The use of antibiotics in livestock is the use of antibiotics for any purpose in livestock farms, which include treatment when sick (therapeutic), the treatment of a group of animals when at least one is diagnosed with illness (metaphylaxis). , similar to how bacterial meningitis is treated in children), and preventive treatment (prophylaxis) against disease. The use of subterapeutic doses in animal feed and/or water to increase growth and improve feed efficiency has been effectively eliminated on 1 January 2017, as a result of the new FDA Food Feed Directive FDA. This practice has been banned in Europe since 2006. This article discusses the use of antibiotics for the promotion of growth and the situation in the United States and does not include therapy, prophylaxis, or metaphylaxis in Europe.
Antimicrobials (including antibiotics and antifungals) and other drugs can only be used by veterinarians and livestock owners in the US for the care, control, or prevention of disease. Some other countries outside Europe may use antimicrobials to increase the growth rate of livestock, poultry and other domestic animals, although these medicines do not always have to be managed by veterinarians.
There are also global concerns over the use of antibiotics for the promotion of growth or therapeutic purposes because of the potential for some drugs to enter the human food chain despite strict withdrawal measures and testing to prevent antibiotic residues in the diet, increasing antibiotic resistance in animals, potentially although largely unproved with antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, and what some perceive as antibiotic abuse. Other drugs may be used only under strict limits, and some organizations and authorities seek to further limit the use of some or all of the drugs in animals. Other authorities, such as the World Organization for Animal Health, say that "Without antibiotics there will be a problem of supply of animal protein to the human population".
However, by 2013, the CDC completed and released a report detailing antibiotic resistance and classified the top 18 resistant bacteria as an urgent, serious or threatening threat (CDC). Of these organisms, three (CDIFF, CRE and Neisseria gonorrhoeae) have been classified as an urgent threat and require more monitoring and prevention (CDC). In the US alone, more than 2 million people are diagnosed with antibiotic-resistant infections and more than 23,000 die per year due to resistant infection (CDC).
Given the concerns about the use of antibiotics for feed conversion, alternative research is ongoing.
Video Antibiotic use in livestock
Sejarah latihan
In 1910 in the United States, lack of meat produced protests and boycotts. Following this and other shortcomings, the public demanded government research for the stabilization of food supplies. Since the 1900s, livestock production on US farms has to raise larger quantities of animals in a short time to meet new consumer demand. Agricultural plants or the use of high intensity feedlots originated in the late 19th century when technological and scientific advancements allowed for the mass production of livestock. Global agricultural production doubled in 1820 and 1975, feeding one billion in 1800 and up to 6.5 billion in 2002. As new large animal densities come the threat of disease, therefore requires disease control which is larger against these animals. In 1950, a group of US scientists found that adding antibiotics to livestock feeds increased the growth rate of livestock. American Cyanamid published a study that established the practice.
In 2001, this practice has grown so rapidly that a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly 90% of total antimicrobial use in the United States is for non-therapeutic purposes in agricultural production.
Antibiotics have an appropriate place in the treatment of humane diseases in farms, when they reduce the suffering of a sick animal or control the spread of disease to the nearby animal. Thus, the idea that they should never be used in a farm is misdirected. Instead, the goal is to prevent the provision of preventive use from being distorted into routine use, which is excessive use.
Maps Antibiotic use in livestock
Drug and growth stimulation
Certain antibiotics, when administered in low doses, sub-therapies, are known to improve feed conversion efficiency (more output, such as muscle or milk, for a certain amount of feed) and/or can promote greater growth, most likely by affecting the intestinal flora. However, any antibiotic that is considered medically important to humans by CDC is illegal to be used as a growth promoter in the US. Only drugs that have no connection with human drugs - and therefore no risk to humans - are allowed to be used for this purpose. It is also important to note that some of the drugs listed below are ionophores, which are not antibiotics and do not pose a potential risk to human health.
Use in various cattle
In pig production
The use of antibiotics to increase pig growth is the most widely studied at the farm. This use for growth rather than disease prevention is referred to as the use of subterapeutic antibiotics. Studies have shown that low-dose antibiotics in animal feeds increase the rate of growth, reduce mortality and morbidity, and improve reproductive performance. It is estimated that more than half of the antibiotics produced and sold in the United States are used as feed additives. Although it is still not fully understood why and how antibiotics increase the rate of pig growth, it may include metabolic effects, disease control effects, and nutritional effects. While subterapeutic use has many benefits for raising pigs, there is concern that this practice leads to increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria are resistant to one or more microbial agents normally used to treat infections. There are three stages in the possible emergence and survival of antibiotic resistance: genetic changes, antibiotic selection, and the spread of antibiotic resistance.
In other livestock production
Context rules
The use of drugs in animal foods is regulated in almost all countries. Historically, this is to prevent changes or contamination of meat, milk, eggs and other products with toxins that are harmful to humans. Treating diseased animals with drugs can cause some of the drugs left in animals when slaughtered or milked. Scientific experiments provide data showing how long the drug is in the animal body and what the animal's body does to the drug. Of particular concern are drugs that can be passed into milk or eggs. By using a 'drug withdrawal period' prior to slaughter or use of milk or eggs from treated animals, veterinarians and animal owners ensure that meat, milk and eggs are free from contamination.
These limits include not only toxins or drugs (such as penicillin) which can cause allergic reactions but also contaminants that can cause cancer. It is illegal in the US to administer drugs or feed substances in animals if they are proven to cause cancer.
One of the main limitations is the amount given to animals in the industry. These medicines should be given to healthy cattle with a low concentration of 200 g per ton of feed. The amounts distributed are also altered throughout the lifetime of livestock to meet specific growth needs.
The legality of the use of certain drugs in veterinary varies according to location.
Just as in human medicine, some medications are available off the counter and others are limited to using only veterinary prescriptions. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires special labels on all drugs, providing guidance on drug use. For animals, this includes species, dosage, reasons to provide the medication (indication) and the required withdrawal period, if any. The federal law requires a layman to use drugs only in the manner listed. Veterinarians who have examined animals or animal herds may issue replacement labels, provide new guidance, based on their medical knowledge, unless it is a feed level antibiotic (administered by feed or water) in this case the veterinarian can not have different directions from the label. It is illegal in the US for the layman to deliver any drug to the animal food in a way that is not specific to the drug label. Free drugs that can be used by ordinary people include anti-parasitic drugs (including fly spray) and antimicrobials. These medicines can be used as sprays, creams, injections, pills or oral fluids, or as feed additives, depending on the drug and its label.
In December 2013, the FDA updated its rules to try to start reducing the use of antibiotics for increased growth. Significant lobbying comes from all directions, ranging from tighter regulation to complaining is not far enough.
Currently some policies, regulations and laws exist that promote restrictions on the use of antibiotics in factory farms. In addition, several policies are being made that call for a reduction in the use of these antibiotics. However, many state senators and congressmen show support for the Antibiotic Prevention Resistance Act of 2015 (PARA) and the Preservation of Antibiotics for the Medical Treatment Act of 2013 (PAMTA). These actions propose amendments made to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that will limit and maintain the use of antibiotics for medically necessary situations. Both of these bills died in Congress in 2015.
By 2015, the FDA approves the new Livestock Feeding Regulations (VFD), which is the latest rule that provides instructions to pharmaceutical companies, veterinarians and manufacturers on how to manage the drugs needed through animal and water feed. This new rule is followed through the FDA's commitment to stop the use of antibiotics for the promotion of growth and improved feed conversion. It is now illegal to use antimicrobials that are medically important to humans for anything other than treatment, control, and disease prevention. Furthermore, even then, manufacturers should now have licensed veterinarians signing legal forms - such as prescriptions - for manufacturers to purchase, store, or manage these products. This document provides specific instructions on animals to feed, the date when they will be fed, and concentrated. Violating VFD is now a violation of federal law. This is a major step towards reducing antibiotic resistance in animals and humans. The new MCC entered into force on 1 January 2017.
Organize drugs
Drugs can be given to animals in various ways, just like humans. Among these are topical (on the skin), by injection (including intravenous, subcutaneous, subcutaneous, intramuscular and intraperitoneal implants), orally and by inhalation. Oral medications may be pill or liquid, and may be administered by mixing the drug with feed or drinking water. The type of administration may differ depending on the drug you provide, and the specific case of the animal. Disease, disease severity, selected drug, age and or animal condition, animal species, type of housing and many other factors come into play when deciding how to manage the drug. For animals that are not fed regularly concentrated feed or which can be handled repeatedly, slow release drugs may be more appropriate depending on the severity of the problem. For animals that are regularly fed (rather than grazing freely) or that can not be handled easily, the most appropriate way to administer drugs may be to include drugs in food or water, although this is not uncommon, as you will administer medicine to all animals in touch with the source. This eliminates the stress of daily (or more frequent) animal handling, which can cause stress in animals. Poultry is most often treated in this way, as they are easily stressed to death.
Timely administration of drugs is the key to preventing animal suffering and economic losses to farmers. Infected animals can spread the disease to healthy animals, causing the whole herd to become sick. Various techniques are used to monitor animals for disease so they can be treated appropriately. Stress reduction, adequate nutrition, shelter, and incoming stock quarantine are all important factors for promoting growth and reducing disease and the need for active treatment, although some vaccinations are essential for disease prevention. The age and status of animals are also important in determining proper care - young animals or pregnant animals are at greater risk and treated more aggressively than older animals. Especially in calves, when weaning (the period in which they begin to separate from their mothers) produces stress and makes them more vulnerable to catch infections such as pneumonia or diseases such as blackleg. Antibiotics are usually administered in cow feed along with injections in some cases during this time to counteract the possibility and cause infections caused by stress. Antibiotic bait is also used to prevent disease in calves caused by liver abscesses that develop during the last stage of their growth.
Use by country
European Union
The European Union (EU) in 1999 implemented an antibiotic resistance monitoring program and a gradual exit plan for all antibiotic use in 2006. Although the European Union banned the use of antibiotics as a growth agent from 2006, its use has not changed much until recently. In Germany, 1734 tons of antimicrobial agents are used for animals in 2011 compared to 800 tons for humans. On the other hand, Sweden banned its use in 1986 and Denmark began to cut down drastically in 1994, so its use is now 60% less. In the Netherlands, the use of antibiotics to treat disease increased after a ban on its use for growth purposes in 2006. In 2011, the EU voted to ban the use of prophylactic antibiotics, alert to signs that excessive use of antibiotics dulled its use. for humans.
United States
In 2011, a total of 13.6 million kilograms of antimicrobials were sold for use in food-producing animals in the United States, representing 80% of all antibiotics sold or distributed in the United States. Antibiotics given to animals from 2009 to 2013, just over 60% distributed for animal food use are "medically important drugs", which are also used in humans. The rest is a class of drugs such as ionophores that are not used in human medicine. Due to concerns about overuse of antibiotics in animals that produce food, US Food & amp; The Drug Administration has adopted new industry guidelines that will limit the use of medically important medicines to use "that is deemed necessary to ensure animal health" and will require veterinary supervision. The pet food and veterinary industry will need to stop the medically important use of antimicrobials from 1 January 2017.
Eighty percent of antibiotics sold in the United States are used for livestock. Most of these antibiotics are given to healthy animals. Instead, it is a normal practice to mix antibiotics with food to improve healthier living conditions and to encourage animal growth. The use of antibiotics in animals is to a large degree involved in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Antibiotics are used in foods with the aim of not only preventing, controlling, and treating diseases, but also to promote growth. The use of antibiotics in animals can be classified into the use of antibiotic therapy, prophylaxis, metaphylactic, and growth. These four patterns opt for bacterial resistance, because antibiotic resistance is a natural evolutionary process, but non-therapeutic use exposes larger numbers of animals, and therefore bacteria, for longer periods, and at lower doses. Therefore they greatly improve the cross-section for the evolution of resistance.
Since the last third of the 20th century, antibiotics have been widely used in farms. By 2013, 80% of antibiotics used in the US are used in animals and only 20% in humans; in 1997 half was used in humans and half in animals. Some antibiotics are not used and are not considered significant for use in humans, as they have no efficacy or purpose in humans, such as ionophores in ruminants, or because they are not used in humans. Others are used both in animals and humans, including penicillin and some forms of tetracycline. Historically, the regulation of antibiotic use in animal foods has been limited to limiting drug residues in meat, eggs, and dairy products, not by direct concern over the development of antibiotic resistance. This reflects a major concern in human medicine, where, in general, researchers and doctors are more concerned about effective but non-toxic drugs than antibiotic resistance.
In 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that over 70% of antibiotics used in the US were given to food animals (eg, chickens, pigs, and cows), without disease. The amount given is called "sub-therapeutic", that is, not enough to combat the disease. Although there is no diagnosis of disease, the administration of these drugs (mostly insignificant for human medicine) results in decreased mortality and morbidity and increased growth in treated animals. It is suggested that sub-therapeutic doses kill some, but not all, of bacterial organisms in animals - possibly leaving those who are naturally resistant to antibiotics. Studies have shown, however, that, in essence, bacterial population levels as a whole do not change; only mixed bacteria are affected. The actual mechanism by which the sub-therapeutic antibiotic feed additive functions as a growth promoter is unclear. Some people speculate that animals and poultry may have subclinical infections, which will be cured with low levels of antibiotics in the diet, allowing the creatures to thrive. There is no convincing evidence for this theory, and the burden of bacteria in animals is essentially unchanged by using antibiotic feed additives. The mechanism of growth promotion may therefore be something other than "killing insects evil".
Antibiotics used in U.S. animal feed. to increase animal productivity. In particular, poultry and drinking water is a common route of drug delivery, due to higher overall costs when medication is administered by handling individual animals.
In research, sometimes the spread of resistant organisms to animals has been demonstrated. Resistant bacteria can be transmitted from animals to humans in three ways: by eating animal products (milk, meat, eggs, etc.), from close or direct contact with other animals or humans, or through the environment. In the first line, food preservation methods can help eliminate, reduce, or prevent bacterial growth in some food classes. The evidence for the transfer of microorganisms resistant to macrolide from animals to humans has been minimal, and most evidence suggests that pathogenic concerns in human populations originate from humans and are preserved there, with rare transference cases in humans.
China
China produces and consumes the most antibiotics from all countries. The use of antibiotics has been measured by examining water near factory farms in China as well as through animal waste. It is estimated that 38.5 million kg (or 84.9 million lbs) of antibiotics is used in the production of Chinese pigs and poultry by 2012. The abuse of antibiotics causes severe pollution of soil and surface water in Northern China.
India
In 2012, India produces about a third of the world's total antibiotics.
Brazil
Brazil is the world's largest beef exporter and the government regulates the use of antibiotics in the livestock production industry.
Worries about antibiotic resistance
Recently, there have been increasing concerns about the use of antimicrobials in animals (including pets, farm animals, and companion animals) that contribute to the increase of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. The use of antimicrobials has been linked to the emergence of resistance in every drug and species where it has been studied, including humans and livestock. However, the role of antibiotic use in animal foods - in contrast to the use of antibiotics in humans - amid rising human resistant infections is debatable. The use of antimicrobials in various forms is widespread throughout the animal industry, and is an important part in preventing animals from suffering from diseases and economic losses for farmers. It is linked by several groups of activists to animal welfare issues, large-scale commercial agriculture, international food trade, agricultural protectionism laws, environmental protection (including climate change) and other topics, which make the goals of some groups on both sides of the debate difficult to decipher.
About 70% of all antibiotics given are used for livestock. Some drugs are used in animal feed to prevent disease and or increase growth rates, but others are used as injections to treat illnesses to prevent death. The use of antibiotics in farms can be harmful to humans because it can create antibiotic resistant bacteria in humans that can be transferred through several different ways such as: raw meat, meat consumption, and consumption through bacteria in the air. Waste from animals that produce food can also contain antibiotic-resistant bacteria and is sometimes stored in lagoons. This waste is often sprayed as a fertilizer and thus can contaminate plants and water with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Although the use of antibiotics in livestock can be harmful to humans, most see it as a necessary evil to prevent illness and death in livestock. Antibiotic resistance makes people resistant to certain types of drugs for different diseases, as well as making it harder for them to fight off infections.
The World Health Organization has published an Important Important Antimicrobial List for Human Drugs with the intent that it be used "as a reference to help formulate and prioritize risk assessment and risk management strategies to contain antimicrobial resistance due to the use of human and non-human antimicrobials."
Supporting position to limit antibiotic use
The practice of using antibiotics for growth stimulation is problematic for these reasons:
- it is the world's largest antimicrobial use
- the use of subterapeutic antibiotics results in bacterial resistance
- any important antibiotic classes are used in this way, making each class less effective
- the altered bacteria harm the human
Donald Kennedy, former director of the US Food and Drug Administration, said: "No question that routinely doses therapeutic antibiotics in livestock contribute to antibiotic resistance." David Aaron Kessler, another former FDA director, said that "We have more than enough scientific evidence to justify the restriction of rampant antibiotic use for livestock, but the food and medicine industry not only combats proposed legislation to reduce this practice, also against data collection. "
In 2013 the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a white paper addressing the threat of antibiotic resistance in the US and called for "increased use of antibiotics" among other measures to contain threats to human health. The CDC calls on leaders in agriculture, health and other disciplines to work together to combat the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.
Some scientists say that "all therapeutic antimicrobial agents should be available only by prescription for human and animal use."
The Pew Charitable Trusts have stated that "hundreds of scientific studies conducted over four decades show that feeding low-dose antibiotics to farms breeds antibiotic-resistant super bacteria that can infect people." The FDA, the US Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all testified before Congress that there is a definitive relationship between the use of routine and non-therapeutic antibiotics in the production of animal foods and the challenge of antibiotic resistance in humans. "
Medium position
The World Organization for Animal Health has recognized the need to protect antibiotics but opposes a total ban on antibiotic use in animal production.
Supporting positions for status quo
In 2011, the National Pork Producers Council, an American trade association, said, "Not only are there no scientific studies linking antibiotic use in farm animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as has always been demonstrated by the US pig industry, but no data sufficient to conduct research. "The statement contradicts a scientific consensus, and was issued in response to a report by the United States Government Accountability Office confirming" the use of antibiotics in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that can affect humans ".
The National Pork Board, a state-owned company, said that "most manufacturers use (antibiotics) appropriately."
Effect limits antibiotic use
When government regulations limit the use of antibiotics, negative economic impacts are not often considered.
An antibiotic regulation in livestock production will affect the company's business model including Tyson Foods, Cargill, and Hormel.
Difficulty in determining relevant facts
It is difficult to set up a comprehensive surveillance system to measure the rate of changes in antibiotic resistance. The US Government Accountability Office published a report in 2011 stating that government and commercial bodies have not collected enough data to make best practice decisions.
There is currently no regulatory body in the United States that systematically collects detailed data on the use of antibiotics in humans and animals. It is unclear which antibiotics are prescribed for what purpose and at what time. Furthermore, the world does not have a monitoring infrastructure to monitor the threat of antibiotic resistance. Because of this problem, it is difficult to measure antibiotic resistance, to regulate the practice of prescribing antibiotics, and to detect and respond to increased threats.
Specific identified resistance and human influence
There have been many studies documenting antibiotic-resistant bacteria in livestock, although the effects of different bacteria in humans are still under study. At this time, the most documented impact on humans is gastrointestinal disease caused by food. In many cases, the disease is mild and does not require antibiotics; although if the bacteria are infected with drug resistance, studies have shown that these bacteria have increased virulence (the ability to cause disease), leading to prolonged illness. Furthermore, in about 10% of cases, the disease becomes severe, requiring more advanced treatment. This treatment can take the form of intravenous antibiotics, supportive care for blood infections, and hospitalization, leading to higher costs and greater morbidity with a tendency toward higher mortality. Severe disease with this result is more common in drug-resistant bacteria. Although everyone is vulnerable, the population is shown to be at higher risk for severe illness including children, the elderly, and people with chronic diseases.
Over the past 20 years, the most drug-resistant food-borne bacteria in industrialized countries are non-typhoid and campylobacter salmonella. Research has consistently shown the major contributing factors are bacteria sourced from livestock. One example of this is the 1998 outbreak of drug-resistant salmonella in Denmark associated with two Danish swine herds. Combined with the discovery of this link, there is an improved monitoring system that has helped measure its impact. In the United States, there are an estimated 400,000 cases and more than 35,000 hospitalizations per year due to increased salmonella and campylobacter resistant strains. In terms of financial impact in the US, treatment of non-typhoid salmonella infections alone is now estimated to cost $ 365 million per year. Given this, in its 2013 premiere report on the threat of antibiotic resistance in the United States, the CDC identified resistant non-typhoidal salmonella and campylobacter as a "serious threat" and called for improved monitoring and intervention in advanced food production.
There are other bacteria as well, in which research develops and reveals that bacterial resistance acquired through use in farms may contribute to the disease in humans. Examples include Enterococcus, E. coli 0157 and Staphylococcus Aureus. In the case of foodborne illness from E. coli, although it is still not usually treated with antibiotics due to the risk associated with renal failure, increased levels of antibiotic-resistant infections have been correlated with increased virulence of bacteria. In the case of enterococcus and staphylococcus aureus, resistant forms of both bacteria have resulted in increased morbidity and mortality in the US. At this point, there are studies, although limited in number, that definitely associate the use of antibiotics in food production with patterns of resistance in humans and further research will help to better characterize these relationships. Mechanisms
for transfers to humans
Humans may be exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by swallowing it through food supplies. Dairy products, beef and poultry are the most common foods to store these pathogens. There is evidence that most of the E. coli resistant isolates that cause human bloodstream infections originate from livestock produced as food.
When dirt from pigs fed antibiotics are used as fertilizers elsewhere, they may be contaminated with bacteria that can infect humans.
Studies have also shown that direct contact with livestock can lead to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals to humans.
Action and advocacy by country
Legislation and activism around the world aim to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock.
European Union
On 1 January 2006 the European Union banned the use of non-drug antibiotics in livestock production.
United States
During 2007, two federal bills (S. 549 and H.R. 962) aimed at gradually removing "nontherapeutic" antibiotics in US pet food production. The Senate bill, introduced by Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy, died. The bill of Parliament, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter, died after being referred to the Committee.
In March 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruling in an act brought by the Natural Resources and Other Defense Council, ordered the FDA to revoke the consent for the use of antibiotics in livestock in violation of FDA regulations. On April 11, 2012, the FDA announced a voluntary program to stop unattended drug use as a feed additive and amend the approved over-the-counter use for antibiotics only by prescription, requiring veterinary supervision of its use and prescription. In December 2013, the FDA announced the commencement of these measures to stop the use of antibiotics for the purpose of promoting livestock growth. Some grocery stores have a policy of voluntarily not selling meat produced using antibiotics to stimulate growth. In 2012 at the United States advocacy organization, the Consumers Union petitioned to request Trader Joe's store to stop the sale of meat produced with antibiotics.
The US Animal Drug User Fee Act was passed by Congress in 2008 and requires drug manufacturers to report all antibiotic sales into the animal feed production industry.
Some of the proposed laws in the US have failed to be adopted. The Law on Reiterating the Usage Fee of Animal Drugs and Animal Drugs 2013 proposes another regulation.
In the United States the danger of antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial strains due to the widespread use of antibiotics to increase weight in livestock was determined by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1977, but nothing was effectively done to prevent the practice. In March 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruling in action brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others, ordered the FDA to revoke the consent for the use of antibiotics in livestock in violation of FDA regulations. On April 11, 2012, the FDA announces a program to stop the use of non-supervised drugs as feed additives and, on a voluntary basis, to change approved use for antibiotics for therapeutic use only, requires veterinary supervision of their use and prescription.
Responding to consumer concerns about the use of antibiotics in poultry, in 2007, Perdue removed all human antibiotics from its feed and launched the Harvestland brand, where the product is sold that meets the requirements for an "antibiotic-free" label. In 2014, Perdue has also removed the ionophores (antibiotics used in animals to lower production costs by encouraging growth, and preventing disease) from hatching and starting to use the "free antibiotic" label on Harvestland, Simply Smart and Perfect Portion products. By 2015, 52% of the company's chickens have been raised without the use of any type of antibiotic.
In 1970 the FDA began recommending that the use of antibiotics in animals be restricted but did not specify the actual rules governing this recommendation. Furthermore, in 2004 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) strongly condemned the FDA for not collecting enough information and data about the use of antibiotics at factory farms. From here GAO concludes that the FDA does not have enough information to make effective policy changes related to the use of antibiotics. In response to this the FDA insists that more research is underway and voluntary efforts in the industry will solve the problem of antibiotic resistance.
Growing US consumer concerns about the use of antibiotics in animal feed has resulted in greater availability of "antibiotic-free" animal products. For example, the Perdue chicken producer removed all human antibiotics from its bait and launched a product labeled "antibiotic-free" under the Harvestland brand in 2007. Consumer responses were positive, and by 2014 Perdue also released ionophores from hatching and started using free label "antibiotics" on Harvestland, Simply Smart, and Perfect Portion products.
China
In 2012, US News & amp; World Report described the Chinese government's regulation of antibiotics in livestock production as "weak".
India
In 2011 the Indian government proposed a "national policy to withstand antimicrobial resistance". Other policies set a schedule to require that animals that produce food are not given antibiotics for a certain period of time before their food goes to market. A study released by the Center for Science and the Environment (CSE) on July 30, 2014 found antibiotic residues in chickens. The study claims that Indians are developing resistance to antibiotics - and therefore fall victim to a number of curable diseases. Some of these resistances may be caused by the use of unregulated antibiotics on a large scale in the poultry industry. CSE found that India did not set limits for antibiotic residues in chickens and said that India would have to implement a comprehensive set of rules including banning the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter in the poultry industry. Not doing this will endanger people's lives.
Brazil
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found in Brazilian cattle.
South Korea
In 1998 some researchers reported that use in livestock production was a factor in the prevalence of high antibiotic resistant bacteria in Korea. In 2007 The Korea Times notes that Korea has a relatively high use of antibiotics in livestock production. In 2011, the Korean government banned the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter in livestock.
New Zealand
In 1999 the New Zealand government issued a statement that they would not then forbid the use of antibiotics in livestock production. In 2007, ABC Online reported the use of antibiotics in chicken production in New Zealand.
Researching alternatives
Increased awareness due to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has led researchers to find alternatives to using antibiotics in farm animals.
Probiotics, cultures from a single bacterial strain or a mixture of different strains, are being studied on farms as a production enhancer.
Prebiotics are carbohydrates that can not be digested. Carbohydrates consist primarily of oligosaccharides which are short-chain monosaccharides. The two most frequently studied prebiotics are fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and mannanoligosaccharides (MOS). FOS has been studied for use in chicken feed. MOS serves as a competitive binding site, because bacteria bind it to the intestine and do it.
Bacteriophages are able to infect most bacteria and are easily found in most environments that are colonized by bacteria, and have been studied as well.
In another study it was found that the use of probiotics, competitive exceptions, enzymes, immunomodulators and organic acids prevented the spread of bacteria and all may be used instead of antibiotics. Other research teams were able to use bacteriocin, antimicrobial peptides and bacteriophage in controlling bacterial infections. While more research is needed in this field, alternative methods have been identified to effectively control bacterial infections in animals. All of the alternative methods listed do not pose a threat to human health and all may result in the elimination of antibiotics in factory farms. With further research, it is very likely that an effective and cost effective alternative can and will be found.
References
External links
- PBS reports antibiotics in livestock production
- Fix Food, Fix Antibiotics, 90-second video explaining antibiotic resistance issues and campaigning for action
- Pew Trust Campaign to limit antibiotic use
- Antibiotic Resistance and Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture: Hearing before the Health Committee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Hundred Eleven Congresses, Second Session, July 14, 2010
- Resources about antibiotic use and resistance
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments