Federal regulators have tip-toed around the issue of antibiotics in the nation's meat supply for years. Despite considerable evidence that the use of the drugs in animals contributes to the creation and expansion of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that affect humans, the Food and Drug Administration has been slow to take a definitive stance on the issue. No more.
Recently, the FDA warned that widespread use of antibiotics in animals is "a serious threat to public health." Trouble is, the FDA action, while welcome, is unlikely to prompt change in the meat industry. The FDA recommends that producers reduce the use of the drugs -- especially those used in treating human illnesses -- in animals, but it provides little incentive for them to do so. There is no legal framework to control or ban their use. Without that, there's no certainty that the industry will adopt practices that arguably help safeguard public health.
Indeed, industry groups reacted negatively to the FDA warning. A National Cattlemen's Beef Association statement said that the causes behind drug-resistant infections are complex and that human misuse of antibiotics contributes to the problem, too. The latter is true, but it does not lessen the meat industry's role in creating the problem.
The National Pork Producers Council said the FDA's view of the antibiotic issue is overly bureaucratic and that it would rob the industry of drugs vital to animals. A council statement added that "there is no scientific study linking antibiotic food use in animal production to with antibiotic resistance." The latter is simply untrue. Study after study indicates the connection.
The FDA recommendation, in fact, does not suggest banning the use of all antibiotics in livestock, only more judicious use of them.. It urges that they be used only when an animal is sick. Currently, that's not the case in a majority of instances. Most producers now routinely add antibiotics to the feed of all livestock to promote growth and to prevent the spread of disease in pens and other facilities. That builds profits for the producers at the expense of public health.
Put simply, livestock producers should use antibiotics only to treat animals that are already ill, not as a matter of course to prevent disease, encourage growth and maximize profits. But the FDA's suggestion that such a ban be adopted voluntarily by the livestock producers is unrealistic. The industry won't change a profitable business model without a compelling reason to do so.
The FDA and Congress should provide regulations that would compel them to do so. The rules need not be overly complicated. They should ban the use of antibiotics in livestock except to treat illness. Public health officials say that about 70,000 Americans die yearly from once treatable but now antibiotic-resistant infections. Tougher rules on the antibiotic use in animals could reduce that toll, slow the increase in the number of drug-resistant bacteria and lead to overall improvement in the nation's health.