Commentary: Worldwatch’s antibiotic claims are unfounded – Part II

Last week, the Worldwatch Institute released a highly-critical report on global meat production that criticized modern animal production for “heavy use of inputs such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.” In Part I of our commentary on the report – “Worldwatch fails to help the hungry” – we examined Worldwatch’s allegations about “dirty” conditions that promote disease and misleading claims about beef production’s environmental impact.

Worldwatch also condemned the use of antibiotics in livestock production, using a wide brush to paint a scary picture of superbugs contaminating the environment and destroying human health.

“Mass quantities of antibiotics are used on livestock to reduce the impact of disease, contributing to antibiotic resistance in animals and humans alike,” the report said. “Worldwide, 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in 2009 were used on livestock and poultry, compared to only 20 percent used for human illnesses. Antibiotics that are present in animal waste leach into the environment and contaminate water and food crops, posing a serious threat to public health.”

Worldwatch, like many other groups, repeats the unfounded claim that livestock contribute “to antibiotic resistance.” But the scientific evidence on the issue is not clear.

“There is serious scientific doubt as to whether antibiotics used for livestock are a risk factor for resistance when compared to antibiotics for companion animals and human use,” says Washington State University assistant professor of dairy science Judith Capper.

Tom Field, executive director of producer education for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, says, “A tremendous amount of international research has been done on this topic, and to date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the judicious use of antibiotics in cattle leads to antimicrobial resistance in humans.”

Scientists say antimicrobial resistance is a complex issue, and Field believes “we need more research and a comprehensive, nonpolitical evaluation of all the peer-reviewed science related to all animal use, human use and industrial use to effectively understand the issue and find solutions.”

Antimicrobials are an important tool for animal agriculture, and producers use those products to improve the health and well-being of their animals.

“Ranchers have an obligation to protect cattle health and welfare,” Field says. “We also have an obligation to protect human health by providing a safe beef supply. That’s why, for generations, cattle producers have worked closely with veterinarians in the careful use of antibiotics to prevent, control and treat disease.”

Preventive medicine keeps cattle healthy, and healthy cattle are the foundation of a safe food supply, Field says.

“The cattle industry strives daily to provide best possible management of their animals through superior genetics, nutrition, veterinary care, housing and handling.  Cattlemen continually look for new or improved production practices that help minimize the use of drugs and prevent diseases.  Animals can get sick, like humans, sometimes requiring the use of medication. Beef producers and veterinarians take great care to promptly detect illness and, when necessary, select and use antibiotics carefully and judiciously so we can provide American consumers with safe, wholesome and nutritious beef.”

The beef industry’s Judicious Use Guidelines, and NCBA’s policies and their Producer Code of Cattle Care, specifically recommend avoiding the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine, and not to use antibiotics if the “principle intent is to improve performance.”

Field notes that the primary class of antibiotics used for performance are ionophores, which are not used in human medicine, nor are there plausible links to human therapeutics.

When compared with other countries, the U.S. has significantly lower animal disease rates. That’s due to herd health programs aimed at prevention and treatment of disease.

“Agenda-driven, non-science-based banning of antibiotics would ultimately harm animal health and animal welfare, and food safety and security,” Field says. “Decisions affecting animal and human health are far too important to be based on anything other than sound, peer-reviewed science.

“It’s easy to target America’s livestock producers. But it won’t solve the issue.”