The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday issued a new guidance on the use of antibiotics in livestock production, drawing mixed responses from livestock organizations and groups opposed to antibiotics in agriculture.
The final Guidance 209 calls for voluntary suspension of non-therapeutic use of certain antibiotics in livestock
"Under this new voluntary initiative, certain antibiotics would not be used for so-called 'production' purposes, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency in an animal," said the FDA in a statement. "These antibiotics would still be available to prevent, control or treat illnesses in food-producing animals under the supervision of a veterinarian."
FDA also issued a draft proposed rule, which would encourage pharmaceutical companies to remove production uses of certain antibiotics from their FDA-approved product labels.
“NCBA raised concern with FDA’s Guidance 209 in 2010 because the agency lacked the necessary science in its recommendations,” says Tom Talbot, a California beef producer, large animal veterinarian and current chairman of the NCBA’s Cattle Health and Well-Being Committee. “ Antimicrobial resistance is multifaceted, extremely complex issue that cannot be adequately addressed solely by focusing on the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Prudent and responsible evaluation of this issue must consider animal, human and industrial use of antibiotics. While we appreciate the agency working with industry on the implementation of Guidance 209, we remain committed that a strong science foundation is critical before moving forward with this guidance.
“The goal of giving veterinarians greater oversight of antibiotic use in food animals is commendable but cattlemen are concerned with the feasibility of implementing the veterinary feed directives given practical hurdles, including a current shortage of veterinarians in many rural areas throughout the country and the increased record-keeping burden it could have on the day-to-day requirements veterinarians currently face. We are pleased FDA has committed to working with farmers and ranchers, veterinarians and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to seek additional information and address these concerns specifically to ensure family-owned farms and ranches are not negatively impacted by this regulation.
"It sounds to me that it is the expected guidance we knew was coming," Steve Kopperud, government affairs counsel for the American Feed Industry Association, told Dairy Herd Management, a sister publication to Drovers/CattleNetwork.
"It looks like they are heading in the right direction," he added. "It is critical this remains collaborative rather than a formal rule-making process."
A statement from the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents animal-health companies, agreed with the collaborative approach that FDA is taking with the various stakeholders.
"The veterinarian is critically important in animal care decisions and, ultimately, in protecting food safety and human health," the AHI said. "We strongly support responsible use of antibiotic medicines and the involvement of a veterinarian whenever antibiotics are administered to food producing animals.
"Implementation of this policy means all medically-important antibiotics used in animal agriculture will be used only for therapeutic purposes – disease treatment, control and prevention -- under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. This policy will assure these medically important medicines are used in animal health in much the same way they are used in human health -- under the supervision of a licensed professional and only to address disease challenges at various stages," the AHI said
The National Pork Producers Council expresses concern that the new policy will disproportionately affect small producers, have a negative effect on animal health and increase the cost of producing food while not improving public health. “The guidance could eliminate antibiotics uses that are extremely important to the health of animals,” said NPPC President R.C. Hunt, a pork producer from Wilson, N.C. “And the requirement for VFDs could be problematic, particularly for smaller producers or producers in remote areas who may not have regular access to veterinary services.”
Advocates of stronger regulation of antibiotics in livestock expressed disappointment that the guidance relies on voluntary cooperation within the industry. Quoted in an AFP article Wednesday, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Avinash Kar said "Public health authorities in the US and around the world agree that the overuse of vast quantities of antibiotics on livestock to hasten weight gain and compensate for crowded, filthy conditions is contributing to the crisis of antibiotic resistance in human medicine. This is an ineffective response to the real and sobering threat of rising antibiotic resistance, which threatens human health. Put another way, industry is not required to do anything," he said. "Even if a couple of actors make the right moves out of the goodness of their hearts, that won't ensure change in the whole industry, which is the level at which change is required."
However, a PorkNetwork article notes that several FDA officials stated at a Wednesday’s teleconference that there has been a “sea change” in the drug companies’ attitude toward the issue since FDA issued a draft Guidance 209 report in June 2010, suggesting that antibiotics be used judiciously and only when necessary to keep animals healthy. Since then, there has been “a very productive engagement” of the animal health community and the animal production community and “broad buy-in that the time has come to make this shift,” Michael Taylor, FDA deputy commissioner for foods, told reporters attending a teleconference.
Comments (11) Leave a comment