food supply for all."
Opinion blurs factsThe AP article dangerously blurs the line between opinion and fact. Although the authors quote an unsubstantiated estimate that 70% of the antibiotics used in the US are administered to livestock, they fail to acknowledge that nearly half of the total estimated amount is made up of ionophores and other compounds not used in human medicine that do not impact human resistance.
The article also inaccurately suggests that animal feed is constantly "laced" with antibiotics. In reality, each antibiotic is administered according to the specifications of a US Food and Drug Administration-approved label that clearly indicates the number of doses and duration of use.
Read More
In the recent tradition of mainstream media, The AP article about antibiotics was more concerned with sharing opinions than facts. The ability to keep our livestock healthy shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s comical to hear that feeding antibiotics to livestock just covers for poor management. A statement like that displays an incredible lack of understanding for how and why they are used. That’s like saying the parent of any child who’s been given antibiotics is a bad parent. The reason farmers and ranchers are concerned about keeping the ability to use antibiotics in livestock is because they care. Raising healthy animals is our top priority and the thought of losing an important tool like this due to hype and opinion is frustrating to say the least. ~Troy
12 Jan 2010
www.vetsweb.com
The Animal Agriculture Alliance in the US is offended by the unbalanced claims in the widespread Associated Press article entitled "Pressure Rises to Stop Antibiotics in Agriculture".
Released on Dec. 29, the story (437 initial pages in Google) was the third installment of a five-part series about antibiotic resistance in the United States. Unfortunately, AAA says, the authors did not offer a balanced analysis of the complex issue, instead relying on biased sources to portray America's food producers in a negative light. “Antibiotics are a judiciously-used tool employed by farmers and ranchers with veterinarian oversight to further their goal of raising healthy animals,” AAA says in a press release.
"America's farmers, ranchers and veterinarians are committed to ensuring the health of their animals and the safety of their products," said Kay Johnson Smith, Alliance Executive Vice President. "Antibiotic use in agriculture is carefully monitored to provide a healthy, plentiful food supply for all."
Opinion blurs factsThe AP article dangerously blurs the line between opinion and fact. Although the authors quote an unsubstantiated estimate that 70% of the antibiotics used in the US are administered to livestock, they fail to acknowledge that nearly half of the total estimated amount is made up of ionophores and other compounds not used in human medicine that do not impact human resistance.
The article also inaccurately suggests that animal feed is constantly "laced" with antibiotics. In reality, each antibiotic is administered according to the specifications of a US Food and Drug Administration-approved label that clearly indicates the number of doses and duration of use.
Read More
In the recent tradition of mainstream media, The AP article about antibiotics was more concerned with sharing opinions than facts. The ability to keep our livestock healthy shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s comical to hear that feeding antibiotics to livestock just covers for poor management. A statement like that displays an incredible lack of understanding for how and why they are used. That’s like saying the parent of any child who’s been given antibiotics is a bad parent. The reason farmers and ranchers are concerned about keeping the ability to use antibiotics in livestock is because they care. Raising healthy animals is our top priority and the thought of losing an important tool like this due to hype and opinion is frustrating to say the least. ~Troy
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Antibiotic Article Gets Facts Wrong
Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture; animals fed 70 percent of US antibiotics
By: MARGIE MASON AND MARTHA MENDOZA Associated Press12/29/09 12:19 AM EST
FRANKENSTEIN, MO. — The mystery started the day farmer Russ Kremer got between a jealous boar and a sow in heat.
The boar gored Kremer in the knee with a razor-sharp tusk. The burly pig farmer shrugged it off, figuring: "You pour the blood out of your boot and go on."
But Kremer's red-hot leg ballooned to double its size. A strep infection spread, threatening his life and baffling doctors. Two months of multiple antibiotics did virtually nothing.
The answer was flowing in the veins of the boar. The animal had been fed low doses of penicillin, spawning a strain of strep that was resistant to other antibiotics. That drug-resistant germ passed to Kremer.
Like Kremer, more and more Americans — many of them living far from barns and pastures — are at risk from the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics. These animals grow faster, but they can also develop drug-resistant infections that are passed on to people. The issue is now gaining attention because of interest from a new White House administration and a flurry of new research tying antibiotic use in animals to drug resistance in people.
Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year — more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs — 28 million pounds — went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent. Read More
Efforts to restrict the ability to use antibiotics as an animal health tool have been going on for awhile now. As with many news article lately, this one didn’t stand up to the first “fact-check” I did. According to the story, there were 65,000 deaths from drug-resistant infections. We have no idea where this number came from since the reporters didn’t tell us. They claim that’s more deaths than breast and prostate cancer combined. But one trip to the American Cancer Society website proved that wrong. So what else in this article is wrong? Was this done to make the story more dramatic? I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I continue to be amazed at the lack of integrity and professionalism of some journalists.
Along with that, to claim that it's all the fault of agriculture is insane. Any plan to regulate the use of antibiotics would need to address how humans regularly abuse the drugs.
By: MARGIE MASON AND MARTHA MENDOZA Associated Press12/29/09 12:19 AM EST
FRANKENSTEIN, MO. — The mystery started the day farmer Russ Kremer got between a jealous boar and a sow in heat.
The boar gored Kremer in the knee with a razor-sharp tusk. The burly pig farmer shrugged it off, figuring: "You pour the blood out of your boot and go on."
But Kremer's red-hot leg ballooned to double its size. A strep infection spread, threatening his life and baffling doctors. Two months of multiple antibiotics did virtually nothing.
The answer was flowing in the veins of the boar. The animal had been fed low doses of penicillin, spawning a strain of strep that was resistant to other antibiotics. That drug-resistant germ passed to Kremer.
Like Kremer, more and more Americans — many of them living far from barns and pastures — are at risk from the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics. These animals grow faster, but they can also develop drug-resistant infections that are passed on to people. The issue is now gaining attention because of interest from a new White House administration and a flurry of new research tying antibiotic use in animals to drug resistance in people.
Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year — more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs — 28 million pounds — went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent. Read More
Efforts to restrict the ability to use antibiotics as an animal health tool have been going on for awhile now. As with many news article lately, this one didn’t stand up to the first “fact-check” I did. According to the story, there were 65,000 deaths from drug-resistant infections. We have no idea where this number came from since the reporters didn’t tell us. They claim that’s more deaths than breast and prostate cancer combined. But one trip to the American Cancer Society website proved that wrong. So what else in this article is wrong? Was this done to make the story more dramatic? I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I continue to be amazed at the lack of integrity and professionalism of some journalists.
Along with that, to claim that it's all the fault of agriculture is insane. Any plan to regulate the use of antibiotics would need to address how humans regularly abuse the drugs.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Complete Picture of Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotic Resistance: A Complete Picture
By Pork news staff Monday, November 30, 2009
It’s almost popular to point to antibiotic use in animal agriculture as the primary driver behind the antibiotic resistance phenomenon, but that’s falling short of the complete picture. According to a report by the American Academy of Microbiology, the causes of antibiotic resistance are varied and complex.
Suggesting that antibiotic resistance occurs mainly as a result of antibiotic abuse or misuse doesn’t accurately portray the complete picture. In a report called “Antibiotic Resistance: An Ecological Perspective on an Old Problem,” AAM indicates that even appropriate antibiotic use can contribute to the spread of resistance, underscoring the complexity of explaining its causes and the error in focusing on any one area.
According to the report, “There are no scapegoats.” The report is based on a colloquium that AAM brought together in October 2008.
“Responsibility is partly due to medical practice, including patient demand; veterinary practice; industrial practices; politics; and the antibiotics themselves. Ultimately, resistance development is founded in the inevitability of microbial evolution,” the report states.
It also states that antibiotic resistance is essentially uncontrollable. “Antibiotic resistance is an international pandemic that compromises the treatment of all infectious diseases,” it outlines.
LINK
When it comes to the discussion of antibiotic resistance, the low hanging fruit to attack is the use of antibiotics in livestock. For most of my life, anytime I have seen a situation like this where one particular use of a product is being singled out as the “problem”, it’s never worked out that way. And that’s what this report is confirming for us. It’s not just the fact that the farmers and ranchers use antibiotics for animal health, it’s every way that antibiotics have been used that is contributing to this emerging problem.
By Pork news staff Monday, November 30, 2009
It’s almost popular to point to antibiotic use in animal agriculture as the primary driver behind the antibiotic resistance phenomenon, but that’s falling short of the complete picture. According to a report by the American Academy of Microbiology, the causes of antibiotic resistance are varied and complex.
Suggesting that antibiotic resistance occurs mainly as a result of antibiotic abuse or misuse doesn’t accurately portray the complete picture. In a report called “Antibiotic Resistance: An Ecological Perspective on an Old Problem,” AAM indicates that even appropriate antibiotic use can contribute to the spread of resistance, underscoring the complexity of explaining its causes and the error in focusing on any one area.
According to the report, “There are no scapegoats.” The report is based on a colloquium that AAM brought together in October 2008.
“Responsibility is partly due to medical practice, including patient demand; veterinary practice; industrial practices; politics; and the antibiotics themselves. Ultimately, resistance development is founded in the inevitability of microbial evolution,” the report states.
It also states that antibiotic resistance is essentially uncontrollable. “Antibiotic resistance is an international pandemic that compromises the treatment of all infectious diseases,” it outlines.
LINK
When it comes to the discussion of antibiotic resistance, the low hanging fruit to attack is the use of antibiotics in livestock. For most of my life, anytime I have seen a situation like this where one particular use of a product is being singled out as the “problem”, it’s never worked out that way. And that’s what this report is confirming for us. It’s not just the fact that the farmers and ranchers use antibiotics for animal health, it’s every way that antibiotics have been used that is contributing to this emerging problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)