Food safetyFDA says voluntary phasing out of antibiotics in livestock is working
A study by the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) says that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed eighteen animal drugs to remain on the market despite the agency’s discovery that the drugs posed a high risk of exposing humans to antibiotic-resistant bacteria through food supply. The NRDC criticizes the FDA’s voluntary guidelines for antibiotic phase-out, but observers note that beginning in 2001, the FDA began reviewing thirty approved antibiotic-based feed additives, and that only a few – fewer than the eighteen claimed by NRDC – are still in use, and they, too, will soon be relabeled and not allowed for use in livestock.
A study by the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) says that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed eighteen animal drugs to remain on the market despite the agency’s discovery that the drugs posed a high risk of exposing humans to antibiotic-resistant bacteria through food supply. The NRDC is one of several groups that have criticized the use of antibiotics in food production. Agribusinesses insist that the drugs help increase production, which leads to lower consumer prices, but consumer advocates are concerned about antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans.
Agweek reports that last year the FDA unveiled guidelines for drug makers and agribusinesses which called for voluntary phasing out of antibiotics used to promote growth in livestock. From 2001 to 2010, the FDA reviewed thirty penicillin and tetracycline-based antibiotic feed additives which had been approved specifically for growth promotion of livestock and poultry. The NRDC says that the FDA failed to remove the thirty antibiotic-based livestock feed products from the market even after federal investigators concluded that those feed products did not meet current regulatory standards for protecting human health.
The FDA, in response, said it had issued letters to companies who made the antibiotic-based feed products requesting for additional safety data. “Based on its review of this and other information, the Agency chose to employ a strategy that would more broadly address the concerns about the production use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals,” the FDA says.
Agweeknotes that some academics specializing in antibiotics claim that the NRDC study does not reflect current regulatory standards because some of the drugs are no longer in the marketplace. They also claim that the NRDC study reviewed outdated FDA safety guidelines.
Dr. Randall Singer, associated professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, says drug companies and agribusinesses are phasing out antibiotics used primarily for growth enhancement. “We have been telling them for years to be prepared for the elimination of growth promotion and feed efficiency labeling because you cannot make that change overnight,” says Singer, who reviewed the NRDC report.
The NRDC insists that evidence confirm nine antibiotic drugs that promote growth in livestock remain on the market. One of those drugs is Penicillin G Procaine 50/100 manufactured by Zoetis Inc, which acquired the drug from an unnamed original sponsor. A spokeswoman for Zoetis, a unit of Pfizer inc., says the drug would be phased out as a growth promoter and relabeled for more limited purposes.
According to Deputy FDA Commissioner Michael Taylor, once companies remove farm-production uses of their antibiotics from drug labels, it would be illegal for agribusinesses to use those drugs for growth promotion. The voluntary program would allow the FDA to take regulatory action against companies that do not comply with new labels. The FDA says it is “confident that its current strategy to protect the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials, including penicillins and tetracyclines, is the most efficient and effective way to change the use of these products in animal agriculture.”
