A lthough fears of a swine flu pandemic have faded, this is no time to lose sight of how easily infectious diseases can pass back and forth among humans and food animals. Our food production system needs significant improvements, as it is nurturing the spread of diseases and then making it hard to fight them. One important solution is a bill in Congress that would prevent factory farms from misusing the antibiotics that save our lives.
For years, the government and medical professionals have warned against overusing antibiotics. Yet federal law still lets farmers misuse these drugs.
Factory farms don't give drugs to livestock only when they're sick, or to stop specific infections from spreading among the animals. Instead, antibiotics - including many that are crucial to fighting human diseases - are given to food animals to compensate for the often unsanitary, crowded conditions found on many factory farms. Up to 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are given to animals raised for food, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Constant, low-dose antibiotics kill off weak bacteria, while the strongest survive and multiply. These bacteria become increasingly resistant to more and more types of antibiotics. At some point, the drugs stop working altogether.
Once antibiotic-resistant bacteria develop, they can exchange genetic material with other microbes, creating additional types of germs that antibiotics can't kill. The new combinations make "superbugs" which, because they are immune to existing antibiotics, represent a serious threat to human health. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be transmitted to people, making food-borne illnesses like E. coli and Salmonella even more dangerous.
Germs bred on factory farms may spread to people through manure-contaminated soil, water, crops and even the air. Drug-resistant bacteria also can spread to people by handling or eating pork and other meats. Infections may spread to farm workers' families and communities, then to the general population.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 64 percent of infectious diseases that affect humans originate in animals. Stunningly, no federal agency keeps close tabs on how many people develop antibiotic-resistant infections. The livestock industry's claim - that the threat of such diseases has leveled off - isn't supported by solid data.
Food from factory farms seems affordable, but in fact it's no bargain. Profits flow to agribusinesses, while the high costs of treating potent viruses and drug-resistant bacteria in people are pushed onto health insurers and taxpayers. The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1998 that antibiotic resistance adds $4 billion to $5 billion to health care costs annually - and, like bacteria, that number has undoubtedly multiplied in the past decade. As President Obama and Congress search for ways to reduce health care costs, they should note the burden antibiotic resistance puts on this system.
Both science and common sense cry out for rules requiring safer use of antibiotics on factory farms.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009 would do so. Amending the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, PAMTA would phase out the use of antibiotics vital to human health from factory farms unless animals or herds are actually diseased.
The legislation is co-sponsored by New Hampshire Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter. A similar bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate, but our senators, Jeanne Shaheen and Judd Gregg, aren't yet co-sponsoring it. Gregg's absence is especially noteworthy because he holds a senior position on the health committee with jurisdiction over the issue, and he supports another food safety measure.
Nationwide, more than 350 medical, public health, consumer, environmental and agricultural groups support PAMTA. The New Hampshire Public Health Association is among them, because we know it's crucial to preserve antibiotics' effectiveness for the sake of public health. (next page »)
Beckapalooza: half revival, half AA meeting has reached 25 comments. Join the discussion!
BOSTON (AP) -- Officials in New England's coastal areas…
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- William Smart, who was devastated…
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- Two men are free on bail after…
Comments
Preserving antibiotics
By Bob Martin - 06/05/2009 - 11:48 amMs. Diamond is exactly correct in her column, To Protect Humans, Use Less Antibiotics in Animals.
As much as 70% of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to healthy animals in industrial food opertions to compensate for the poor animal husbandry common in the facilities. Having visiting many of these operations over the years, I can't bring myself to call them farms. By using antibiotics in this way, they threaten the effectiveness of antibiotics for future use in humans and animals.
Animal ag scientists have shown that the need for non-therapeutic antibiotics can be dramatically reduced in swine production by weaning the piglets one week later than is now the practice and my switching to a pen system using deep bedding thus eliminating the liquid waste management systems which the animals live over and are perfect incubators for bacterial development.
But I want also to comment on a couple of other posts.
First, to the cattle producer. Nothing proposed in the PAMTA bill would limit your ability to use antibiotics like you currently do because beef cattle producers don't feed antibiotics daily unlike industrial swine producers and chicken and egg producers. Cattlemen and dairy men treat sick animals, which is appropriate. FDA rules would not permit dairymen to give daily, low doses of antibiotics to their herds, as are given to pigs, because it would show up in the milk. So, the cattleman should be in favor of not giving these daily low doses to pigs to compensate for poor animal husbandry. Let me ask him, do you keep your cattle in metal cages just barely larger than they are like is common in industrial pig operations?
To the pig farmer who said she keeps her pigs in air conditioned and heated industrial barns just like people have available. That's nonsense. My guess is there are fans that move the air in the summer and heaters that are like shop heaters in a garage, but it is NOTHING close to the air conditioning and heating people enjoy.
Besides, pigs are animals. If they needed to be kept indoors to be kept safe from predators and disease, pigs would have been extinct thousands of years ago. The current industrial model was first developed in the early 1990s.
This non-therapeutic use of antibiotics is only promoted by industrial farm operations and their apologist in the American Veterinary Medical Association because it is the way for the large companies---but not producers---to make money. Antibiotics are used to compensate for the overcrowding and filthy conditions that exist in industrial pig, broiler and egg laying operations.
Bravo to Kristina for speaking out so eloquently.
to vote
Be careful Kristina...
By Ranger - 06/04/2009 - 3:34 pmDoes the word misrepresentation mean anything to you? Did you do any research AT ALL? It looks like you wrote only what supports YOUR opinion. Did you talk with any local farmers, vets or God forbid the Department of Agriculture or the USDA? If you're going to write an editorial, make sure you cover all bases. The impact of this could severly hurt family farms who DO NOT misuse antibiodics and take pride in animal care and safety. I suggest you do your research. Once completed, you should issue an apology to all NH farmers. This story is nothing more than a scare tactic -It will further darken the future of NH farms. You see, people will read this story and belive this sort of thing happens everywhere. This editorial is unethical and out of line.
It's because of articles like this, that so many farms are going out of business. You see, farmers spend all day, everyday providing top notch care, feed and protection to their livestock. They work 365 days a year, no holidays, no vacations. Why, because caring for livestock requires that type of commitment. They don't have time to "mine" data from whatever source supports their way of life -That alone is why attack is so easy. They're too busy providing safe, healthy food for you and your family to defend themselves against such lies. I dare you to find ONE farmer in this state that misusses antibiodics or provides any less than TOP NOTCH care for their animals. I bet you won't do that -Why, because you'd have to issue a rebuttal for the nonsense printed above.
I'm not sure of your motive, but I am sure of one thing. You're missing CRUCIAL facts and data. As a journalist, you should have educated yourself. To be quite frank, I question your intellegence and ability to be an ethical or respected journalist. Do your research -Talk to farmers, call the state vet, speak with the Department of Agriculture. I'll be looking forward to your apology. Wow! The things that are allowed to be printed these days.
to vote
This Would Hurt Family Farms
By Troy Hadrick - 06/04/2009 - 12:03 pmThe author of this article should really look into what she is proposing. As a family farmer raising cattle, I utilize antibiotics very sparingly. The expense of them alone is enough to not want to feed them at all, but I do it because i care about my livestock. There are periods in their life when stress and weather can cause them to get sick. Sitting back and watching these animals suffer through an illness isn't something that I want to do.
Other countries have tried to limit antibiotic usage. Their attempts have backfired and actually caused more antibiotic use.
Farmers and ranchers like myself produce the safest, most abundant, least expensive food supply in the world. When is the last time you saw the grocery store shelves empty? The same can't be said for many people.
Ms. Diamond, please don't limit my ability to care for my livestock. Their lives and my livelihood depend on it.
to vote
Facts are missing
By piscesgirl - 06/04/2009 - 10:41 amWhen I am sick, I don't go to the plumber and ask his advice on how to get better. Instead, I go to my doctor. Likewise, I think this article should go straight to the source and ask a farmer or large animal veterinarian how antibiotics are used on farms. I am a family farmer and this article does not represent my farm, or 99.9% of the farms in the United States today.
Livestock farms, no matter what their size, are not making money like this article claims. Currently, it costs about $148 to raise a hog to sell for market, when that hog is sold, farmers are receiving $118 for that hog. According to my math, this is a loss of $30 per hog. Farmers CAN NOT afford to misuse antibiotics, or any other animal health products. Antibiotics are expensive and our livestock do not carry health insurance, there is no one waiting in line to reimburse us for the cost of these products. We use our anitibiotics responsibly, under the guidance of our veterinarain, as do all livestock producers. We follow strict guidelines set forth by the FDA when using antibiotics, and we record all usage and observe withdrawal dates as set forth by FDA.
We house our animals in modern barns to protect them from the elements of the weather, predator attacks, and diseases spread by wild animals. These barns protect our animals and have eliminated many of the diseases that challenged farmers years ago, such as trichinosis, and TGE to name a few. This results in a SAFER food supply for my family, and yours. Farmers are also able to contain illness in these barns and prevent an illness from being spread to birds, wildlife, pets or animals on other farms. These barns have actually decreased diseases, and the use of antibitoics.
These barns allow farmers to give each animal hands on care multiple times a day. You and I live in air conditioned houses, drive cars with air conditioning, and we have heat in the winter. These are not necessities for living, but they sure make it nicer. Our animals have the same luxuries you and I do, they have air conditioning and heat. We use the manure from the livestock as natural fertilizer, which we test prior to applying to the land. This reduces our dependency on chemical fertilizer and recycles our natural resources.
Farmers eat the same food as consumers, we wouldn't feed our families anything that wasn't safe. Please contact a farmer or large animal veterinarian to learn how antibitoics are used. These scare tactics use misleading information that results in unnecessary regulations, and our food supply coming from another country. The United States is already dependent on foreign countries for our oil, look how much that has cost us. Do you want your food supply in the hands of a foreign country too? How safe and affordable will that be? Our nations food security is at risk, do not buy into these scare tactics.
to vote