January 4, 2007

Study shows growth-promoting antibiotics do not bring economic benefits

Using growth-promoting antibiotics in chicken feed costs more for poultry producers, according to an economic study published by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

Using data from poultry giant Perdue, the study found that the benefit of slightly accelerated chicken growth do not outweigh the cost of the antibiotics itself.

The study is in line with a 2002 study by Kansas State University that the use of growth-promoting antibiotics provided no economic benefits during the "finishing" stage of hog production.

The fact that in today's poultry operations, growth promoting antibiotics do not even reduce costs just strengthens the case for eliminating its use, Richard Wood, Steering Committee Chair of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition (KAW) said. 

Although medical and public health experts have linked the use of growth promoting antibiotics (GPAs) as the cause of antibiotic-resistant infections, agricultural and pharmaceutical interests have defended the practice by arguing that GPAs are needed for efficient farm production.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the US, nearly 25 million pounds annually, are used as feed additives for chicken, hogs, and beef cattle.

Large poultry producers such as Perdue, Tyson, Gold Kist, and Foster Farms said they no longer use antibiotics to promote growth. While companies such as McDonald's and Compass Group, one of the largest contract food service companies in North America, have prohibited the purchase of certain meats if the animals were given antibiotics important in human medicine to accelerate growth.

In the US, legislation is on the way to phase out the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine as animal feed additives within two years. The bill was endorsed by American Medical Association and more than 350 health, agriculture and other groups.