|
White House takes a stand on antibiotics in meat production
If you get invited to dine at the White House, there’s good news: The beef and poultry the chef prepares comes from animals raised without antibiotics. But if you’re grabbing lunch at a federal government cafeteria in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere in the country, it’s a different story.
Antibiotics in meat production is a public health threat. Last week President Obama directed government cafeterias to start buying meat and poultry from producers that follow the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guidelines for “responsible antibiotic use.” The problem, critics say, is that government agencies have defined “responsible antibiotic use” in a way that may not reduce the amount of antibiotics used on farms by very much.
In FDA parlance, “responsible use” means antibiotics are not given to animals to promote growth, but the drugs can still be used to prevent disease. Consumer Reports has a different viewpoint: that responsible use should mean antibiotics are given to animals only when they are actually sick. Antibiotics in meat production should not be routine.
Read about Consumer Reports’ participation at the June 2, 2015, White House Forum on antibiotics and join our fight to stop the spread of these superbugs.
Cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and other animals raised in the U.S. consume 32.5 million pounds of antibiotics a year—mainly to prevent disease in large scale, crowded industrial farming conditions—including drugs that are used to fight disease in people. Antibiotics in meat production account for 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the U.S. This kind of low-dose chronic use creates ideal conditions for breeding superbugs—bacteria that has evolved to become immune to antibiotics.
According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antibiotic resistant bacteria in food cause about 440,000 illnesses annually. As a result, new initiatives aiming to curb antibiotic resistance and reduce antibiotic overuse have also come to encompass restrictions on antibiotics in meat production.
The FDA has asked drug companies to change the labels on antibiotics used in animals to indicate that they are for disease treatment and prevention and not for growth promotion. By the end of 2016, the drugs must be prescribed by a licensed veterinarian who oversees their use and will no longer be available over-the-counter as they are now. But veterinarians can still use low-dose antibiotics to “ensure animal health,” or to prevent or control disease, which means the practice of giving animals low doses of antibiotics throughout their lives can continue, just under another name.
That’s an enormous loophole, said Laura Rogers, director of George Washington University’s Antibiotic Resistance Center. “There is a looming public health crisis, and this agency and this administration are not moving with the sense of urgency we see everywhere else in the world.”
Consumer Reports believes that antibiotics in meat production should not be used except to treat sick animals. “We’re opposed to administering antibiotics to healthy animals, and we oppose any mass administration of antibiotics in feed and water,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. “We would never give kids who go to daycare antibiotics every day to prevent disease, yet that’s what we’re doing with animals.”
We appreciate the steps announced by the administration. But, like the White House, federal cafeterias should be serving meat that comes from animals who have not been given antibiotics for growth or disease prevention. And we have to keep pushing to stop the use of antibiotics on healthy animals. As long as this use is permitted, we can’t make the progress needed to keep antibiotics effective for treating human illnesses.
—Roni Caryn Rabin
Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2015 Consumers Union of U.S.
|
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment