Bending the safety rules

Continued low-dose usage of antibiotics are linked with the rise of antibiotic resistance, and those adapted bugs appear capable of leaving the farm in any number of ways. Consumer groups and lawmakers have been pressuring the FDA for decades to act after bacteria have started to become resistant to the antibiotics when they are given to humans. The concern is that an overuse of antibiotics to promote growth in cattle, pigs, and other livestock has limited their effectiveness in humans. According to FDA figures, about 80 percent of antibiotics sold go to chickens, cows, pigs and other livestock. The remaining 20 percent are administered to humans.

Antibiotics are used in meat production in three ways: to treat illness in a flock or herd; to prevent illness that might occur; and to cause animals to put on weight faster, or get to market weight with less feed. That last category is called “growth promotion” (and sometimes “feed efficiency”. After years of delays for the long-awaited regulations which the FDA has been considering since the 1970s the Food and Drug Administration in America announced regulations last December that promised to curb the use of antibiotics in agriculture. The European Union banned growth promotion entirely in 2006. The FDA attempts were forestalled for decades by Congressional interference. So since the FDA was never able to obtain a legal or regulatory ban here, it decided three years ago to follow a different path, and ask makers to participate in a voluntary program of changing their drugs’ labelling in such a way that growth-promotion would no longer be a permitted use. The FDA voluntary program only affects growth promotion; it does not cover that middle category of use for disease prevention.

A new study from the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming suggests there’s a significant loophole that could easily be exploited by antibiotic manufacturers.

The FDA’s solution to controlling the use of antibiotics on farms was to change the labeling regulations would stop labeling antibiotics for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain.” All the major manufacturers are onboard and now have three years to make the changes. But the Pew analysis found that roughly a quarter of the drugs that will have those prophylactic usages removed from their labels can be applied “for disease prevention at levels that are fully within the range of growth promotion dosages and with no limit on the duration of treatment”—meaning they can still be used in the same manner as long as it’s for a different stated purpose. In other words, a drug that’s been used for growth promotion could, under the regulations, be relabeled to indicate its therapeutic use and continue to be sold to the same livestock companies, who could use it in the same manner as before. More than 20 percent of antibiotics given to livestock to promote growth can also be given to prevent diseases. As a result, some producers could exploit this gray area and find a way to continue using some antibiotics to help their animals gain weight by claiming it's to prevent diseases.

“It is cause for concern that these policies won't protect public health," said Laura Rogers, a director of the Pew's campaign on human health and industrial farming. Pew said the FDA must do more to eliminate antibiotic use for growth promotion and disease prevention, and ensure that the drugs are prescribed by veterinarians under well-defined circumstances.

Taken from here