When students sit down to a plate of chicken wings or steak in Dewick-MacPhie Dining Hall, the first thing that comes to mind probably isn't that dose of antibiotics the animal received while being raised on a farm. But the use of antibiotics in farm animals has recently been causing a stir.
A ban on the practice is currently before Congress, where questions have been raised about its safety. But though there has been a strong legislative push for antibiotic restriction in animals, attempts at reform have so far failed.
"It goes back to the ‘40s and ‘50s when farmers thought a vitamin in the feed … would help the animal to grow," said Stuart Levy, professor of molecular and microbiology at Tufts School of Medicine and author of "The Antibiotic Paradox" (1992). Farmers became convinced that antibiotics were necessary to help animals grow larger and stay healthier, increasing yields of meat and byproducts.
Not only is the use of antibiotics in farm animals obsolete, Levy explained, but there are a number of other issues accompanying its continued use that could prove harmful to society in the long run. Concerns include the development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria affecting humans and environmental issues.
Nevertheless, farmers continue to defend the use of antibiotics, which is why bills in Congress continue to fail.
"We used to be able to use combination antibiotics, meaning that one drug included multiple kinds of antibiotics," freshman Kristen Davenport, the 2007-2008 New York Dairy Princess, said. "An example is Penicillin-Streptomycin. The [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] made its use illegal because they were concerned that farmers would over-treat their cows. If one antibiotic could cure an infection, why treat with two? This approach was logical; however, efficacy and cost-effectiveness were reduced."
Davenport's father Jim, a dairy farmer in Ancramdale, NY, explained that antibiotics are useful to keep his animals healthy. According to him, Penicillin-Streptomycin cured many types of infections quickly and thoroughly. Now, he must try multiple drugs to find one that works, and the time this takes often permits the infection to worsen. It is also more expensive because multiple drugs must be purchased.
While administering antibiotics to farm animals may be useful in some respects, the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics initiated a two-year project called "Facts about Antimicrobials in Animals and the Impact in Resistance" to investigate problems with the use.
The study found that all uses of the drugs in animals, agriculture and humans contribute to resistant genes in the environment. This resistance potentially raises health care costs and increases the number, strength, and duration of infections. In the United States it is estimated that the amount and type of antimicrobials administered to animals is relatively equivalent to that in humans.
More specifically, a 2001 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 70 percent of all antimicrobial agents used in the United States (24.5 million pounds per year) are administered to livestock for non therapeutic purposes. These antibiotics include ones humans commonly use, like Tetracycline and Ampicillin.
While the number of farms has decreased, the aggregate number of animals has increased. This means that farm animals are living in more confined spaces. Levy attributes much of what's going on with antibiotic resistance to the treatment of the animal feces. "There are more hygienic ways to get rid of the feces than having them remain in the stalls," Levy said.
According to the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA), the annual amount of manure produced in animal confinement facilities in the United States exceeds the total amount produced by humans by at least three times. Unlike most human sewage, the majority of animal manure is spread on the ground untreated. Manure distributed in such vast amounts often allows for farm chemicals to make their way into water sources and airways.
Levy added, "Animals' feces are provided as manure on vegetables. This practice furthers the spread of antibiotics and antibiotic resistant bacteria."
The Pew Charitable Trust — a group that seeks to improve public policy, inform the public, and stimulate civic life — has a number of policy recommendations to improve the current situation. These include banning the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production, instating a new system to deal with farm waste, and changing many of the intensive production practices within a decade. These policies would, however, make life difficult for farmers.
"There hasn't been agreement," Levy said. "Farmers think antibiotics are essential because they are afraid they are going to lose animals if the use of antibiotics is limited. Each animal has a small profit margin, so every one counts. It's a lack of knowledge and a lack of confidence. It's not a question of science anymore. It's a question of politics."
Kristen Davenport makes the case that the issue isn't just politics, but also health. "My dad just had a tooth pulled, and his dentist put him on a full-strength regimen of Amoxicillin for two weeks, ‘just in case,'" she said. "We are concerned about antibiotics in production agriculture, yet we frequently subject ourselves to full doses of antibiotics. If there are traces of antibiotics in our food, they are astronomically small amounts when compared to the amount we ingest from a traditional prescription. Is it fair to deny farmers, and more importantly their [animals], the right to antibiotics while people continue to use antibiotics needlessly?"
Recently legislation aiming to keep everyone happy has been introduced.
The bill would phase out the use of antibiotics that are also important in human medicine, such as Penicillin. It would also require that pharmaceutical companies making agricultural antibiotics report the quantity of drugs they sell — along with information on the intended use and dosage form of those drugs.
The bill leaves farmers with many options, including other antibiotics not used in human medicine and authorizes funds to farmers to help reduce the financial burden of phasing out non-therapeutic use of medically important antibiotics.
