Proposed FDA rules on antibiotic use in livestock

[Mark Billadeau]

I cannot tell from the language of the proposed rule change (link below) if prescriptions will just be required for medicated feed or will also be required for the treatment of sick animals.

 

 

First, the FDA will ask the manufacturers of animal drugs to voluntarily alter their labels so that farmers would no longer be allowed to use antibiotics simply to help livestock grow. (The two biggest manufacturers, Zoetis and Elanco, have already said they'll comply with this request.)

 

Second, licensed veterinarians will need to sign off before antibiotics that are commonly used in human medicine can be used on farms. This is a fairly big change: It means farmers and ranchers will now have to get prescriptions before using certain types of drugs for their animals.

 

source: Washington Post

 

Proposed Rule Change

[Gideon's girl]

I believe they are talking about for sick animals, if the medication needed is used in humans.

[76 Bar]

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm216939.htm

[Mark Billadeau]

Thanks, good link.

As I hoped it only covers use in feed.

[Smalahundur]

Thanks, good link.

As I hoped it only covers use in feed.

Does that mean farmers in the US can buy and administer antibiotics to sick animals as they see fit, without consulting a vet?

[Mark Billadeau]

Yes

 

Tractor Supply: Livestock Antibiotics

Southern States: Livestock Antibiotics

[Smalahundur]

Pretty amazing. That is not allowed here; here a vet has to diagnose the disease, and prescribe the appropriate medication. The farmer is then allowed to treat the animal himself.

[Mark Billadeau]

How many large animal vets are available in your area and what is the cost for a vet visit & diagnosis relative to the sale price for a 80lb lamb?

 

In my area the number of large animal vets is declining due to the profit differences between large and small animal practices and the costs associated with either practice in my area.

[Smalahundur]

I would have to look up those numbers, and i can let you know right now that vets here are being subsidized by the government, as an animal welfare measure. The Icelandic country side is so sparely populated that vets otherwise would be to too few and far apart to support the farmers effectively..

That makes it more difficult to compare vet businesses here and in the US.

[Sue R]

We don't even have any readily available large animal vets in our area. To call one in from the nearest available practices would involve a round trip of over 100 miles and a commensurate farm visit charge of well over $100 (maybe $200) before he/she even looked at the animal. We, fortunately, have only had to use antibiotics to treat an individual animal extremely rarely over the years we've been on this farm.

It is neither affordable to have a vet out generally nor would we be able to get one in a very timely fashion. God bless the vets who still do large animal work. They are rare here.

[Gloria Atwater]

Smalahundar, if farmers and ranchers here had to call a vet every time an animal got a snotty nose or looked a little poorly, they would go out of business. The cost would be so prohibitive that soon nobody could afford to sell or buy meat! One or two vet calls would cost more than a lamb or calf is worth. Plus, what if the vet can't get out for a couple days? By then a lamb or calf could be dead - or so ill that the cost of curing him would, again, be more than he's worth.

 

That's why this measure has caught so much attention over here. Stockmen here have always done their own doctoring. It's one thing if it's a horse that's kept for years for people to use, but quite another when it's livestock intended for market.

~ Gloria

[Smalahundur]

Gloria, I don´t make the rules. And I didn´t give any opinion on which system is better in my view.

I just replied on Mark´s post with an account of how it works here. I thought people might be interested, and frankly don´t see the need to get defensive.

 

The problem of economics that you raise is more or less solved here by government support. Which is imo not unreasonable, government gets more control over the use of such medication, farmer gets vet service within reach, vet gets enough money to live on, everybody happy.

 

Both the Icelandic and the US way have advantages and disadvantages.

 

Don´t really get your livestock/horse example though,or do you mean you want better care for your riding horse than DIY doctoring because it is more valuable?

[Smalahundur]

Mulled this over during evening chores, and realized I have caused some misunderstandings (entirely my fault).

What I described was the way it works here By The Book.

 

Ah, well but there is the book, and there is daily practice.

 

We do not go to the vet or let him come to us for a sheep with a runny nose.

We call him and tell him we have a sick sheep. He replies did I not sell you a glass of penovet? Yup. Okay treat it with that if it doesn´t help call me again. (This by the way is a free call ). Of course in real life he usually doesn´t even get that call, though officially he should .

If you don´t have the the penicillin you drop by and pick it up.

The farmer´s are obliged to keep record of such use of medication.

 

The main difference is that only the vet can sell such medicines as antibiotics, worm meds, etc. You know, a lot of the stuff you guys buy (probably cheaper) at tractor supplies.

 

But it means more business for the vet (so he can make a living in your neck of the woods and he is available for when your riding horse needs to be sown up after a nasty barbed wire accident).

And there is a better regulation of substances you don´t want in your food. The vet has records of what he sold to who, the farmer send in what he used on which animal.

 

So I realized, Mark your question is not that relevant because you do not pay vet consults for such minor problems (again the blame for that misunderstanding is mine).

The same goes for your remarks about economics, Gloria.

 

I hope I have cleared things up a bit.

[Pearse]

Here's the problem with producers medicating even for illness. Most of them won't finish the course. They'll start the antibiotic, the animal improves, they stop the antibiotic, the bugs acquire resistance.

 

The FDA regulations are meaningless. First of all, they're voluntary. Second, they do nothing to stop producers from mixing their own feed containing antibiotics. Third, it does nothing to stop a producer (especially in hog or chicken production) from claiming that they are using antibiotics prophylactically to prevent disease, and administering them by mixing them with feed.

 

Perhaps in the long term they will bring in an outright ban on non-clinical use of antibiotics. They did it this way because they can bring in the new regulation quickly, and they have two of the largest feed manufacturers on board. It will take years to bring in legislation to mandate this and they did not feel with the current Congress that the producer lobby wouldn't kill it.

 

Pearse

[Gloria Atwater]

Gloria, I don´t make the rules. And I didn´t give any opinion on which system is better in my view.

I just replied on Mark´s post with an account of how it works here. I thought people might be interested, and frankly don´t see the need to get defensive.

 

The problem of economics that you raise is more or less solved here by government support. Which is imo not unreasonable, government gets more control over the use of such medication, farmer gets vet service within reach, vet gets enough money to live on, everybody happy.

 

Both the Icelandic and the US way have advantages and disadvantages.

 

Don´t really get your livestock/horse example though,or do you mean you want better care for your riding horse than DIY doctoring because it is more valuable?

 

 

Oh, geez! I am so sorry! I didn't mean to sound defensive - certainly my voice in my head while I typed was not! I simply meant to point out something, and probably I typed in haste and thus created the wrong tone. I'm sorry to have caused upset. Darned internet, anyhow - you can't tell tone of voice or if someone is smiling!

 

As for my remark about horses, though - in a sense, yes. People are willing to spend more money on their horse's health than for a sheep or cow who has a cough or runny nose. One, because people get pretty attached to their horses! But also because the worth of a good riding horse and the worth of a sheep or cow are generally pretty far apart, and it would not take long for the cost of a vet doctoring a sheep to far exceed the animal's worth.

 

Of course, if one is talking about a prize ram or bull, or a valuable milk cow or a favorite ewe, that may be different and people do call the vet to tend them. Stockmen aren't heartless, after all. But there is a point where our economics make vet calls for the average cow or sheep simply not cost effective, and there is a decades-old tradition here of doing one's own doctoring on the farm.

 

Your system sounds like it works admirably and I'm glad you have it! It's the lack of any such support over here that makes the idea of requiring a vet for every livestock ailment a truly unsettling thing.

 

I hope I've explained myself better and soothed any ruffled feathers. Such was certainly not my intent! I apologize for that. Shutting up, now.

Respectfully,

 

Gloria

[Alchemist]

The FDA regulations are meaningless. First of all, they're voluntary. Second, they do nothing to stop producers from mixing their own feed containing antibiotics. Third, it does nothing to stop a producer (especially in hog or chicken production) from claiming that they are using antibiotics prophylactically to prevent disease, and administering them by mixing them with feed.

 

Perhaps in the long term they will bring in an outright ban on non-clinical use of antibiotics. They did it this way because they can bring in the new regulation quickly, and they have two of the largest feed manufacturers on board. It will take years to bring in legislation to mandate this and they did not feel with the current Congress that the producer lobby wouldn't kill it.

 

I've seen enough of the research related to use of antibiotics for the purposes of promoting the growth of animals (as distinct from treating legitimate illnesses!!!), and specifically its impact on the development of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria, that I *want* to be delighted that FDA is finally taking steps to limit this practice. Except... even though 70-80% of the antibiotics sold in this country are used for livestock (!) (and the vast majority of this is used as a feed additive for promoting growth), a story I heard recently on NPR indicated that pharmaceutical companies aren't at all worried that the new regulations might affect their profits. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they're anticipating CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) will find a way around these regulations.

 

The incidence of antibiotic resistance in hospital patients in Europe plummeted when they banned antibiotics in animal feed as growth promoters. Pathogens are acquiring resistance far faster than we're developing/approving new antibiotics. We're losing this race unless we can find a way to curb this practice.

 

And please note that I'm NOT criticizing anyone who uses an antibiotic to treat a legitimate infection in any animal!

[76 Bar]

On the surface, this appears to be a laudable strategy in the effort to combat antimicrobial resistance:

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378100.htm

 

In the same vein…pun intended..some revealing pertinent facts:

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143568.htm

 

Enlightening read…note that AHI endorses the pending FDA protocol:

http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/animal-antibiotics/fact-or-fiction-common-antibiotic-myths/

 

Putting things in perspective:

http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/animal-antibiotics/antibiotics-and-danger/

 

Lastly, Dr Scott Hurd, DVM, PhD (Associate Professor, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine) sorts the wheat from the chaff (again pun intended) and provides cogent input here: http://hurdhealth.com/2013/05/24/why-is-the-usda-blamed-for-antibiotic-resistance/ and here: http://hurdhealth.com/2013/10/25/what-did-cdc-say-about-antibiotic-resistance-threats/

 

Suffice it to say, I urge all of you to read his blog in its entirety. And especially if your livelihood isn't dependent on agriculture.

[Mark Billadeau]

A recent report indicated 97% of raw chicken breasts sampled (316 samples) from stores in 26 states were contaminated with bacteria and 49% were contaminated with multi-drug resistant bacteria (Consumer Reports); wouldn't this indicate that the risks are greater than indicated by the AHI risk assessement (http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/animal-antibiotics/antibiotics-and-danger/)?

 

I suspect most of this contamination occurs at the abattoir; however, one has to wonder what is the source of the bacterial contamination on the raw chicken.

 

Did these bugs grow and develop on surfaces in the abattoirs?

Did these bugs grow and develop in the digestive tracts of the poultry (or other processed animals) and were released at the abattoirs during slaughter?

Did these bugs grow and develop in/on the human employees of the abattoirs and the humans contaminated the raw chicken?

Did the bugs grow and develop in/on other species that then infested the abattoirs?

 

Obviously proper kitchen hygiene would significantly reduce the risks associated with these bacteria; but one still must wonder how these bacteria are making it into packaged meat if the AHI risk graphic is accurate.

 

I suspect the bugs are coming into the abattoirs in the digestive tracts of the animals to be processed (having developed in some of the animals where they were raised) and the process from live animal to packaged meat is not an aseptic process.

 

I also supsect the proposed rule changes will have little impact on the prevelence of bacterially contaminated meat or the development of multi-drug resistant bacteria.

[76 Bar]

Ingratiate that I am…forgot to thank Mark for thanking me for the link.

 

Sue R…round trip here is also 50 miles. $200 travel fee off the top before their feet leave the PU. Recently hauled into town 5 yearling sale bulls to be semen tested within 5 minutes of the clinic and was charged a $100 travel fee. Consider yourself very lucky indeed.

 

Pearse...

Here's the problem with producers medicating even for illness. Most of them won't finish the course. They'll start the antibiotic, the animal improves, they stop the antibiotic, the bugs acquire resistance.

Don't know where you're getting your "producer" information but that scenario is altogether typical of human patients which I dare say is a major contributor to drug resistance.

 

 

[Alchemist]

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (through its Center for a Livable Future) would agree with Pearse's suggestion that the new FDA voluntary regulations will likely be ineffective in protecting human health: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/news_events/announcement/2013/FDA-Voluntary-Guidelines-Antibiotics-Fail-Protect-Public-Health.html

 

And yet eliminating antibiotics from animal feed in Denmark seemed a win-win situation: http://tcdailyplanet.net/blog/iatp/why-danish-farmers-stopped-feeding-antibiotics-their-animals

[emilyfalk]

I don't know what the answer regarding appropriate antibiotic usage is. As others have pointed out, it's not cost-effective to bring a vet out every time an animal needs treated (also not cost-effective for vets on many of these trips, too...But I digress). The drugs available over the counter are handy, but often inappropriately used. As Pearse said, the producer may not administer the drug for the correct amount of time (aside, some have theorized that treating for too short OR too long can lead to resistance), or via the wrong route (IV vs. SQ), or for the wrong reason. It drives me crazy to see someone throw any old antibiotic at whatever ailment the animal has. It is surprising how many will start on antibiotics without taking the animal's temperature, you can read a few message boards to see that. And then there is the topic of withdrawal periods and people actually following them. Anyway, I suppose the regulation is a step in the right direction. At least someone is thinking and talking about this. Having more (well, ALL) responsible and conscientious producers would be a big help, but in my opinion that lies within a bigger societal problem, and I'm not too optimistic

[Sue R]

Having more (well, ALL) responsible and conscientious producers would be a big help, but in my opinion that lies within a bigger societal problem, and I'm not too optimistic

 

And that's an issue with too many things to mention. I think it will always be an issue, to one degree or another, no matter what the regulations are. Some people will always try to evade the rules.

 

The availability of a vet like you in our area would be nice...

[roanhorse]

Interesting thread.

 

In on of the previous posts the prevalence of bacteria and antibiotics in processed chicken was discussed. It is for that reason that we grow most of our own meat; chicken, rabbit and grassfed beef. It is too bad that so much of our country's meat is 'factory produced'. An increase in antibiotic usage is a byproduct of the 'factory farming' and confinement operations that a lot of our food comes from, this wasn't such an issue with small family farms.

 

 

 

 

[Pearse]

Interesting thread.

 

In on of the previous posts the prevalence of bacteria and antibiotics in processed chicken was discussed. It is for that reason that we grow most of our own meat; chicken, rabbit and grassfed beef. It is too bad that so much of our country's meat is 'factory produced'. An increase in antibiotic usage is a byproduct of the 'factory farming' and confinement operations that a lot of our food comes from, this wasn't such an issue with small family farms.

 

 

Can small family farms produce enough meat to meet demand?

 

Can large scale ranching, finishing, and slaughtering be done humanely and without the use of antibiotics as growth promoters?

 

I'm not sure about the first but the second could be done. It would increase the price of U.S. produced meat though, so unless you forced producers in other countries to do the same through strict import controls, the average consumer is just going to buy foreign produced meat and drive American producers out of business.

 

The price of naturally raised, grass-fed beef in my grocery store is 30% - 50% higher per pound than regular beef I could probably do with eating 30% - 50% less beef and paying the higher price, but what percentage of the beef-buying public are willing to do that? If people didn't buy it, the market wouldn't produce it but, as with everything else, people want the greatest quantity at the lowest price. Quality don't enter into it for most folk.

 

Pearse

[Alchemist]

Pearse, the article to which I linked claimed "No change in the price of meat for consumers" when they eliminated antibiotics as a growth promoter in Denmark a few years back. At one point I had a much better article than the one I linked to - IIRC I think it said costs for meat production increased 1%. And the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals plummeted. But I can't lay my hands on that article at the moment.

 

Not disputing your claim that "quality don't enter into it for most folk". But the Danish results would suggest huge savings to society, with little added cost for the meat producer. And it's even possible that we might find a bigger market for domestic meats if we didn't use growth hormones or antibiotics on a routine basis, as many such are shunned or officially banned in the E.U. at least.

 

My mother contracted a MRSA infection in a hospital in 2012; you can bet that seven months on IV antibiotics in a care facility, with two additional surgeries, cost Medicare a bundle. Avoiding this sort of infection is the sort of "benefit" that FDA can weigh in deciding whether/how to eliminate antibiotics as growth promoters.

 

I have nothing against administering antibiotics to animals that are genuinely suffering from a bacterial infection. I have the same reservations I'd have in administering them to my family members or my dogs or cat: make sure it's a bacterial infection (not a viral infection), administer the appropriate dose, for the appropriate duration. It's the low doses provided in animal feed as growth promoters that are virtually guaranteed to foster antibiotic resistance.

 

Usual disclaimer: I don't own livestock...