***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: 12 Feb 2010
Source: The Farmer [edited]
Media reports are associating the use of antibiotics in livestock
production with antibiotic resistance in humans. Iowa State University
veterinary professor Dr. Scott Hurd, who is a former USDA Deputy
Undersecretary for Food Safety, says this concern is not based in
science. Hurd emphasizes that pork producers adopt withdrawal periods
for antibiotics, which protects the meat supply [but see comment to
[2] below]. The main issue is actually resistant organisms, so Hurd
says it is a much bigger, more difficult topic.
In 2000, Denmark implemented a blanket ban on preventative
antibiotics. That ban has been repeatedly highlighted in media reports
about antibiotic resistance. Hurd, who spent some time in Denmark as
the ban was moving forward, is able to offer some perspective on the
Danish ban.
"Immediately after that ban, in swine, the number of pigs that had to
be treated for illness actually doubled, and that trend continued for
many years after the ban," Hurd said. "The World Health Organization
did a study in 2002, and they said very clearly they could find no
evidence that human health has actually improved or that risk has
actually been reduced."
The media has unfairly portrayed this as a food safety story. Hurd
says an antibiotic ban would actually decrease the health of meat
animals entering the food supply.
"Antibiotics and other treatments and management are used in livestock
in order to produce healthy animals, which result in healthy food,"
Hurd said. "As the deputy undersecretary, I was in charge of all food
and meat inspection in the United States. Our 1st concern is to make
sure that no unhealthy animal enters the food chain, so obviously,
healthy animals are an important part of that; antibiotics are an
important part of making animals healthy and getting those into the
food chain."
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2]
Date: 13 Feb 2010
Source: Des Moines Register [edited]
(H. Scott Hurd is now an associate professor in the College of
Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University. Contact:
As former deputy undersecretary for food safety at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and a scientist who has actively researched food safety
for over 20 years, I'm disappointed by recent media reports blaming
antibiotic use in livestock for most antibiotic resistance in humans.
Consumers should know that Methicillin-resistant _Staphylococcus
aureus_ (MRSA) mentioned in these reports is not a food-borne disease
and not usually from animals. Normally, the strain found in pigs is
different than that found in humans. The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has concluded, after investigating numerous human outbreaks of
MRSA infections in the United States, none of these investigations had
animal exposure as a risk factor. The CDC concludes the vast majority
of infections result from person-to-person transmission of MRSA in the
community, not the farm.
Of course, farmers should not use antibiotics unless they are needed.
However, national lawmakers who are pursuing a misguided blanket ban
on certain antibiotics uses in livestock haven't considered sound
science.
As President Obama said last year [2009], "We must make scientific
decisions based on facts, not ideology." I fully agree. Bacteria are
nonpartisan. _Salmonella_ and _Staphylococcus_ don't vote and don't
watch TV. The basic principles of microbiology, animal disease
prevention, food production and risk assessment apply equally to us
all. If new policies are not built on accurate science, they won't
work; they won't make the world a safer place. This issue impacts me
not just as a scientist, but also as the father of 8 children.
I don't accept antibiotics in my meat! And, it is critically important
to understand that meat consumed in America is to be free from
antibiotic residues. The presence of residues is illegal. As a former
leader in the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, I can assure you
the system checks carefully for the presence of this stuff in meat.
However, today's concern is about the possibility of resistant bacteria.
My years of experience and research in the food safety field have led
me to the following conclusion: The published scientific risk
assessments done to date (some I have published) on antibiotic use in
livestock demonstrate an extremely low to nonexistent human health
risk from resistant bacteria.
Therefore, the public health and political benefit of antibiotic bans
will be low, nonexistent or even contrary to public health. As a
veterinarian of over 25 years, I believe antibiotic bans may lead to
secondary public health consequences from the consumption of unhealthy
animals, not to mention added suffering of sick animals. Experience
teaches that evaluation of human health risk and the value of banning
certain antibiotics must be made on a case-by-case basis; blanket bans
are not effective.
The effects of such blanket bans are apparent in Denmark. After
Denmark passed its ban on preventive antibiotics in 2000, the World
Health Organization found no measurable public health benefit, partly
because farmers were forced to use more antibiotics to treat sick
pigs: 100 percent more. Those secondary health impacts of the ban and
the costs to producers haven't been covered in recent media reports.
If you truly value food safety for your family as much as I do, you'll
realize that an antibiotic ban will actually decrease the health of
meat animals entering the food chain. Science shows us that the
continued safety of our food supply depends on allowing responsible
farmers, with veterinary direction, to continue making decisions based
on best science and experience. The choice is ours. Let's make it on
what's sound science, which is best for us all.
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[When I contacted Scott Hurd for any comments on The Farmer article,
he replied: "I have no objection to the item from FARMERS, except I
did NOT say farmers should adopt early withdrawal. I may have said
something to the effect that animals should not be given antibiotics
unless they need them. For info on my other comments, you can see the
link below. Also, I will send this weekend's editorial."
The editorial the Des Moines Register is above in [2].
His "other comments" can be seen in: "ISU Associate Professor and
Former USDA Deputy Undersecretary Food Safety Responds to CBS News
Segments on Antibiotics - Feb. 9 and 10:
Key Facts Disagree with CBS
Evening News Segment on Antibiotics," aired on 9 Feb 2010
As this is lengthy and detailed, I have not attempted to shorten it.
It is well worth reading.CLICK ON TITLE ABOVE TO SEE MR HURDS REPLY TO CBS REPORT
Our thanks to Scott for responding so fully. - Mod.MHJ]
[The issue is also which antibiotics. When antibiotics are used that
are of a class that contains parenteral antibiotics critical to human
health, and resistance emerges in bacteria, it can be a real problem.
Probable examples of the results of use in animal food are:
- avoparcin, a glycolipid, probably led to vancomycin-resistant enteroccocci;
- virginiamycin probably led to quinupristin/dalfopristin-resistant
_E. faecium_; and
- quinolones probably resulted in resistant campylobacter and salmonella.
Drugs such as bacitracin which have no parenteral class use in humans
are not a
problem. - Mod.DK]
[see also:
2000
----
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA (02) 20000511.0718
Antibiotic resistance & agricultural uses - USA 20000429.0649
Antibiotic resistance, surveillance - Europe 20000103.0003
1998
----
Antibiotic resistance trends - Europe 19990204.0170
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance (02) 19981219.2407
Antibiotic resistance: Internet surveillance 19981216.2373
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980807.1542
Antibiotic resistance, livestock - USA 19980805.1509]
..............................................mhj/msp/jw
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
####################################################
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment