April 13, 2012

 

Feed supplier cautions use of antibiotics in farm animals

Giving antibiotics to cattle when not needed does nothing to help the animals, according to Joel Petrus,  a farmer & president of Petrus Feed & Seed in Alexandria, who loves his cattle enough to see that they get medical attention but only when they are sick.

 

He wasn't shocked to learn that the Food and Drug Administration called on drug companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals, a decades-old practice that scientists say has contributed to a surge in dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria.

 

"There needs to be some limitations, but I don't think getting rid of antibiotics for cattle and farm animals is the answer," he said. "This all started because people have been misusing the antibiotics. I only give my cattle antibiotics, like a penicillin shot, when they are sick."

 

An estimated 80% of all antibiotics sold in the US wind up on animal farms. Neither the livestock industry nor the government tracks what percentage of those drugs is used to boost animal weight, but many experts believe the vast majority go toward non-medical uses.

 

Antibiotic drugs like penicillin are routinely mixed with animal feed and water to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded barns. Scientists have warned that such use leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs that can be passed on to humans. The FDA has struggled for decades with how to tackle the problem because the agriculture industry argues the drugs are a key part of modern meat production.

 

Under the new FDA guidelines, the agency recommends antibiotics be used "judiciously," or only when necessary to keep animals healthy. The agency also wants to require a veterinarian to prescribe the drugs. They can currently be purchased over-the-counter by farmers.

 

"Now you have a veterinarian who will be consulting and providing advice to these producers, and we feel that is an important element to assure that they are in fact using these drugs appropriately," said William Flynn, a deputy director in FDA's veterinary medicine centre.

 

Rodney Johnson, an LSU AgCenter associate county agent, said eliminating antibiotics for cattle is a bad idea.

 

"It would increase cost to the producers and the consumer would not get as good of a product," he said. "People just need to be responsible when they give their cattle antibiotics."

 

Petrus said "pig starter" is the only one antibiotic feed he sells in his store.

 

"Cattle that is shipped and under stress need antibiotics," he said. "A lot of feed manufacturers are going to probiotics. The probiotics put good bacteria back into the animal."

 

The draft recommendations by the FDA are not binding, and the agency is asking drug manufacturers to voluntarily put the proposed limits in place. Drug companies would need to adjust the labelling of their antibiotics to remove so-called production uses of the drugs. Production uses include increased weight gain and accelerated growth, which helps farmers save money by reducing feed costs.

 

But some public health advocates said they do not trust the drug industry to voluntarily restrict its own products. FDA officials said that a formal ban would have required individual hearings for each drug, which could take decades.

 

"The process we would have to go through is a formal hearing process, product-by-product that is extremely cumbersome," said Mike Taylor, FDA Commissioner for foods. "There's no point in going through those legalistic proceedings when companies are willing to make this shift voluntarily."

 

Taylor said the FDA has consulted closely with drug makers, and expects them to support the measures.

 

"A carry-over of the antibiotics causes residue in the meat," Petrus said. "FDA checks this and probably sees high incidents of residue left in the meat at processing plants. Antibiotics shouldn't be eliminated but have a veterinarian prescribe it."