The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan. 20, 2007
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    915

    Default FDA and antibiotic use -animal feed and antibiotic resistance

    Please see http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm378166.htm

    I didn't want this to get lost in the other thread, especially considering the denial that this use of antibiotics contributes to resistance.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaybeMorgan View Post
    Please see http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm378166.htm

    I didn't want this to get lost in the other thread, especially considering the denial that this use of antibiotics contributes to resistance.
    What do you mean, "the denial that this use of antibiotics contributes to resistance"?

    Everyone that uses antibiotics knows very well about resistance.
    In medicine, human or animal, you test for it so as to use the right kind of antibiotic.
    Developing resistance to any and all that injures or kill in the environment of any organism, bacteria also, is how organisms survive and thrive.

    When our horse stepped on a nail, our vet had cultures going to be sure they were using the right kind of antibiotic for the bacteria found there, not use some antibiotic that would have been ineffective for that specific kind by it's mode of action or possible resistance to it.

    Since antibiotics came in use in the 1940's, resistance has been well documented and studied.

    The use of antibiotics in animal husbandry has decades of studies behind them from all kinds of universities and protocols for those use have been developed and for decades now, the use of antibiotics have been regulated.

    This FDA release is just one more step in those regulations.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    22,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaybeMorgan View Post
    Please see http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm378166.htm

    I didn't want this to get lost in the other thread, especially considering the denial that this use of antibiotics contributes to resistance.
    It's still voluntary, but it's a start. I'd like to see it mandatory. I'd like to see the elimination of the use of prophylactic antibiotic use. If the conditions are so crowded that they lead to disease, then fix the conditions.

    The use of antibiotics to promote growth should be ended.
    Join the Clinton 2016 campaign...Hillary For America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/


    9 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    It's still voluntary, but it's a start. I'd like to see it mandatory. I'd like to see the elimination of the use of prophylactic antibiotic use. If the conditions are so crowded that they lead to disease, then fix the conditions.

    The use of antibiotics to promote growth should be ended.
    That bolded quote is missing so much, that is the problem with this topic.
    There are antibiotics and there are antibiotics.
    By definition, some products are antibiotics, but are not the kind used to treat disease at all, like rumensin.
    It would not be sensible to ban the use of those kinds of products classified under antibiotics that are not used as some understand antibiotics are used for.

    As for managing animals, there are many places where the only way you could manage without animals getting sick would be to isolate them from everyone and other animals, which causes other problems, like complaints from animal rights extremists, like small dairy calf individual hutches.

    To ask those are kept in groups and then insist they are not given antibiotics when they of course exchange bugs and some get sick is not sensible.
    Too many would just die and that I hope is not the intended purpose of most people.
    To ask animals are managed so they don't exchange bugs is not any more sensible than not letting your kids out, not playing with other kids, no daycare, no kindergarten, no school or high school, no college.
    Keeping your kids at home, don't accept visitors and wash your clothes before you come in to be sure no bug hitches a ride on you and your kid never catches anything.

    There are protocols developed after much research and study in how antibiotics are used and why.
    No one is just haphazardly throwing them in a feed mix and happily feeding them wholesale.
    Not everyone uses antibiotics on feed anyway, we don't, but we sure would protest if we could not use them to treat a sick calf or horse.

    I think this is just one more topic news is using to fill a slow time in the news.
    Just hope they use a balanced approach to their reporting, explaining first why we use antibiotics at all and how, not fear-mongering about superbugs and ignoring how human medicine is the main cause of antibiotic resistance in humans.
    The news stories keep saying 80% of antibiotics are used in animal husbandry, but they don't say a big percentage of those are not the antibiotics relevant to the resistance problems, products like rumensin are.
    On the other hand, that 20% used in humans is contributing to the majority of the resistance found in human medicine.
    That is glossed over in the stories.

    As a scientist said, "if you think you understand antibiotic resistance, you have not learned enough about it".


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    I wanted to add, working with antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is something everyone in human and animal medicine has been aware of since we started using antibiotics.
    There are whole courses on that in all medicine.
    I took advanced education classes in our local college in immunology a few decades ago and whole lectures were just on that then.

    While it is very important to protect our uses of antibiotics, we need to understand that, while there are misused in all, human and animal use of them and curbing the use in animal medicine even more with new regulations is important, that doesn't mean that is the most important, much less only source of misuse and resistance.

    I watched several news blurbs on this and the doctors speaking were careful not to point out, after complaining about veterinary use of antibiotics, that it is in human medicine where most of the human resistance is coming from.

    I wonder why the FDA decide now to bring those recommendations out, it doesn't seem to even be backed by regulations, if I heard that right?

    There are already many regulations to all and any product anyone can use and how to use them in animal feeds.
    Even supplements like iodine can only be added at most 2% in mineral supplements and so for all other, including antibiotics of any kind, if medically relevant or not.
    Those regulations were put in place after several studies supported them.

    Strange that these recommendations were released and so as to make such a news splash.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    22,906

    Default

    Here's a proposed rule which will make a difference...it requires a vet to sign off on the use of antibiotics also used for humans.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2013-29696.pdf

    Bluey, you have no credibility. You are claiming that the CDC, the FDA, Johns Hopkins, WHO and various other highly respected organizations are wrong.
    Join the Clinton 2016 campaign...Hillary For America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/


    5 members found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    22,906

    Default

    Here's the summary of HR 1150...an important bill that I would love to see passed.

    Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require an applicant for approval of a new animal drug that is a medically important antimicrobial to demonstrate that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health due to the development of antimicrobial resistance attributable to the nontherapeutic use of the drug.

    Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to refuse approval if the applicant fails to make such a demonstration.

    Defines “medically important antimicrobial” as a drug intended for use in food-producing animals and composed wholly or partly of:

    (1) any kind of specified antibiotics, including penicillin and tetracycline; or
    (2) a drug from an antimicrobial class that is listed on the World Health Organization’s list of critically important antimicrobials.

    Requires the Secretary to withdraw approval for the nontherapeutic use in food-producing animals of a medically important microbial marketed for human use unless the Secretary makes a final written determination that, based on either the application holder's demonstration or an HHS risk analysis, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health due to the development of antimicrobial resistance attributable to the drug's nontherapeutic use.

    Requires the Secretary to rescind approval of an exemption for investigational use of, or of approval of a new drug application for, a medically important antimicrobial for its nontherapeutic use in a food-producing animal two years after the exemption is granted or the application for approval is submitted.

    Exempts from this requirement any drugs for which there has been found a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health.

    Prohibits the administration of a medically important antimicrobial (including by means of animal feed) to a food-producing animal for nonroutine disease control unless there is a significant risk that a disease or infection present on the premises will be transmitted to the food-producing animal.

    Requires the administration of the microbial to be:
    (1) necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of transmission;
    (2) for the shortest duration possible to prevent or reduce the risk of transmission; and
    (3) at a scale no greater than the barn, house, or pen level and to the fewest animals possible to prevent or reduce the risk of transmission.
    Join the Clinton 2016 campaign...Hillary For America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    The use of antibiotics to promote growth should be ended.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That bolded quote is missing so much, that is the problem with this topic.
    There are antibiotics and there are antibiotics.

    There are protocols developed after much research and study in how antibiotics are used and why.
    No one is just haphazardly throwing them in a feed mix and happily feeding them wholesale.
    Really?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html

    First line: Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat since they discovered decades ago that small doses of antibiotics administered daily would make most animals gain as much as 3 percent more weight than they otherwise would. In an industry where profits are measured in pennies per animal, such weight gain was revolutionary.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S1969 View Post
    Really?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html

    First line: Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat since they discovered decades ago that small doses of antibiotics administered daily would make most animals gain as much as 3 percent more weight than they otherwise would. In an industry where profits are measured in pennies per animal, such weight gain was revolutionary.
    While there are many more recent studies that do link some resistance in human illness thru animal pathways, there is still the pesky details of percentages, that still indicate MOST human illness and resistance are due to human use of antibiotics.
    Why?
    Because of human overuse of antibiotics, something doctors are also working on changing.

    Contemporary Patterns of Antibiotic Resistance in Humans

    By Ron Jones, M.D.
    Primary Investigator, SENTRY Program

    Antibiotic resistance in humans is growing around the world, but a global collection of human and animal resistant strains shows little significant association between animal and human patterns.

    While antibiotic resistance is a public health threat around the world, it is clear that hospital- and community-acquired diseases, unrelated to animal drug use, constitute the major problems. Surveillance data clearly show a disconnect between antibiotic resistance patterns in humans and animals, calling into question the alleged link between resistant bacteria in animals and those in humans. The data also affirm that outbreaks of resistant bacteria are generally local, clearly suggesting that management responses should be local, usually at the ward or medical center level and dominantly attributed to patient-to-patient dissemination or related to flawed infection control practices.

    The SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, which since 1997 has analyzed worldwide data from the collection of human and animal isolates of bacterial strains, has documented the growing antibiotic resistance problem around the world.1 The SENTRY Program also provides useful data for evaluating the extent of current resistance threats among human pathogens and any potential correlation or link between use of antibiotics in animals, and the extent of emerging antibiotic resistance in humans.

    Current Resistance Concerns in Human Practice. Of the over two million hospital-acquired infections per year in the United States, the resistant organisms of greatest risk for poor patient therapeutic outcomes are:

    Methicillin-resistant staphylococci especially S. aureus;
    Enterococci resistant to vancomycin or “so-called VRE”;
    E. coli and Klebsiella spp. resistant to “third-generation” cephalosporins;
    Most prevalent human clinical pathogens evolving toward resistance to ciprofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones; and
    Multi-drug resistance among P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.

    Without exception, none of these problems are related to food-borne pathogens or documented to have contributed significant risk to patients. Rates of resistance among monitored institutions vary widely, but clear increases in resistance among the five (5) listed nosocomial organism resistance problems are driven by use of antimicrobials in humans and other factors that are headed by a decline in the Public Health infrastructure and local infection control practices.

    Results from North America for the enterococci continue to see higher resistance rates each year (17%, SENTRY Program for 2001), in an area where no selecting agent exists in animal practice. Similarly, Synercid-resistant strains continue to emerge in North America and Europe, the latter where the animal product (virginamycin) was removed from use, but pristinomycin remains utilized in human practice (decades prior to Synercid release). Epidemic occurrences of vancomycin- and Synercid-resistant strains continue to occur in Europe, North America and now in Latin America driven by selective pressures of human antibiotic treatment and breaks in infection control policies.
    Among community-acquired infections, the principal concerns are:

    Penicillin and erythromycin resistances in S. pneumoniae and other streptococci;
    Methicillin resistance in staphylococcal skin infections;
    Fluoroquinolone and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance in the Enterobacteriaceae causing urinary tract infections; and
    Resistance among food-borne pathogens, principally Campylobacter and Salmonella.

    Results from the SENTRY Program indicate that invasive Salmonella causes only 0.4% of all blood stream infections in the United States, and the resistances to ampicillin (22%), ceftriaxone (1.6%), ciprofloxacin (0.8%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (6.3%) remain low and unchanged over the last five years. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter was documented before and after its use in animal health, but the preferred treatment (macrolides) remains completely effective. Ironically, the susceptibility rates of these pathogens of suspected animal reservoir origin have antibiotic resistance rates that are significantly less than comparable Enterobacteriaceae of human origin especially among pathogens associated with hospital-acquired bacteremias or community-acquired urinary tract infections.

    North America

    The growing problem of antimicrobial resistance has led to renewed calls to phase out or ban the use of certain antibiotics given to animals. These calls have persisted despite the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating a significant risk to human health. Indeed, experts have stated that banning antibiotics as growth promoters in animals will not solve or even impact the problem of antibiotic resistance in hospitals.2 A greater benefit could be achieved by restoring infection control infrastructures and improving public health educational efforts especially in food preparation.

    Most Serious Antimicrobial Resistance Problems
    Facing Human Medicine in North America

    GRAM-POSITIVE COCCI
    RISK FROM ANIMAL SOURCES
    Staphylococci
    Methicillin or oxacillin
    None
    MLSB (Synercid®)
    None
    Glycopeptides
    None
    Streptococci
    DRSP and other
    None
    Enterococci
    Ampicillin and Aminoglycosides
    None
    Synercid®
    None
    Glycopeptides
    None
    Oxazolidinones
    None

    GRAM-NEGATIVE BACILLI
    RISK FROM ANIMAL SOURCES
    Enterobacteriaceae E coli, Klebsiella spp., etc.
    None
    Salmonella and other food-borne species
    ESBLs
    None
    Stably derepressed Amp C (CMY-2, etc.)
    Debateda
    Fluoroquinolones
    Debateda
    Novel ?-lactamases
    None
    P. aeruginosa
    MDR isolates
    None
    Acinetobacters
    MD isolates
    None
    Campylobacters
    Macrolides
    None
    Fluoroquinolones
    Debatedb

    a. Resistance rates in humans are higher than in animal strains.
    b. Drugs of therapeutic choice have remained active regardless of resistance discovered in animal pathogens.


    Recent reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document a 23% decline in food-borne infections between 1999 - 2001. This decrease was attributed to initiatives in slaughterhouse safety practices, improved agricultural practices at the level of the farm, adherence to new regulations governing fruit and other juices and an expanded food safety education program. Clearly this indicates significant progress on that small proportion of human infections that are derived from animal sources.3

    References
    Jones RN, Turnidge J. SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Five Year Summary [Slide Presentation].
    Acar J, Casewell M, Freeman J, Goossens H, Friis C. Avoparcin and virginiamycin as animal growth promoters: A plea for science in decision-making. Clinical Microbiology and Infections 2000; 6(9):477-482.
    Cimons M, Food safety progress hailed while concerns remain. ASM News 68:317-318, 2002.


    PAGE


    PAGE 4
    Contemporary Patterns of Antibiotic Resistance in Humans



    Animal Health Institute 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 700
    Representing manufacturers of animal health products Washington, D.C. 20005-3104
    November, 2002 Telephone: (202) 637-2440



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Here's a proposed rule which will make a difference...it requires a vet to sign off on the use of antibiotics also used for humans.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2013-29696.pdf

    Bluey, you have no credibility. You are claiming that the CDC, the FDA, Johns Hopkins, WHO and various other highly respected organizations are wrong.
    Why starting with personal attacks this early in the debate?

    When I have disagreed with some such, it was because the one presenting those was taking them out of context to mean something that was questionable.

    Nonsense to try to make any other out of debating studies as they stand.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug. 23, 2006
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    Too much here to just *ignore*.
    (Posting in Red is mine.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That bolded quote is missing so much, that is the problem with this topic.
    There are antibiotics and there are antibiotics.
    By definition, some products are antibiotics, but are not the kind used to treat disease at all, like rumensin.
    It would not be sensible to ban the use of those kinds of products classified under antibiotics that are not used as some understand antibiotics are used for.

    I don't think the controversy is about those types of antibiotics at all. To call attention to this particular type of drug (rumensin) or others in the same category is typical "bait and switch" tactics to lead away from the actual subject which is antibiotics such as tetracycline which is used sub-theraputically to make meat animals gain weight more quickly. And this has nothing to do with treating any kind of illness or disease.

    As for managing animals, there are many places where the only way you could manage without animals getting sick would be to isolate them from everyone and other animals, which causes other problems, like complaints from animal rights extremists, like small dairy calf individual hutches.

    To ask those are kept in groups and then insist they are not given antibiotics when they of course exchange bugs and some get sick is not sensible.
    Too many would just die and that I hope is not the intended purpose of most people.
    To ask animals are managed so they don't exchange bugs is not any more sensible than not letting your kids out, not playing with other kids, no daycare, no kindergarten, no school or high school, no college.
    Keeping your kids at home, don't accept visitors and wash your clothes before you come in to be sure no bug hitches a ride on you and your kid never catches anything.

    So what you are saying here is that people should *do as the cattle farmers do* and just feed antibitics to their children routinely so that they don't catch any *nasties* when they mingle with other children? That is just beyond bizarre!

    There are protocols developed after much research and study in how antibiotics are used and why.
    No one is just haphazardly throwing them in a feed mix and happily feeding them wholesale.
    Not everyone uses antibiotics on feed anyway, we don't, but we sure would protest if we could not use them to treat a sick calf or horse.

    Of course no one is saying that ALL farmers use antibiotics routinely - but your denial that they problem even exixts on a large scale is absurd.

    I think this is just one more topic news is using to fill a slow time in the news.
    Just hope they use a balanced approach to their reporting, explaining first why we use antibiotics at all and how, not fear-mongering about superbugs and ignoring how human medicine is the main cause of antibiotic resistance in humans.

    *Stories* like this.....?

    "There is no evidence that antibiotic resistance is not a problem, but there is insufficient evidence as to how big a problem it is," says Dr. Margaret Mellon, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    In one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 6, 2002, researchers found links that strongly suggested that the people who developed Cipro-resistant bacteria had acquired them by eating pork that were contaminated with salmonella. The report concluded that salmonella resistant to the antibiotic flouroquine can be spread from swine to humans, and, therefore, the use of flouroquinolones in food animals should be prohibited.

    Another New England Journal of Medicine study from Oct. 18, 2001, found that 20 percent of ground meat obtained in supermarkets contained salmonella. Of that 20 percent that was contaminated with salmonella, 84 percent was resistant to at least one form of antibiotic."

    "Baytril is the sister drug to Cipro, which is used to treat and prevent anthrax as well as campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis in people. The Food and Drug Administration, doctors, and consumer groups have all urged that Baytril be removed from the market on the grounds that its use in animals may eventually compromise the power of Cipro and similar antibiotics to fight disease in humans. Cipro and Baytril belong to a class of drugs known as fluoroquinolone, among the most powerful antibiotics currently available.

    Baytril first came up for approval for use in chickens six years ago. Physicians have used fluoroquinolones to treat food-borne illness since 1986, but fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria were rare until 1995, when the FDA approved the use of these drugs in drinking water for poultry. The FDA's rough estimate, using 1999 data, is that use of fluoroquinolones in chickens resulted in over 11,000 people that year contracting a strain of the campylobacter illness that was resistant to fluoroquinolones, contributing to unnecessarily severe disease."


    The news stories keep saying 80% of antibiotics are used in animal husbandry, but they don't say a big percentage of those are not the antibiotics relevant to the resistance problems, products like rumensin are.
    On the other hand, that 20% used in humans is contributing to the majority of the resistance found in human medicine.
    That is glossed over in the stories.

    As a scientist said, "if you think you understand antibiotic resistance, you have not learned enough about it".
    This report from PBS is older yet the problems outlined still exist in the meat industry now. Hopefully the voluntary nature of the antibiotic phase-out will help somewhat but I rather doubt that those using sub-theraputic antibiotics will voluntarily give up some of their market profits if it means that they'll have to settle for slower weight gain in their *products*.

    Is your meat safe:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claddagh View Post
    Too much here to just *ignore*.
    (Posting in Red is mine.)



    This report from PBS is older yet the problems outlined still exist in the meat industry now. Hopefully the voluntary nature of the antibiotic phase-out will help somewhat but I rather doubt that those using sub-theraputic antibiotics will voluntarily give up some of their market profits if it means that they'll have to settle for slower weight gain in their *products*.

    Is your meat safe:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html
    We have already established that you can find all kinds of reports stating all kinds of positions in any issue.
    That was my point with the post with the article I posted.

    The reality is somewhere in the middle, as always.

    Yes, the nature of bacteria is to live and thrive thru becoming resistant to any and all.
    How they do that is not as simple as stopping this or adding that.
    This is a scientific debate that has been ongoing since antibiotics and other antibacterials started to be used.

    I still don't know why the FDA made such a show of this, now, since this talk and added measures and regulations have been part of what they have been working on for decades.
    Stay tuned to see what else shows up.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    While there are many more recent studies that do link some resistance in human illness thru animal pathways, there is still the pesky details of percentages, that still indicate MOST human illness and resistance are due to human use of antibiotics.
    But that's that's not the point. Antibiotic use for animal growth is very common - for nothing but profit. It may not be the reason for most human illness, but even if not, it is not being used to treat illness in animals.

    The reality is that they ARE just being happily and haphazardly fed. There may be protocols for doing it, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea - most likely they are protocols being developed by the meat industries.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Ok, here is what this FDA ruling is all about, how it came to be, what is intended, there is the customary 90 day process for everyone to comment on this and any questions they may have and how the FDA will then proceed to change regulations:

    http://www.cattlenetwork.com/e-newsl...235400561.html

    That makes much more sense than all those opinions and guesses the press has been reporting about this.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug. 23, 2006
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S1969 View Post
    Really?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../overview.html

    First line: Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat since they discovered decades ago that small doses of antibiotics administered daily would make most animals gain as much as 3 percent more weight than they otherwise would. In an industry where profits are measured in pennies per animal, such weight gain was revolutionary.
    Whoops...S1969, it looks like I quoted the same Frontline report that you'd already cited. Sorry, I hadn't read your post since I've sort of been trying to multi-task and keep going back and forth to COTH (mid-reply).

    Good report though isn't it? Makes much sense to anyone who truly cares about what they are being sold and what they are eating.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Ok, here is what this FDA ruling is all about, how it came to be, what is intended, there is the customary 90 day process for everyone to comment on this and any questions they may have and how the FDA will then proceed to change regulations:

    http://www.cattlenetwork.com/e-newsl...235400561.html

    That makes much more sense than all those opinions and guesses the press has been reporting about this.
    That's exactly the same information as the initial post with the link from the FDA.

    I think we are only arguing with you because you said

    There are protocols developed after much research and study in how antibiotics are used and why.
    No one is just haphazardly throwing them in a feed mix and happily feeding them wholesale.
    Not everyone uses antibiotics on feed anyway, we don't, but we sure would protest if we could not use them to treat a sick calf or horse.
    Of course sick animals should be treated. This says:

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today is implementing a plan to help phase out the use of medically important antimicrobials in food animals for food production purposes, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency. The plan would also phase in veterinary oversight of the remaining appropriate therapeutic uses of such drugs.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    5,689

    Default

    oops double post. Sorry.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,989

    Default

    Bluey, how is that any different from what has been reported already?

    Oh wait, it's not.

    The report was referring to drugs given to animals for weight gain that are also used in human therapy. The report never recommended not giving animals antibiotic therapy EVER.

    (Basically a double post of what S1969 said -- I started the post a while ago and had to attend to something else before finishing it, so I didn't see her post.)


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    5,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    If the conditions are so crowded that they lead to disease, then fix the conditions.
    Quote Originally Posted by S1969 View Post
    Antibiotic use for animal growth is very common - for nothing but profit. It may not be the reason for most human illness, but even if not, it is not being used to treat illness in animals.

    The reality is that they ARE just being happily and haphazardly fed. There may be protocols for doing it, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea - most likely they are protocols being developed by the meat industries.
    And therein lies the problem with the food animal industry. The only way to make money is to cram way too many animals in one place and feed them pharmaceuticals to make them get bigger in a shorter amount of time.

    We already know the large players in the meat industry don't care about the welfare of the animals, and it's now coming out they really don't much care about the welfare of the people eating the meat they produce.

    Bottom line: the meat industry is all about making as much money as possible no matter what or who gets hurt in the process.

    Scary details:

    Currently, up to 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States are given to healthy food animals, according to Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit think tank.

    Researchers at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future say the plan will not change the way these drugs are used in food animals because there's a loophole. Animals consume low doses of antibiotics over long stretches of time for both growth promotion and disease prevention. Using them in healthy animals for disease prevention is still allowed, meaning they could still be used for growth promotion and contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist in Congress, said the plan is an "inadequate" response to the antibiotic-resistant bacteria crisis stemming from livestock feed because the FDA has no mechanism to enforce it. She has authored her own legislation, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would make a ban on antibiotic use in healthy animals mandatory, but companies lobbied heavily against it. It did not pass.

    Well, if we are relying on the FDA to try to enforce this, we're screwed and the meat industry will just keep on keeping on...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-sto...ry?id=21175760
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    And therein lies the problem with the food animal industry. The only way to make money is to cram way too many animals in one place and feed them pharmaceuticals to make them get bigger in a shorter amount of time.

    We already know the large players in the meat industry don't care about the welfare of the animals, and it's now coming out they really don't much care about the welfare of the people eating the meat they produce.

    Bottom line: the meat industry is all about making as much money as possible no matter what or who gets hurt in the process.

    Scary details:

    Currently, up to 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States are given to healthy food animals, according to Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit think tank.

    Researchers at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future say the plan will not change the way these drugs are used in food animals because there's a loophole. Animals consume low doses of antibiotics over long stretches of time for both growth promotion and disease prevention. Using them in healthy animals for disease prevention is still allowed, meaning they could still be used for growth promotion and contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist in Congress, said the plan is an "inadequate" response to the antibiotic-resistant bacteria crisis stemming from livestock feed because the FDA has no mechanism to enforce it. She has authored her own legislation, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would make a ban on antibiotic use in healthy animals mandatory, but companies lobbied heavily against it. It did not pass.

    Well, if we are relying on the FDA to try to enforce this, we're screwed and the meat industry will just keep on keeping on...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-sto...ry?id=21175760
    I knew if I wait long enough someone would try to explain why that is not so and do it better than I could, as in the link below.
    "Scary details", indeed, good choice of words, when fear-mongering is the intent.

    Knowledge of the topic and perspective really helps against those that run with reports taken out of context to push their anti-animal agriculture agenda, as that last phrase in the quote shows us:

    http://beefmagazine.com/blog/true-or...ll-antibiotics

    ---"
    -
    -The principal problem is that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) figures on antibiotics are based on overall sales, not on use. While FDA is in the very early stages of addressing that problem, those are the only figures we have to work with at present. And sales figures tell you nothing about use or dosages.

    When my doctor prescribes an antibiotic for me, he writes the prescription for an adult. When he prescribes an antibiotic for a child, he adjusts the dosage accordingly. I’m heavier than that child, and therefore need a considerably higher dose of antibiotic to treat my condition.

    Likewise, when you treat a 1,300-lb. cow, you read the label and meter out the correct amount of antibiotic. Your cow weighs six times what I weigh, and 26 times what a 50-lb. child weighs; therefore, you will use considerably more antibiotic to treat her infection than is used to treat me.

    The example above considers therapeutic use, which of course is only part of the debate. And the above example assumes you’re treating your cow with the same antibiotic that my doctor uses to treat me. And that’s where the 80% figure becomes confusing.
    -
    -
    -“The debate about the amount sold or used is just diversionary,” Raymond says. “It’s not the main issue in the public health debate about antibiotic resistance. The real issues are the judicious use of antimicrobials and is there a significant impact on human health?”

    Apley agrees. “I accept that antimicrobial use in food animals can alter (antibiotic) susceptibility profiles (in pathogens),” he says. “But I also accept that there are multiple safe uses in agriculture for which the benefits far outweigh any risk. Our challenge in this conversation is to figure out which is which.”---



Similar Threads

  1. antibiotic reactions - in humans!
    By betsyk in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Apr. 4, 2013, 10:13 PM
  2. feeding antibiotic capsules
    By schimmel in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Mar. 13, 2013, 11:31 AM
  3. Routine antibiotic for foal
    By Amazone in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: Nov. 26, 2011, 02:04 PM
  4. Antibiotic ointments and eye issues
    By JB in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul. 5, 2011, 08:49 PM
  5. Doxycycline Antibiotic For Arthritis?
    By toowoomba2 in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Sep. 1, 2010, 11:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •