History repeats itself
2009 closed much as it began, at least as far as trying to
limit what can go into feed in the US is concerned.
December saw the Center for Food Safety
(CFS), a group that seeks to curb the “use
of harmful food production technologies”,
and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy file a petition with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) calling for the immediate
withdrawal of approvals for all animal drug
applications for arsenic compounds used
in animal feed.
The call follows the announcement from
US Representative Steve Israel of legislation
calling for a ban on the use of the arsenical
compound roxarsone in poultry feed. The
bill, the “Poison-Free Poultry Act 2009”, has
been applauded by the two groups, but they
maintain that it does not go far enough. Their
petition not only calls for a ban on roxarsone,
but also on Arsanilic acid, Nitarsone, and
Carbarsone.
It was back in March that
Representative Louise M Slaughter introduced the “Preservation of Antibiotics for
Medical Treatment Act” (PAMTA) into the
US House of Representatives, designed to
phase out the non-therapeutic use in livestock of medically important antibiotics.
She said: “My legislation will limit the
use of antibiotics on our livestock to en-
sure that we are not inadvertently creating
antibiotic–resistant disease that we can’t
fight with modern medicine.”
She continued: “Unfortunately, over
the past several years, the widespread
practice of using antibiotics to promote
livestock growth and compensate for un-
sanitary, crowded conditions has led to the
emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of
bacteria and other germs, rendering many
of our most powerful drugs ineffective.
“The practice of over-using antibiotics
in animal feed is certainly contributing to
the rise of antibiotic bacteria.”
Sound science?
Of course, there are two sides to every
argument. The Coalition for Animal Health,
a grouping of veterinarians, animal production and feed associations, wrote to
the House of Representatives asking that
PAMTA be resisted.
They argued that numerous risk assessments, including one conducted by
the FDA, had shown that risk levels associated with antibiotic use in agriculture
are extremely low. In fact, they said, other
nationally-recognised scientific studies had
shown that the removal of such medicines
could actually increase food safety risks.
the quantity of antibiotics administered
therapeutically rose by 135% between
1996 and 2005. Resistance to some antibiotics decreased in animals, while to others it rose. The Coalition added that there
was little evidence to suggest that resistance in humans had declined, which was
the purpose of the ban.
US veterinary medicine association,
the Animal Health Institute (AHI), notes
that several layers of protection have
been put in place to ensure that antibiotics are used to keep animals healthy
without harm to public health. While it is
possible that antibiotic-resistant bacteria
can develop as a direct result of antibiotic
use and can cause resistant infections in
humans via food, the Institute says, it is
highly improbable.
Decisions made without careful risk assessment
can backfire and harm human health
They continued that when Europe
removed some uses of antibiotics, the
result was devastating to animal health. In
response to the increase in disease and
death among farm animals, producers had
to administer an even greater amount of
antibiotics therapeutically.
The Coalition has supplied material
from the Danish government showing that
since the ban on in-feed use, while total
use fell by 30% between 1997 and 2005,
The AHI adds that political decisions
made without careful risk assessment
can backfire and harm human health.
Emerging evidence documents the un-
intended consequences that can result
when policy decisions about antibiotics
use are not driven by science and risk as-
sessment. Studies indicate that the risk
of food borne bacteria on meat increases
when antibiotics that help suppress animal
diseases are removed.
