The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has urged drug companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The researchers say that this decades-old practice has contributed to a surge in dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria.
Scientists say that antibiotics like penicillin are routinely mixed with animal feed and water to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded feeding lots. This has led to 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 powerful 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 center.
The FDA is urging the 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. At present production uses include increased weight gain and accelerated growth, which helps farmers save money by reducing feed costs. The FDA hopes drug makers will phase out language promoting non-medical uses within three years. An estimated 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. wind up on animal farms. Neither industry nor the government track what percentage of those drugs is used to boost animal weight, but many experts believe the vast majority go toward non-medical uses.
FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. clarified the action, “It is critical that we take action to protect public health ... The new strategy will ensure farmers and veterinarians can care for animals while ensuring the medicines people need remain safe and effective. We are also reaching out to animal producers who operate on a smaller scale or in remote locations to help ensure the drugs they need to protect the health of their animals are still available.”
Dr. John Clifford, USDA Chief Veterinary Medical Officer said, “USDA worked with the FDA to ensure that the voices of livestock producers across the country were taken into account ... and we will continue to collaborate with the FDA, the American Veterinary Medical Association and livestock groups to ensure that the appropriate services are available to help make this transition.”
Ron Phillips with the industry trade association, the Animal Health Institute, says his group worked with FDA on the new guidelines. “This puts us on a path toward where all antibiotic use in animal medicine is going to be used for the therapeutic purposes of treating, controlling and preventing disease, which is important not only to animal health, but to human health,” said Phillips.
“This is the most sweeping action the agency has undertaken in this area, as this covers all antibiotics used in meat and poultry production that are important to human health,” said Laura Rogers, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts' campaign on industrial farming.
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 Deputy 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.
University of Minnesota infectious disease expert James Johnson says the FDA’s decision is good news that has been a long time coming. “This is encouraging," said Johnson. "It’s nice to see FDA being proactive. Well, frankly, it’s a little hard to give them credit with being proactive because it’s been so many decades. But they’re finally moving. Okay, good.” The FDA first proposed banning non-therapeutic use of some antibiotics in 1977.
The European Union already has banned this use of antibiotics, but it is common in the developing world. In developing countries, antibiotic use is believed to be widespread on large-scale farms. But data is scarce, says Danilo Lo Fo Wong, an antibiotic resistance expert with the World Health Organization. “They’re making the same mistakes that developed countries have gone through, which, in my view, is, of course, unnecessary,” said Lo Fo Wong. “They could go straight to the better solutions rather than go through the same evolution that developed countries have gone through.” Lo Fo Wong says the U.S. experience is instructive. And for countries trading with the United States, limiting antibiotic use might become a requirement as import rules tighten.
Study links youth vaping to increased metal exposure, raising public health concerns