 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
This begins a series of articles on one of the most pressing issues facing the feedlot industry today. Actually, it is a series of extremely complex issues that few people (including medical doctors) fully understand. Likewise our producer organizations have not dealt effectively with these issues. The reasons are two fold. To begin with, public relations advisors have counseled our producer organizations to say as little about antibiotics as possible - in order to limit overall publicity. In addition, our producer organizations have primarily negotiated with FDA and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) through "Animal Health Committees", which are primarily comprised of veterinarians. As a general rule they have reasoned these are veterinary issues rather than producer issues and have communicated very little to the membership.. With respect to antibiotic regulation, the belief among most veterinarians has been that the action by FDA would simply be to remove availability from over-the-counter to prescription status. While that was the intent of CVM (a division within FDA) in the past, a much more onerous potential now looms on the horizon. In the last decade bacteria known as "superbugs" have begun appearing in hospitals. Usually manifested as infections subsequent to surgery, these bacteria have resistance to a broad spectrum of human antibiotics, making them exceedingly difficult to control. This specter of bacterial infections that cannot be controlled understandably has the medical profession worried. However, that worry is beginning to create panic -- and part of that panic is being vented on the livestock industry. Specifically, there are factions within the medical community who claim the agricultural industry is responsible for the emergence of these "superbugs" They claim that by using certain products in animals, we have developed the resistant bacteria. The reality is that this is an unjustified accusation. Actually, criticism of the use of antibiotics in animals is nothing new. What is new is that the FDA ground rules have changed. Always before, science has been the basis for decision making. Today, because of the threat these "superbugs" pose, we are told science isn't good enough. FDA is now ready to make decisions based on the "perceptions" of the medical profession. What is most worrisome is a theory that bacteria can develop a cross resistance from one antibiotic to another; and a similar theory that one species of bacteria can pass resistance on to another. Based on what amounts to little more than speculation, these theories could be used to ban just about any antibiotic used in animal production. This raises the stakes to a new level. Before we were concerned we might lose Aureomycin, Terramycin, Neomycin and/or other low level antibiotics used in the feed. With these new theories, however, virtually any antibiotic, including therapeutic drugs used to treat sick animals, might be banned. The unthinkable is that ionophores might be banned. But that is exactly what has happened in Europe. To the scientific community, ionophores are considered to be an antibiotic. Avoparcin, an ionophore similar to Rumensin and Bovatec was banned in Europe on the unproven premise that it might create a resistance to Vancomycin (an important human antibiotic). CVM has assured us that no antibiotic will be "unnecessarily" banned, but with science withdrawn as the basis for decision making, that could be a hollow promise. It is therefore up to everyone to learn the facts about antibiotic use -- and do what you can to educate others. Over the next few months we will attempt to do just that. Several books and a subscription newsletter by Dr. Price are available. For more information, call FEED*LOT Magazine at 800-798-9515. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||