STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH



Duane A. Lienemann



UNL Extension Educator,

Webster County

January 12, 2012 Edition
Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration’s and Center for Veterinary Medicine issued an order prohibiting certain uses of the cephalosporin class of antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals. If you are anything like me --that doesn’t really mean anything unless I know the common name or brand name, I am more familiar with Pfizer's Excede, Excenel, and Naxcel that were expressly developed for livestock. It should be pointed out that each of these drugs was approved by the FDA to safely, effectively treat and control bacterial diseases in sick animals and in animals at known risk of infection. I have myself used all of these and had great results. Producers use of these drugs are going to change.
Anyone that has livestock likely knows that the injectable ceftiofur products are used for the treatment and control of certain diseases, including the treatment of respiratory disease in cattle, swine, sheep, and goats; the treatment of foot rot and mastitis; the control of most bovine respiratory diseases; and the control of early mortality associated with Escherichia coli (e-Coli) infections in day-old chicks and other poultry. Now, as I understand it, veterinarians may still use or prescribe cephalosporins for limited extra-label use on cattle, swine, chickens and turkeys as long as they follow the dose, frequency, duration and route of administration on the label. They may also prescribe extra-label uses on minor species of food producing animals such as ducks and rabbits. It is the first step to not allowing producers to use the drug at their discretion.
Not a big deal you may say. Here is where I may have some problems with this. I have used this column in the past to give my concerns for what I have been seeing coming down the pike with the push to completely eliminate antibiotics in the animal agriculture industry. It started several years ago in California (of course) and for the last couple of years a New York congresswoman has hammered the FDA and has tried to make Federal Legislation towards that end. It appears that the proverbial “foot in the door” is now there. I think that we have to potential here for further advancement of the “anti-antibiotic” movement which could lead to dire affects in keeping our livestock healthy and perhaps even alive.
Restricting cephalosporins in livestock may be low-hanging fruit in the antibiotics in agriculture debate. Worldwide, these particular drugs are one of the least used classes of antibiotics as they account for only about .2% of the antibiotics sold for use in domestic food-producing animals in 2010. They aren’t used at all for growth promotion, which of course is a controversial practice that’s been banned in the EU since 2006, but still accounts for a large portion of agricultural antibiotic use in the United States. This in my eyes is starting with the least used and nobody will notice syndrome.
In all fairness, I know that the FDA is taking the action to preserve the effectiveness of the drugs in humans. Cephalosporins are used in humans to treat various infections, including pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, pelvic inflammatory disease, diabetic foot infections, and urinary tract infections. The restrictions aim to protect people from being exposed to the antibiotics in meats and to cut down the chances for bacterial resistance to antibiotic or so-called “superbugs”. That’s where agricultural use has been thought to be contributing in an important way to the resistance problem – particularly salmonella and Escherichia coli. Of course that is something that has been discussed for years with how people handle and cook their meat. So that is not particularly new.
The rule's issuance rekindles an ongoing debate over the use of antibiotics in livestock. U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and others have fought to phase out the non-therapeutic use of certain classes of antibiotics in farm animals, arguing a high prevalence of drugs in meat increases human antibiotic resistance. I am sure that this whole thing has been brought about by public pressure from groups who are well intending, but I am a lot concerned that it is also being pushed by groups that are tied closely to animal rights/activist or Vegan groups. This whole issue of antibiotic use in livestock primarily as it relates to resistance in humans is a very, very complex issue. One of the things that concern me the most is that when decisions are made as a result of public pressure and not necessarily sound science.
Livestock industry representatives counter that their use of the drugs to combat diseases and promote growth efficiency is already regulated by the FDA. They also point to humans' overuse of antibiotics, which researchers say caused 65,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2008. The idea that we're using this enormous quantity of antibiotics in beef cattle prior to slaughter is a misconception. Many consumers hear that beef is loaded with antibiotics, and that's not true at all. Generally consumers and anti-animal agriculture groups think it is being used without good reason. They think it is just being poured into the feed to make the animals grow better. That is why we need to tell our story. There is just so much misinformation out there.
I believe that the FDA is doing the livestock industry a favor by giving opportunities to get our house in order before they decide if they are going to do something (regulatory) about antibiotics. The first additional rules may come is in the area of veterinary oversight. So we could enter an age like in Europe where you do not administer an antibiotic without veterinary involvement. Could there be more orders of prohibition in the pipeline, or is the limited action a signal of what the agency views as politically and economically feasible to regulate in the current climate? I feel that banning non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics in livestock will likely mean a very significant overhaul in food-animal production practices in the US. I would hope that we look at this through the lens of science, not that of activists who may have an agenda.
@unl.edu oThe preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2r go to the !website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/me