Last week I traveled to Capitol Hill to hear testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. After making my way through a crowd of PETA advocates and security, I entered the Rayburn Building and was shocked to find that there was already a line down the hall-I knew then I was in for an interesting afternoon.
So what was all the fuss about? The House Subcommittee on Health hearing on July 14th was focused on issues surrounding the industrial farming practice of routinely incorporating low dose concentrations of antibiotics in the feed and water of healthy food animals for growth promotion, feed efficiency, and other uses where the animal has not been exposed to disease. This is a topic my colleagues have discussed on the FSB in the past.
The two hour-plus hearing featured testimony from a laundry list of the "who's who" in health policy and research, including Deputy Commissioner of the FDA Joshua Sharfstein, and Vice President of Regulatory, Scientific, and International Affairs at the Animal Health Institute Richard Carnevale. In the early minutes of the hearing it became clear that there were two strong and opposing perspectives on the antibiotics in animal agriculture debate.
1. Those who believed that antibiotic use in industrial farming is a critical public health concern and needed to be regulated and/or stopped, and;
2. Those who felt that antibiotics are a necessary component of raising healthy livestock and are already highly regulated
The argument fueling the need for antibiotic regulation is based on the growing body of research and expert opinion detailing the implications of antibiotic overuse in industrial farming. Opponents believe that the careless use of antibiotics in animals' feed and water over prolonged periods for purposes of growth promotion, increased feed efficiency, and routine disease prevention contributes greatly to the development of antibiotic resistance among bacteria and thereby creates public health dangers for humans.
So, what was suggested as a possible solution to the problem?
The general consensus from the HHS and USDA officials as well as other scientific experts who testified was that the American people must eliminate all non-essential uses of antibiotics, in human medicine and animal agriculture alike. Additionally there was a big push for development of new priority antibiotics to treat serious and life-threatening infections, as well as more research into new vaccines and other effective infection prevention and control initiatives.
On the other side of the argument, however, were those who believe that antibiotics are a necessary component in raising healthy livestock and assert that animals, producers, and consumers all benefit from the use of antibiotics. The biggest part of this stance was the need to keep animals healthy. According to those who are in favor of the use of antibiotics, Animal welfare is improved as a result of veterinarians and food producers having the tools, ie antibiotics, to be able to maintain an animal's health. Additionally, a big stress was placed on the fact that correlation does not equal causation-meaning, antibiotic resistance in animals doesn't necessarily equate to a significant human health risk.
The conclusion of the hearing was somewhat anti-climactic in that no firm stance was taken. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce simply implied that there will need to be more research done and more information provided before the government will take action in either direction.
Tags: agriculture, antibiotic use
