For many people, the word "antibiotic" conjures a cure-all from the doctor. Thankfully, prescriptions for antibiotics aren't being written as freely as they once were. While in the recent past doctors would feel pressured by patients to write prescriptions for everything from the common cold to serious bacterial infections, today most are cautious to use these medicines only when they're necessary and useful. (Antibiotics fight bacteria, not viruses.) That's because overuse of antibiotics creates stronger, more antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, which pose a serious threat to public health.
The responsible use of medical antibiotics is an important issue in keeping resistant bacteria at bay, but the use of antibiotics in livestock production casts an even wider net. And we're not talking primarily about healing sick animals. In fact, according to The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an estimated 70 percent of antibiotics and related drugs made in the United States are used to fatten livestock and to compensate for the unsanitary and crowded conditions of industrial farms.
The main problem is not that we eat the antibiotics in the meat, but that the use of the antibiotics to raise the meat increases the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In fact, small amounts of antibiotics over long periods of time, as they're given in livestock feed, is an especially good way to encourage resistance, because the longer bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, the more likely they are to become resistant. The threat isn't imaginary; public health authorities have linked low-level antibiotic use in conventionally raised livestock directly to greater numbers of people contracting infections that resist drug treatment. According to a 2002 analysis by the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics (APUA) of over 500 scientific articles, "Many lines of evidence link antimicrobial-resistant human infections to foodborne pathogens of animal origin."
Food is one way resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans from animals; studies have found that much of the meat in supermarkets is widely contaminated with Salmonella, for example, and many of those bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. Workers who handle feed, animals, and manure are also at risk for picking up resistant bacteria and transferring it to the community. Antibiotic-laced feed even sifts into the air. In 2003, for example, researchers in Germany found five different antibiotics in 90 percent of dust samples collected during two decades from a pig-feeding operation. And in 2005, researchers at Johns Hopkins concluded that exposure to airborne bacteria from a concentrated animal feeding operation can provide a potential pathway for transferring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Finally, much of the two trillions pounds of manure that's generated in the U.S. each year contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria that contaminates groundwater, surface water, and soil.
Farmers who raise organic produce have a keen interest in the elimination of non-therapeutic antibiotic use because of its potential to contaminate the organic food supply. That's because organic farmers rely heavily upon manure rather than synthetic fertilizers for crop nutrients, and manures containing antibiotics are not currently prohibited in organic farming.
In a study published in the July/August 2007 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality, scientists at the University of Minnesota found that food crops accumulate antibiotics from soil that's been spread with antibiotic-containing manure. The study, funded by the USDA, reports that the commonly used antibiotic Sulfamethazine was found in corn, lettuce, and potatoes harvested from soil that had been spread with manure containing the antibiotic.
Curbing the use of antibiotics now can have a profoundly positive effect on insuring the quality of organic foods as well as the ability of medical professionals to treat diseases in the very near future. A total of 350 health, consumer, and environmental organizations—including The American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Preventative Medicine—have taken a stance against giving antibiotics to animals that aren't sick. By the way, more animals won't become ill if farmers cut back on antibiotics. Improving living conditions—like providing better ventilation, cleaning, and other handling changes—can prevent many of the diseases that animals contract, without the routine use of antibiotics. And the cost of these changes (less than $10 per consumer annually) is minimal.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act amends the Federal Food Drug Cosmetic Act to withdraw approval of seven classes of antibiotics for non-therapeutic feed additive use. The bill would also require producers of agricultural antibiotics to track and submit records of the use of its products. While it would generally take about two years for the act to take effect, it otherwise takes the FDA about 20 years to remove an antibiotic from agricultural use.
