The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new voluntary guidelines Last Wednesday. The guideline defined how antibiotics should--and should not--be used in food animal production to slow the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
About 28.6 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in 2009 for use in food animal production, according to an FDA report. That number increased in 2010, when farm animals in the U.S. consumed 29.1 million pounds of antibiotics, according to the latest data released by the FDA last fall.
The agency took the new guideline as the beginning of the end of the abuse of antibiotics on farm animals. But as there is no practical law to ban antibiotics abuse, many have doubted the effectiveness of new guideline. According to the documents, antibiotics can be used as long as it is used for prevent diseases at the industrial operations that produce most food animals in this country. So, as it is a voluntary guideline, it is hard to expect the farmers and providers of food animal to observe this guideline.
Furthermore, there are several ambiguous expressions triggers controversies. According to the Dr. Robert S. Lawrence, a professor of Environmental Health Sciences, Health Policy, and International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “necessary to assure animal health”, which the FDA calls preventive use, need to be explained accurately. Through the Atlantic, he stated that “the industrial model of food animal production increases animals' exposure to bacterial pathogens and weakens the animals' immune system through overcrowding and the suppression of normal animal behaviors.”
And he added, “rather than ban preventive use of antibiotics to require the industry to raise animals in a manner that assures both public and animal health, the guidance document accommodates an industry that undermines both.”
Continuing, he impugned possibility the food industry’s compliance with the new guideline because the poultry industry has continued to use a class of antibiotics which FDA banned on the use of. He expected that “food animal industries will not give up the use of antibiotics for disease prevention so easily.” His point is the preventive use of antibiotics is necessary in the industrial operations of food animal production, which are overcrowded with hundreds or thousands of animals and their wastes. As long as the industrial model continues, the food animals are exposed to pathogens and harmful chemicals. He emphasized the fact that “the FDA has built health policy around the needs of the industry rather than require the industry to reform itself to assure both human and animal health.”
The Business Wire reported the responds of Chipotle Mexican Grill to FDA’s voluntary guideline. The company agreed the FDA’S decision to attention to the abuse of antibiotics in food animals but believed more intervention is needed to produce actual results. Steve Ells, founder, chairman and co-CEO of Chipotle said, "but there are gaps in the program, particularly that it continues to allow antibiotic use for prevention of disease,…… we hope they will monitor progress closely as producers could have stopped using antibiotics on their own at any time, but few have chosen to do so."
He thought that "it’s an important first step, but stronger action will be needed to bring about meaningful change in an industry where their practices are so well entrenched."
John Grimes, beef coordinator for Ohio State University Extension addressed , “the new rule released by the Food and Drug Administration will likely increase consumer confidence in the foods they eat, but will also likely cause additional strain to producers in the form of more work and potentially lower profits” and "The production agriculture side will say we've got a growing population to feed, are concerned about the health of the animals and fear they could lose the efficiencies of production, which impacts their bottom line.
The Chicago Tribune printed conflicting opinions about this issue. According to that, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-D),who has sponsored bills for tough regulation on the issue pointed the fact that antibiotic-resistant diseases is more serious disease than AIDS, and so it “need to be treated with the seriousness it deserves”.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest's Caroline Smith DeWaal criticized the guidelines, calling it “tragically flawed.”
But the National Pork Producers Council warned of consequences for producers, animals and consumers took a different stance. “The new guidance will: “likely will disproportionately affect small producers, have a negative effect on animal health and increase the cost of producing food while not improving public health,” NPPC said.
Richard Gubbe anticipated the elimination of antibiotics will lead to a loss of revenue to the general beef and poultry producing farmer or rancher because a corn-fed cow given hormones and antibiotics can be heavier 50 percent more than an organic-raised cow.
Since 1960s, antibiotics have been used not only as drug but also as growth hormone. And the concern about bacteria resistant antibiotics occurred in the 1970s. According to Gubbe, cows which eat green grasses have more CLAs, which may be a potent cancer fighter. It was proved that very small amount of CLA have a effect on blocking all 3 stages cancer. And a recent study shows that women who consume CLA in their diet, are low in the risk of breast cancer.
