Oregon legislation would limit animal antibiotic use

The Oregon Legislature is considering bills that would limit the non-medical use of antibiotics in large-scale farms. 
The Oregon Legislature is considering limiting the non-medical use of antibiotics in large-scale farms through two bills, with hopes of preventing the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources has already heard testimony on House Bill 2598, and the Senate Committee on Health Care will hear a similar bill (Senate Bill 920) on April 6.
The bills would prohibit giving antibiotics to healthy farm animals and require Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to report how antibiotics are used in their operations. Out of Oregon’s 35,000 farms, 100 to 110 of them meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of CAFOs, including one operated by poultry company Foster Farms, the Statesman Journal reported.
The rules would be largely self-enforcing, though the attorney general could intervene if a farm is shown to be in violation.
In the House bill, the point agency would be the Department of Agriculture, and in the Senate bill, the point agency would be the Oregon Health Authority.
Opponents who testified against HB 2598, including the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Feed and Grain Association and Northwest Food Processors, said such regulation should be left up to the federal government.
The Obama administration also last week announced a national plan to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The proposed federal plan seeks to end use of “medically important” antibiotics for growth-promotion purposes. 

RUMA issues position paper on antibiotic use in livestock

The Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA) has published a wide-ranging position paper on antibiotic resistance and antibiotic use in livestock.
Announcing the publication, RUMA Secretary General John FitzGerald said that understandably there is much debate at present on antibiotic resistance in human medicine and antibiotic use in human and veterinary medicine. This paper clarifies RUMA’s position on antibiotic resistance and how antibiotics can be responsibly used in UK livestock. It also addresses some of the inaccurate assertions about the use of antibiotics in livestock in the recent Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics (ASOA) paper.
Key points in the RUMA paper include:


• Recognizing antibiotic resistance as an important One Health issue. RUMA feels it is vital that all parties should work together to ensure that antibiotics remain an effective tool in the treatment of humans and animals so that they continue to be available and effective when needed.
• The key driver for any controls on the use of antibiotics in animals is to reduce the risk of resistance in humans.
• Scientific evidence increasingly recognizes that the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans comes largely from the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in human rather than animal medicine
• Antibiotics must be used responsibly in agriculture to stop the possibility of their use leading to problems in animal or human medicine.
• RUMA supports the call from various quarters for the collection of better data on the usage of antibiotics in animals.
• RUMA agrees with the general premise that prevention is better than cure and believes that antibiotics can be used responsibly in both human and animal medicine to prevent disease and suffering.  RUMA does not, however, support the routine preventive use of antibiotics where such disease challenge can be prevented by better husbandry and farm management.
• RUMA believes that the responsible use of antibiotics, and other veterinary medicines, is an important component of the care of livestock and RUMA calls on the Soil Association, and others licensing organic production, to allow antibiotics, and all other authorized medicines, to be used responsibly in the interests of animal welfare.
• Critically important antibiotics for human medicine should be used sparingly and not routinely as first choice antibiotics in animals.
• Removing any antibiotic from animal use will put more pressure on the antibiotic classes used in its place thus increasing the likelihood of resistance developing. 

British Veterinary Association supports advertising ban on antimicrobials

The British Veterinary Association has said it supports the decision to prohibit the advertising of antimicrobials directly to animal keepers from 2013 in a bid to reduce antimicrobial resistance.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which regulates veterinary medicines in the UK, announced that the Veterinary Medicines Regulations will be revised in 2013 to take account of the change which the association has been calling for. The change has come as a result of the European Commission’s view that the UK did not correctly transpose the European Directive 2001/82/EC which prohibits the advertising of certain veterinary medicinal products to the ‘general public’.
When the directorate consulted on proposals to restrict the advertising of antimicrobials to farmers in 2010, the association supported the measure as a sensible approach to the responsible use of antimicrobials. In a letter to stakeholders, the VMD said that a number of interested parties from veterinary medicine hold the view that the advertising of antibiotics to keepers of animals leads to undue pressure to prescribe newer antibiotics, which can often be important in human medicine and are associated with the development of multiple resistances.
“The BVA has consistently argued for the restriction of advertising of antimicrobials to animal keepers and we believe this is the right decision," said Peter Jones, president of the association. “New antimicrobials are heavily advertised by pharmaceutical companies and there can be undue pressure put on veterinary surgeons by clients who want to try new products that promise good results, but which may not be appropriate from the point of view of responsible use.
“Antimicrobial resistance is a very serious issue for both animal and human health and we are pleased that the European Commission and the VMD have taken the view that the Regulations need to be revised. Ultimately, it is the veterinary surgeon who will make the decision on which veterinary products to use, and vets will continue to work with their farm clients to ensure antimicrobials are used prudently and responsibly.”

National Chicken Council comments on FDA cephalosporin rule

U.S. federal drug regulators have restricted the use of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins for livestock, including chickens, turkeys, cattle and pigs, because they say such practices may have contributed to a growing threat in people of bacterial infections that are resistant to treatment. This decision has been met with concern in the agriculture industry, including the poultry industry, which sees antibiotics as a valuable tool in ensuring animal health and in producing wholesome food for the consuming public, according to Tom Super, National Chicken Council vice president of communications. “We share the concerns of others that the FDA’s rule on extralabel drug use will take medical decisions to treat animals out of the hands of veterinarians," said Super. "We question any substantive link or scientific basis between veterinary use of cephalosporins and antibiotic resistance in humans.” According to Super, antibiotics are used sparingly in chicken production, and then only if they are approved by the FDA. A majority of the antibiotics, such as Ceftiofur, are not used in human medicine, meaning the threat of creating resistance is essentially reduced to zero. “Consumers should know that chicken is safe, wholesome and that all chicken produced in the U.S. is inspected by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture]," said Super. "Inspectors test meat samples for chemical and antimicrobial residues — poultry must be in compliance with USDA standards. When antibiotics are used in chicken production, strict withdrawal periods must be followed before the birds are processed for food."   

US restricts use of cephalosporin antibiotics for livestock

U.S. federal drug regulators have restricted the use of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins for livestock, including cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys, because they say such practices may have contributed to a growing threat in people of bacterial infections that are resistant to treatment. The FDA initially proposed cephalosporin restrictions in 2008 but withdrew the rule due to opposition from veterinarians, farmers and drug companies. The current rule allows veterinarians to use the drugs to treat sick animals in some ways the FDA has not specifically approved, and wide discretion to treat small-scale-production animals like ducks and rabbits. The rule bans routine injections of cephalosporins into chicken eggs and large and lengthy dosing in cattle and swine. “We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals,” said Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA.

China to ban antibiotics as growth promoters

China's Ministry of Agriculture has announced a forthcoming ban on antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed.
The ban is supported by the academic community, which believes that without antibiotics in animal feed, the health of animals will be better promoted, microbes' resistance to antibiotics will be lowered and food will become safer to eat.
Recent statistics show that in 2006 China produced 210,000 tons of antibiotics, and 97,000 tons were added to animal feed. Today it is estimated that 400,000 tons are produced annually.

EU pig farmers urged to cut back on antimicrobials

The European Food Safety Authority has urged EU pig farmers and veterinarians to scale back their use of antimicrobials due to a risk of bacterial resistance threatening public health and compromising the food sector, according to the British Pig Executive.
A scientific assessment by its panel on biological hazards concluded a Europe-wide crackdown on antimicrobial use should now be a priority if Europe is to limit the spread of increasingly resistant bacterial strains such as E. coli and Salmonella. The scientific opinion goes even further in recommending the antimicrobial cephalosporin should be cut out of all treatments or at least severely restricted, in view of the risks of generating resistance.
The authors of the report are said to regret the lack of pan-European data on antimicrobial resistance and have suggested that European Union-level surveillance and monitoring should be stepped up, said BPEX.

South Korea imposing ban on antibiotics in animal feed

South Korea is implementing a "total ban" on mixing antibiotics with animal feed that will go into effect in July, according to the government.
The ban will enhance the safety of local meat and dairy products, according to the industry. In accordance with the new rules, the use of eight varieties of antibiotics will be prohibited, along with one antimicrobial agent. Prior to 2005, the country allowed 44 varieties of antibiotics to be mixed with feed.
The ban will not affect the ability of veterinarians to inject antibiotics into sick animals.

Ban on livestock antibiotics proposed in US

In a hearing at the U.S. House Rules Committee a measure to stop antibiotic use in livestock was proposed by Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, according to a news report.
The proposal is aimed at banning the use of seven classes of antibiotics and limiting the use of others to therapeutic and some preventative use with animals.
Supported by the American Medical Association, the legislation is opposed by the National Pork Producers Council. The Union of Concerned Scientists said that about 70% of antibiotics used in the U.S. are given to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle to encourage their growth or to prevent illnesses.