Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 16, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

FDA targets antibiotics in meat

By Mary Clare Jalonick

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 09:52 a.m. HST, Dec 11, 2013



WASHINGTON » Citing a potential threat to public health, the Food and Drug Administration moved today toward phasing out the use of some antibiotics in animals processed for meat.

Many cattle, hog and poultry producers give their animals antibiotics regularly to ensure that the animals are healthy and to facilitate the production process. Now, the agency has announced that it will ask pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily stop labeling drugs important for treating human infection as acceptable for those uses in animal production.

If the companies sign on, use of those antibiotics to promote growth in animals would be illegal and prescriptions would be required to use the drugs for animal illnesses.

The FDA is hoping to limit antibiotic resistant diseases in humans by decreasing the use of the drugs in animals. Exposure to antibiotics leads germs that survive stronger, so that they could withstand the drug the next time it is used.

Antibiotic resistance is a growing problem, and in September the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released sobering estimates that more than 23,000 people a year are dying from drug-resistant infections.

The biggest risk is from germs spread in hospitals, and It's not clear how much of the problem is related to the use of drugs in meat. But consumers have become increasingly concerned about the issue, and FDA has been debating how to address it for several years.

"We need to be selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them," said William Flynn of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down."

The new guidance will give the companies three years to comply.

Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner of foods, said he believes asking industry to make the changes is the fastest way to help phase the drugs out. If the FDA made the process mandatory, he said, the agency would have had to move forward with a complex regulatory process that could take years.

"We have high confidence based on dialogue with industry that this initiative will succeed," Taylor said.

Some advocates pushing to rid the animal food supply of antibiotics said the FDA did not go far enough. Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, a microbiologist, said the FDA should have made the action mandatory. The guidance "falls woefully short of what is needed to address a public health crisis," she said.

Others said it was progress.

"We commend FDA for taking the first steps since 1977 to broadly reduce antibiotic overuse in livestock," said Laura Rogers of The Pew Charitable Trusts' human health and industrial farming campaign. "There is more work to do, but this is a promising start, especially after decades of inaction."







 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(3)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Skyler wrote:
This is a (slow) step in the right direction. We all know that taking antibiotics without cause is not recommended. Why, then, would we want to eat/drink things that are laden with antibiotics?

For years, farmers have been giving animals antibiotics 'to keep them healthy' and, we have heard, to make them gain weight. Now we're finding out, "Hey, maybe not such a good idea after all." This brings to mind the GMO business. We're being told that they're safe, they're fine - and that we're 'anti-science' fear-mongers, etc. But of course the ones pushing it don't really know if they're ok or not. They're being pushed for the love of money - and certainly without concern for the people that consume them.
on December 11,2013 | 09:03AM
paradisetax wrote:
Long over due.
on December 11,2013 | 10:58AM
Leinanij wrote:
Funny how Taylor won't ask his former employer Monsanto to label its GMOs but wants pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily stop labeling drugs important for treating human infection as acceptable for those uses in animal production.
on December 11,2013 | 01:25PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Court Sense
Musings on Shamburger

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 1

Hoops Talk
Aloha Shamburger

Political Radar
Stacked

Political Radar
HFFA

Warrior Beat
All’s fair

Political Radar
Apology