Economic effects of antibiotic use in poultry, pig production

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final guidance on voluntarily phasing out the use of medically important antibiotics for the purpose of livestock production in 2013. However, a large number of poultry and pig producers were already not using antibiotics, and those producers will be better off in the long-run should regulations on antibiotic use in food animal production in the U.S. get tighter. This was the conclusion of a new report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) and discussed by Stacy Sneeringer, PhD, USDA ERS, during a webinar on “The Economics of Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Agriculture.”
Farmers use antibiotics in livestock, Sneeringer said,  for four main purposes: to treat disease, control disease, prevent disease or increase productivity. However, these uses have also raised a number of public health concerns. These concerns–mainly that antibiotic use in livestock and humans can contribute to the emergence of organisms that are resistant to most or all antibiotics and that antibiotic use leads to difficult-to-treat illness or death in humans and animals – have led to recent calls for policy changes, including restricting or eliminating antibiotics for production use.
Sneeringer’s research, based on the most recent data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) conducted every five to six years, looked at three main questions associated with the potential economic effects of a policy restricting antibiotics for production purposes in broilers and hogs:
1. Current extent of antibiotic use for production purposes and disease prevention
2. Effects of restricting production purpose uses on animals and farms
3. Effects of production purpose restrictions on prices and quantities produced of pork and chicken
For the broiler industry, the ARMS survey, most recently conducted in 2011, found that 48 percent of farmers surveyed used antibiotics only for disease treatment; 32 percent did not know if antibiotics were used only for disease treatment (such as in the possible case of contract growers who may not know what was in the feed previously); and 20 percent used antibiotics for purposes other than disease treatment. Additionally, between 2006 and 2011, the share of broilers raised without antibiotics except for disease treatment rose from 44 to 48 percent.
For the pig production sector, the ARMS survey, most recently conducted in 2009, broke out the market by nursery pigs and finishing hogs. In nursery pigs, 59 percent of farmers surveyed said they used antibiotics for disease prevention and 51 percent said they did not administer antibiotics for growth promotion. For finishing hogs, these numbers were 51 percent for farmers who administered antibiotics for disease prevention and 38 percent who did not administer antibiotics for growth promotion. And from 2004 and 2009, the share of finishing hogs sold or removed from operations administering antibiotics to promote growth fell from 52 percent to 40 percent, while the share of nursery pigs being administered antibiotics for growth fell from 29 percent in 2004 to 23 percent in 2009.
From the data, it is clear that some producers are following the 2013 FDA guidance and voluntarily restricting human-used antibiotics in their animals. But, research shows that if a policy further limiting antibiotics for animal production purposes is enacted in the U.S., it could impact not only the animals themselves, but also producers at the farm level and the market for poultry and pig meat.     

Animal-level effects of restricting antibiotics use

According to Sneeringer, limiting the use of antibiotics for production purposes could potentially have several effects on the animals, such as slower growth to market weight, more feed required per unit of weight gain, higher illness rates among all animals, a higher death rate in young animals, lower reproduction, and more animals weighing in at the high and low ends of the spectrum.
Despite these possible effects, the impact of using them in animals to begin with is not what it once was, Sneeringer said, pointing to previous research.
Experimental lab research shows that the effects of production-purpose antibiotics in broilers decline over time. In research published before the 1980s, there were high single-digit or double-digit percentage changes in animal growth and feed efficiency when antibiotics were used. On the other hand, in research published since the 2000s, she said antibiotic use in animals has only yielded low single-digit or less than 1 percent changes in growth and feed efficiency, and that these results were also seen in observational farm research.
“The theory in the literature is largely that the industry has evolved,” she said. “There has been rapid improvement in housing, equipment and practices... So, in that way, you have fewer bacteria in the barn and, therefore, to the extent that the growth-promoting antibiotics had a disease preventative effect, it’s no longer having those effects because you’re correcting for that.”

Potential impact on the farm

Of course, using fewer antibiotics will lower the cost of use for production purposes should they be banned, but, according to Sneeringer, this could alternatively lead to higher veterinary costs for disease treatment as well as higher input costs. At the farm level, she said a ban on use of antibiotics for production purposes could mean more feed required, a greater number of young animals purchased, the need for more expensive biosecurity measures, adjustments in housing to create more space per animal and declining economies of scale. Plus, producers could be hit with higher expenses – both in the form of labor costs for more management and penalties at market for animals outside of range for operations using mechanized processing as a result of having a greater number of animals at extreme ends of the weight scale.

Effects at the market level

At the market level, a ban on antibiotics used in poultry and pigs could impact both supply and demand, though Sneeringer said the impact largely depends on the extent of the effects on the animal and the timespan in which production-purpose antibiotics would be potentially banned.
On the supply side, a 1-3 percent decline in productivity from not using antibiotics for production purposes could lower the quantity of animals produced and increase the price of producing poultry and pigs. Another concern at the market level, she said, may be that a ban may make the U.S. market less competitive in the global market if producers have a higher cost of production.
As for the effects on demand, Sneeringer said that U.S. consumers may demand more meat, although this is highly dependent on consumer knowledge and preferences for meat. More widely supported, she said, is the possibility that foreign buyers who previously rejected U.S. poultry and pig products due to the production-purpose use of antibiotics may begin allowing them.
Overall, Sneeringer’s researched showed only a muted effect at the market level should production-use antibiotics be banned in the U.S. with the effect on price and quantity of less than 1 percent. Producers who are not using antibiotics before a restriction would be imposed should see a greater quantity produced compared to those producers using antibiotics who may see a decline of about 1.5 percent in quantity produced due to lower reproduction and higher mortality rates.

Pork board stresses responsible antibiotic use commitment

The National Pork Board is reiterating the proactive steps the U.S. pork industry has taken to ensure responsible antibiotic use on pig farms. Pork industry leaders say calls by various organizations to end antibiotic use on farms are misguided and would have a negative impact on food safety.
"We understand people are confused about the role of antibiotics in meat production and, unfortunately, recently released reports only add to that confusion," said Jennifer Koeman, DVM, and director of producer and public health at National Pork Board. "It's simple – when you produce healthy livestock, you get safe food. The meat you eat is safe due to Food and Drug Administration rules on antibiotics and U.S. Department of Agriculture testing of meat."
The pork industry has collectively embraced USDA and FDA efforts to phase out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and, in turn, to limit them to treatment and prevention against the spread of disease. The National Pork Board is implementing a three-point plan of action focused on five research priorities, shaping educational outreach to pig farmers and broadly sharing information with the retail and foodservice industries and pork consumers.
"Pig farmers have an obligation to use medicine responsibly and as needed to treat or prevent illness in pigs," said Koeman. "That's why pig farmers also work closely with veterinarians to decide when and how to use antibiotics to protect a pig's health."
On behalf of more than 60,000 pig farmers across the nation, the National Pork Board is leading the effort and dialogue around responsible antibiotic use, including:

• Establishing a blue ribbon panel on antibiotics, an outcome of the Pork Checkoff's stewardship plan announced this past June. The new, third-party panel includes seven experts with specific experience and knowledge in antibiotic practices or consumer marketing, but who are independent of National Pork Board practices.
• Educating America's pig farmers on new FDA rules for the use of medically important antibiotics (to treat human illness) in feed and water and investing up to $400,000 in education and awareness programs to ensure pig farmers understand and adopt these new guidelines.
• Investing more than $750,000 in new research projects that span five distinct priorities intended to provide data for animal and public health outcomes (pig health/welfare, human health/safety, environmental impact and pork quality).
• Sharing the innovation of today's production practices and efforts to responsibly use antibiotics with food chain partners and other important stakeholders. This past month, meetings were held with animal health companies, packers and processors, and retail and foodservice leadership.

"Our efforts are focused on sharing a story of innovation and excellence in pork production," said Derrick Sleezer, National Pork Board president and a pig farmer from Cherokee, Iowa. "Our farmers are experts in animal care and sustainable farming. And that expertise is needed to maintain our track record of responsible antibiotic use with a goal to protect the health and well-being of people, pigs and the planet."

Guide to antibiotic usage on pig farms

A review containing guidance to help pig producers cut their use of antimicrobials was published recently. It was produced jointly by the Pig Health and Welfare Council (PHWC) Antimicrobial Sub-group and the Pig Veterinary Society.

John FitzGerald, Sub-group chairman, said, “The PHWC supports the responsible use of antibiotics. This means minimizing the need to use antibiotics by managing the farm to reduce the risk of disease and using them properly to maintain animal health and welfare.
“We are delighted to launch this guidance, which will help vets and farmers to review their antibiotic use regularly and to consider ways in which this could be optimized without harming the pigs.”
Grace Webster, PVS representative on the Sub-Group, said, “We acknowledge that many vets and farmers are already applying these best practice guidelines in their review of antibiotic usage. This is an integral part of their ongoing efforts to use antibiotics ‘as little as possible and as much as necessary’ to safeguard the health and welfare of the pigs under their care and encourage all of our members to consider whether they can improve their current approach.”
To review the report, click here. For general information about the PHWC follow this link.

European veterinary antibiotic use on the decline

European sales of antibiotics for use in animals fell by approximately 8 percent between 2011 and 2013, data from the latest European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial (ESVAC) group report reveals.
Of the 23 European countries that provided data over the period, 11 reported a decrease in sales of more than 5 percent, while the greatest decrease stood at 51 percent. However, six countries reported an increase in sales of more than 5 percent with the highest individual increase standing at 21 percent.
The report contains standardized sales data gathered annually on veterinary microbials by class, and is produced in cooperation with national authorities, coordinated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
“With the new sales data collected and experience gained in the process, we are getting a clearer picture of the sales of antibiotics in animals in Europe,” said David Mackay, head of the EMA’s Veterinary Medicines Division.
“As data collected through ESVAC becomes increasingly robust, we hope they can support European countries in promoting rational use of antibiotics in animals.
“Collecting accurate data on the sale and use of these medicines in food-producing animals is an essential step to inform policies for responsible use of antibiotics.”
The report, now in its fifth edition, also includes more detailed graphs and trends on sales of flouroquinolones and 3^rd and 4^th-generation cephalosporins, giving further information on the use in animals of some of the most critically important classes of antimicrobials for humans.
Alongside the report, ESVAC also has launched an interactive database, allowing users to access specific data and search for a specific country or sales of a particular class of antibiotic.

New EPRUMA guide

Several publications relating to antibiotic resistance and reduction of antibiotic use have been published in Europe over recent months including the European Commission’s Guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials, along with Best practice framework for the use of antibiotics in food producing animals –Reaching the next level issued by the European Platform for the Responsible Use of Medicines in Animals (EPRUMA), a broad industry coalition.
The document combines a holistic and a specific approach to help in the optimization of animal health at farm level.
If offers guidance on indoor and free-range production, housing and biosecurity, and it includes a decision tree on the use of veterinary antibiotics in food-producing animals.

As little as possible, as much as necessary

“Veterinary medicines, including antibiotics, need to be used responsibly to main their efficacy. All animal health stakeholders are committed to responsible use,” said Gwyn Jones, EPRUMA chairman.
EPRUMA, which was set up 10 years ago and whose partners include the groups European Farmers and Agri-Cooperatives and the European Feed Manufacturers’ Association, works with policy- and decision-makers and concerned parties at European and national levels to promote responsible antibiotic use as part of a holistic approach to disease prevention and control and to support animal health and welfare.
Its latest publication, which builds on the group’s 2008 best practice framework document, covers all major livestock species from poultry to cattle, addressing areas including animal-specific factors affecting animal health, husbandry systems and management practices.

US pork groups urge Subway to rethink antibiotics policy

The U.S. pork industry is letting restaurant chain Subway know it is not happy with its decision to eliminate the use of all antibiotics in its supply of pork and other meats sold at its U.S. locations.
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and National Pork Board (NPB) placed a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, voicing concerns with Subway’s new policy.
The ad, which was published on October 29, appears in the form of an open letter to the Subway management team and franchisee owners, and is signed America’s Pig Farmers, with the NPPC and NPB’s Pork Checkoff logos at the bottom.
In the letter, the pork organizations tell Subway “any policy decision to eliminate antibiotics from your protein supply sources – poultry, pork and beef – would be a significant departure from what many other food companies are doing in regards to improving responsible antibiotic use. This policy decision could put our food system in jeopardy,” and the restaurant chain’s new policy could “compromise the safety of our food system” because healthy animals help farmers produce safe food.”
The groups further state that they feel everyone needs to do their part to use antibiotics responsibly and reduce the antibiotic threat, but says that quickly phasing out any use of antibiotics also used in human medicine for growth promotion purposes and increasing veterinary oversight are actions that farmers and ranchers are already taking.
NPPC and NPB acknowledged in the letter that some groups will applaud the restaurant chain’s decision, but questions whether those same groups will favor the move if a large number of animals are adversely affected by the no-antibiotics policy.
The groups, which according to NPPC reportedly reached out multiple times to the CEO of Subway but did not receive any responses, went on to invite Subway to a meaningful dialogue concerning finding ways to address responsible antibiotic use that are based on sound science.

DuPont highlights the value of in-feed antibiotic alternatives

Dr. Yueming Dersjant-Li, senior scientist from the animal nutrition division of DuPont Industrial Biosciences, unveiled research at AMENA 2015 that shows how feed additives can be used to achieve similar or greater production value to commonly used antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs). This comes at a time when the reduction of AGPs is a key consideration for domestic and import markets.
Her talk entitled, "A combination of direct fed microbials and multi-enzymes improve nutrients digestibility, gut health, broiler performance and welfare," covered:

• Why bird gut health is important and the factors involved in achieving /maintaining it.
• Research that shows the important part that enzymes such as xylanase, amylase and protease, and Bacillus spp probiotics, can play in establishing and maintaining gut integrity. She also demonstrated that positive results are amplified when these additives are used in combination, particularly in challenge situations.
• The economic benefits that Mexican poultry producers can achieve through reducing in-feed antibiotics and introducing enzyme and probiotic combinations.

Ricardo Khatchadourian, regional industry leader for animal nutrition in Latin America, commented, “We hear a lot in the press about large markets such as the US or China managing the challenge of reducing AGPs, but this is also a very real problem for poultry producers in Mexico, too. We face increasing consumer pressure to produce higher quality, safer meat, not only for local consumption, but also for export markets. Our goal in sharing this research around our award-winning enzyme and probiotic combination is to help our customers achieve improved profitability by meeting these high standards with reduced levels of in-feed antibiotics. ”  
DuPont is also supporting Dr. Ermias Kebreab, professor of Animal Science at The University of California, Davis, spoke on the topic: “Modeling for nutritional requirements of Ca and P in Pigs.”
Copies of the presentations made by Dr. Kebreab and Dr. Dersjant-Li are available upon request; please send your details to info@animalnutrition.dupont.com, stating which presentation/s you want to receive.

Antibiotics strategies must target resistance, not use

The objective of any antibiotic strategies should be to reduce resistance to antibiotics and not their use, the International Federation of Animal Health (IFAH), including IFAH-Europe, reiterated at the conference Farmers and veterinarians together to tackle antimicrobial resistance.
Conference attendees called for policies regarding antibiotics use to be based soundly on science and for the focus to be on responsible use, with care taken to ensure that any restrictions on antibiotics in veterinary medicines do not adversely impact animal health and welfare.

As and when needed

In September, following the publication the European Commission’s Guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials, IFAH-Europe, while welcoming the publication, noted that the goal of responsible antibiotic use is to come to a use of antimicrobials “as little as possible, as often as necessary,” and that this does not automatically equate to a reduction of use in all situations.
Some national targets have shown that simple reduction targets can lead to antimicrobials being used incorrectly, a risk highlighted by the guidelines, notes the association, pointing to prescribed courses not being completed and lower dosages than prescribed to keep records low.

Counter-productive strategies

This could be counter-productive to the real objective of reducing antimicrobial resistance development, which involves correct use and the elimination of unnecessary use.
Experience with introducing firm, or political, reduction targets shows that initially the use of antimicrobials decreases, but often rises again due to unacceptable animal health and welfare issues because of changes in disease conditions which necessitate proper use on medical and ethical grounds.

Subway switching to antibiotic-free poultry, pork, beef

Sandwich restaurant chain Subway revealed that it intends to stop serving meat and poultry from animals that have been raised with the use of any antibiotics at all of its restaurants in the United States. The antibiotic-free policy was announced on October 20.
Under the new policy, the restaurant chain confirmed that it will transition to only serving chicken raised with no antibiotics of any kind in early 2016, departing from a statement made earlier in 2015 that the company would switch to serving chicken from birds raised without the use of antibiotics deemed important in human medicine. The chain also announced it would start serving turkey raised without antibiotics in 2016 and completely transition to turkey raised without antibiotics within 2-3 years.
All beef and pork served in the restaurant chain will be antibiotic-free by 2025.
 “Today’s consumer is ever more mindful of what they are eating, and we’ve been making changes to address what they are looking for,” said Dennis Clabby, executive vice president of Subway’s Independent Purchasing Cooperative (IPC). “A change like this will take some time, particularly since the supply of beef raised without antibiotics in the U.S. is extremely limited and cattle take significantly longer to raise. But, we are working diligently with our suppliers to make it happen.”
“Given the size and scope of the Subway brand, this commitment is the largest of its kind in the restaurant industry,” added Clabby. “We hope that this commitment will encourage other companies in our industry to follow our lead, and that, together, this will drive suppliers to move faster to make these important changes for consumers.”
Subway, headquartered in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has more than 27,000 restaurants in the United States.
The announcement comes just one month after Subway received a failing grade on its antibiotics policy in the report, Chain Reaction: How Top Restaurants Tate on Reducing Use of Antibiotics in Their Meat Supply. The reportwas prepared by a coalition of groups, including Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Keep Antibiotics Working and Center for Food Safety.

California governor signs bill limiting antibiotic use

A bill limiting the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture in California was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on October 10.
The new regulations outlined in the bill, SB 27, will take effect January 1, 2018. According to the text of the bill, the administration of medically important antimicrobial drugs to livestock and poultry will be prohibited unless ordered by a licensed veterinarian through a prescription or veterinary feed directive (VFD) pursuant to a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The law would also prohibit the use of medically important antibiotics to animals solely for purposes of promoting weight gain or improving feed efficiency.
Further, the bill requires that California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in consultation with the Veterinary Medical Board, the State Department of Public Health, universities and extension agencies to develop antimicrobial stewardship guidelines and best management practices on the proper use of antibiotics also deemed important to human medicine and would require the CDFA to gather information on medically important antibiotic sales and usage, antimicrobial resistant bacteria, and livestock management practice data.
Penalties will be imposed on producers and veterinarians who are not in compliance with the law.
Brown had earlier vetoed a similar bill, SB 835, in 2014, citing that he felt the legislation should be stronger in hopes of “finding new and effective ways to reduce the unnecessary antibiotics used for livestock and poultry.” SB 835 and SB 27 were both proposed by Sen. Jerry Hill.
SB 27 emerged after Hill’s team worked with Brown’s office to draft bill Brown would find more appropriate.
In signing SB 27, Brown commended the U.S. poultry industry on their efforts to limit antibiotic use, adding that he hopes other animal agriculture sectors will follow the poultry industry’s lead.
“Recently, American poultry producers have shown leadership by voluntarily committing to better husbandry practices and eliminating the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics. This is an example that the rest of the livestock industry should follow,” Brown stated.
With the signing of the bill, California will become the first state in the U.S. to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for the use of antibiotics in farm animals. Hill pushed for the legislation amid growing concern about potential links between animal antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in human and veterinary health.
“With Gov. Brown’s signature on SB 27, California becomes the first state in the country to enact laws to help reduce the burden of antibiotic resistant infections, preserve the usefulness of antibiotics, and save lives,” Hill said in a statement.

Veterinarian hosts new NAMI video

Antibiotic use in livestock is one of the most discussed and misunderstood topics in agriculture today, but the newest North American Meat Institute (NAMI) Glass Walls video aims to clarify exactly how, when and why antibiotics are used in animals. The video features a virtual tour of a livestock production facility from University of Nebraska and Great Plains Veterinary Educational Center veterinarian Brad Jones, DVM. Jones explains the decision-making process regarding antibiotic use in cattle and pigs, including the diagnosis of illnesses, treatment and antibiotic use considerations and how animals are tracked from antibiotic administration to harvest.
“I think the use of antibiotics in our industry is appropriate and I would also use the term responsible. It’s appropriate for animal well-being and comfort. It’s appropriate to treat certain diseases that affect the animal,” Jones says. “How we utilize antibiotics and the decisions we make when we give them have a lot of thought behind them; not only thought because we’re mandated to because of laws and rules, but thought because we understand the importance of maintaining use of antibiotics in our industry for the health and well-being of animals.”
The video was created by NAMI as a way to give interested consumers an inside look at the process of using antibiotics in livestock while addressing many of the common misconceptions about their use. It supplements NAMI’s variety of resources on antibiotic use including the “Facts About Antibiotics in Livestock and Poultry Production” brochure and several Meat Mythcrusher videos tackling common antibiotic myths such as 80 percent of antibiotics are used in animals, antibiotics are commonly used for growth promotion and animal agriculture is the biggest contributor to antibiotic resistance.
“Consumers are being bombarded with confusing and often inaccurate messages about how antibiotics are used in livestock production.  Often, these messages suggest there is little oversight or control of the process, but a closer look on the farm shows this is clearly not the case,” said NAMI Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Janet Riley. “The role of the veterinarian is crucial in ensuring proper animal care and we are grateful that Dr. Jones could explain the considerations and procedures that veterinarians follow.  We hope that this video will be useful to consumers who may want more information.”
The video is the ninth in NAMI’s “Glass Walls” series. Other videos include tours of beef, pork and turkey processing plants led by Dr. Temple Grandin to show how the animals are handled throughout processing. Glass Walls videos also show sanitation in meat plants as well as how hamburgers, hot dogs and bacon are made. All of NAMI’s videos are available on the Meat News Network YouTube channel.

Report grades restaurant chains on antibiotic policies

Pressure for restaurant chains to reduce or eliminate meat and poultry raised with antibiotics continues, as a newly published report that evaluated the 25 largest quick-service and fast-casual restaurant chains in the U.S. for their policies concerning antibiotics gave a passing grade to only five chains.
The report, Chain Reaction: How Top Restaurants Tate on Reducing Use of Antibiotics in Their Meat Supply, was prepared by a coalition of groups, including Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Keep antibiotics Working and Center for Food Safety. The report was prepared as concerns grow about the potential link between antibiotic use in animal agriculture and antibiotic resistance.
The CEOs of all 25 restaurant chains listed in the report were sent a letter, signed by 109 organizations, urging them to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics in their meat supply.

Restaurants with passing grades

The report evaluated the restaurant chains and gave them grades, similar to those students would receive in school.
Panera Bread and Chipotle, well-known for their strict antibiotics policies, and have publicly affirmed that the majority of their meat and poultry is produced without routine use of antibiotics, were the only two companies to receive an A grade.
Chick-fil-A was the only chain to receive a B grade. That company in February 2014 announced its plan to move to serving chicken raised without any antibiotics within the next five years.
Earning a C grade were McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. McDonald’s on March 4 announced that within the next two years it would eliminate chicken that was raised with antibiotics deemed important to human medicine. Dunkin’ Donuts, according to the report, has a policy covering limited antibiotic use in all of the meats it serves, but no timeline has been given.
No companies received a D grade.

Restaurants with failing grades

The remaining U.S. restaurant chains evaluated in the report were given an F in the report. Those chains include Wendy’s, Burger King, Denny’s, Domino’s, Papa John’s, Starbucks, Olive Garden, Subway, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, Applebee’s, Sonic, Chili’s, Jack in the Box, Arby’s, Dairy Queen, IHOP, Outback Steakhouse and Little Caesars.
However, some of those restaurant chains to receive failing grades have started a move in the direction of serving meat and poultry raised without antibiotics.
Several weeks ago, Subway announced it would switch to serving chicken raised without antibiotics used in human medicine within two years. It is also exploring antibiotic-free options in turkey and ham it serves.
Also, Wendy’s announced in July that it is testing the sale of antibiotic-free chicken at restaurants in four regional markets.

New Zealand aims to stop animal antibiotic use by 2030

The veterinary profession in New Zealand is reducing its reliance on antibiotic use in animal agriculture, and has aimed to phase out the use of all antibiotics by 2030.
Dr. Steve Merchant, president of the New Zealand Veterinary Association, said that by that year, the country will not need antibiotics for the maintenance of animal health and wellness.
“With sharply increasing levels of resistance to antibiotics worldwide, we want animals and, by extension, humans to enter the ‘post-antibiotic’ era as safely as possible,” Merchant said.
Merchant said this is a significant undertaking, requiring considerable teamwork and commitment from the veterinary profession, working with the medical, scientific, government and relevant primary industry sectors.
“Given the wide acceptance that the future for antibiotics is limited, and the close links between animals, humans and the environment we share, achieving this goal is essential. New Zealand is well suited to this challenge; given our size, proximity of the various specialities and relevant industry sectors, and already low use of antibiotics,” said Merchant.
Merchant said in order to make the transition a success, a collaborative effort involving changes in attitudes and behaviors from veterinarians, researchers, government officials, human health professionals and pharmaceutical companies. Veterinarians will use and advocate for careful antibacterial management and monitoring based on responsible use of existing antibiotics as they work with industry partners to jointly test and develop the necessary alternatives.

Michigan State University starts animal antibiotic study

• 

  Freeimages.com/Danilevici Filip-E

  Michigan State University’s Center for the Health Impacts of Agriculture is researching animal antibiotic use.

  From WATTAgNet:
  The Michigan State University Center for the Health Impacts of Agriculture (CHIA) is conducting a study that looks at the antibiotics in animal agriculture and their possible impact on antibiotic resistance.
  In the study, researchers will analyze soil and water samples from the environment to see if this use of antibiotics is having an effect.
  “We are pleased to announce the first research project to be funded by the Center for the Health Impacts of Agriculture,” said Felicia Wu, John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor and CHIA Co-director. “The study will target antibiotics used in animal agriculture to find out how they find their way into the environment and what the ultimate impact on humans, if any, might be.”
  Antibiotic use has become a growing area of concern among consumers. Responding to those concerns, numerous companies within the global meat and poultry industry have developed antibiotic-free poultry and pork products. Foster Farms became the most recent company to introduce a new line of antibiotic-free products, announcing the launch of its Foster Farms Organic Ground Turkey on July 21.
  CHIA was developed to advance research that addresses the links between the study of global food supply, agriculture and nutrition to the study of human health.

California bill would limit animal antibiotic use

California is considering a bill that would ban the use of over-the-counter antibiotics in livestock and poultry. The bill has been proposed in response to growing concerns that antibiotic use in animal agriculture may lead to antibiotic resistance.
“This is a global problem, and we have to solve the problem to make it work,” bill author state Sen. Jerry Hill said. “I think people are realizing, and especially when you look at the numbers, when you look at 23,000 people, that’s 23,000 deaths from antibiotic resistant bacteria. There’s nothing that could be done.”
The bill, SB 27, would allow antibiotics to still be used if they are administered under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian and involved a prescription. The proposed legislation would also make it unlawful to use a medically important antibiotic to promote growth or to improve feed efficiency. The antibiotics could only be used to prevent, control or treat animal diseases.
According to a report from CBS Sacramento, if the proposed bill passes the full California Senate and Assembly, it would go into effect in January 2016 and would make California the first state in the union to have a law banning use of such antibiotics in agriculture.

AVMA welcomes release of federal ruling on use of antibiotics in food animals

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has applauded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its release of the Veterinary Feed Directive final rule, which will cement veterinary oversight of medically important antibiotics used in feed for food animals, ensuring the protection of animal health and welfare as well as food safety and public health. The AVMA’s early and ongoing collaboration with the FDA has helped ensure that the rule is practical and in the best interests of animal health, public health and the veterinary profession.
The FDA, according to AVMA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Ron DeHaven, has worked hard to expedite the process, which will help veterinarians and food producers around the country as they prepare for the 2017 implementation of widespread changes in how antibiotics are used in food-animal production.
“The veterinary feed directive (VFD) is integral to the implementation of the guidance documents, and we are pleased to have had the opportunity to provide valuable input into the regulation. This is a great example of how collaboration by the FDA with stakeholders has brought about meaningful improvements and a successful outcome,” DeHaven said. “Antibiotic resistance is a threat that the veterinary profession takes very seriously, and that’s why the nation’s veterinarians have been, and remain, engaged with the FDA and food producers to ensure that livestock are healthy and that our food supply stays safe by overseeing the use of antibiotics to ensure appropriate use.”
The VFD mandates how medically important antibiotics given to food animals are to be used and distributed to producers. Through the VFD, producers must obtain veterinary approval prior to using medicated feeds containing medically important antibiotics. The VFD final rule contains a provision related to the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) that the AVMA considers to be particularly critical. The provision states that veterinarians must follow state laws related to the VCPR provided that the state’s VCPR requirements are applicable to the VFD. Otherwise, veterinarians must meet the criteria for the federally defined VCPR to issue an order for a VFD drug.
“This provision, which the AVMA fully supports, provides for both flexibility and consistency in how veterinarians and food producers can work in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of the FDA guidance,” DeHaven said. “This is really a milestone in the antimicrobial resistance strategy. Veterinary oversight is critical to ensuring appropriate judicious use, and this provision provides clarity to those who will be responsible for it.”
The AVMA worked closely with state veterinary medical associations to alert the states on the need for a VCPR requirement at the state level to ensure that veterinary oversight would be clearly mandated at every level when the VFD process is fully implemented.
“When state VCPRs complement federal regulations, everyone wins; it strengthens and supports the goals of the program to ensure healthy animals, a safe food supply and the reduction of antibiotic resistance,” DeHaven said. “Whether it’s for use in people or animals, the nation’s veterinarians support the judicious use of antibiotics to prevent, control, and treat diseases. Veterinarians want to help ensure that antibiotics remain an important part of preventing and treating diseases in both humans and animals.”
The AVMA is reviewing the entire contents of the final rule and will be submitting official comment to it.
For more information on antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance, visit the AVMA’s web site at avma.org/antibioticuse.

Animal ag groups commit to responsible antibiotic use

More than 150 shareholders in the veterinary health, human health and animal agriculture industries joined the Obama administration for the White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship on June 2 to express their commitment to the responsible use of antibiotics.
The United States government departments and agencies, along with the involved human and animal health stakeholders, are committing to implement changes over the next five years to a create meaningful impact on antibiotic stewardship, slow the emergence of resistant bacteria, and prevent the spread of resistant infections. 
The goal of the forum was to exchange ideas on ways public and private sector stakeholders can collaborate to improve responsible antibiotic use and to discuss opportunities for further improvement. 
Many of the participants, including Elanco Animal Health and Foster Farms, revealed their antibiotic stewardship plans in conjunction with the forum.
Actively participating in the forum were the following animal agriculture-related companies and organizations:
Veterinary and animal health companies and organizations: Elanco Animal Health, Merck Animal Health, Zoetis, American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Avian Pathologists, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Federation of Animal Science Societies, National Association for the Advancement of Animal Science, American Animal Hospital Association, and Animal Health Institute
Poultry and livestock organizations: National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, National Pork Board, National Pork Producers Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and National Milk Producers Federation, North American Meat Institute
Animal protein companies and retailers: Foster Farms, Cargill, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, Bell & Evans, Costco, McDonald’s, Panera Bread
Animal feed industry organizations: National Grain and Feed Association and American Feed Industry Association

8 steps to Elanco’s antibiotic stewardship plan

Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company, has unveiled its multi-faceted approach to combat the growing concern about antibiotic resistance.
The release of it comprehensive antibiotic stewardship plan coincided with the company’s participation in the White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship, which was held on June 2.
The 8 steps of Elanco’s antibiotic stewardship plan are:
1. Act with responsibility globally - not just according to U.S. regulation - by working with food producers and retailers to provide training and encourage policies that reduce shared-class antibiotic use and increase veterinarian oversight.
2. Cease marketing of growth promotion uses for shared-class antibiotics and complete full regulatory change to end growth promotion use of shared-class antibiotics globally by the end of 2016.
3. Help customers eliminate continuous use of shared-class antibiotics for therapy purposes by providing an alternative.
4. Eliminate over-the-counter sales of shared-class antibiotics globally - including injectable products - where veterinarian oversight exists.
5. Eliminate concurrent use of shared-class antibiotics to treat the same disease.
6. Support veterinary oversight and responsible use, including helping build infrastructure globally.
7. Develop new animal-only antibiotics. No animal should ever be treated with a shared-class antibiotic if an animal-only option exists. Animal-only antibiotics optimize animal welfare without compromising human use antibiotics.
8. Create alternatives. Elanco commits to invest two-thirds of our food animal research budget to quickly evaluate 25 candidates and deliver 10 viable non-antibiotic development projects that address diseases where there are few, or no, alternatives to shared-class antibiotics.
In one year, Elanco will host an animal health accountability summit to provide a progress report on its effort to deliver non-antibiotic alternatives. Along the way, the company will collaborate with customers, academics and appropriate regulatory authorities, which will include establishing an expert advisory panel. Finally, Elanco will collaborate with its industry association and other technology companies to advance this effort as quickly as possible.

Pork industry ready for required antibiotic use changes

The U.S. pork industry is prepared for changes that will be necessary because of the newly released Veterinary Feed Directive, industry leaders say. 
Consumers have never been more interested in food and agriculture than today, and one of those concerns is antibiotic use in livestock production, according to Chris Hodges, CEO of the National Pork Board. Speaking at Word Pork Expo on June 3 in Des Moines, Iowa, Hodges was part of a discussion on how pork producers have to prepare for the changes in antibiotic use mandated by the just-released Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).
Watch a video live from World Pork Expo on how the National Pork Board is educating consumers about antibiotic use in the pork industry.
Hodges said antibiotic use in livestock production is not a new issue for NPPC. “We haven’t been standing still. What we’re talking about is improving pig health. Healthier pigs require fewer antibiotics.”
Dr. Jennifer Koeman, the National Pork Board director of producer and public health explained how the Veterinary Feed Directive will impact producers – especially small producers.

Jennifer Koeman of the National Pork Board addresses World Pork Expo attendees, while fellow NPB officials, from left, Jarrod Sutton, Chris Hodges and Brad Greenway look on. 
“Antibiotics are not going away, but how they are being used will change,” said Koeman. The 273 products added to the VFD list will require veterinarian directive for their use in feed. She said producers will have to be much more diligent in record keeping and will need to maintain a close relationship with a veterinarian. While large producers generally already have that relationship or even on-staff veterinarians, many small producers don’t have that existing relationship. Koeman said the VFD will go into effect at the end of 2016, so producers should start developing those relationships now.
Jarrod Sutton, the National Pork Board’s vice president of social responsibility, said the industry’s customers – meat retailers and food service companies – and the consumers are demanding higher standards and transparency.
“Our customers are on the front lines trying to answer these questions, with their focus on humane treatment, safe food, and low carbon footprint,” said Sutton. “We will be sharing this story in one-on-one meetings, at food shows, and talking about it more broadly with the consumer.” He said the National Pork Board’s goal is to instill confidence that the pork industry is ahead of the curve on this topic. 

Walmart adopts positions on antibiotics, animal welfare

Walmart and Sam's Club announced new positions that seek to end the use of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes and find alternatives to layer cages and gestation crates. 
Walmart and Sam’s Club of the United States have adopted a new position seeking responsible use of antibiotics in farm animals, as well as new standards for animal welfare for the companies that are meat, poultry and egg suppliers for the company. The company released its new positions on May 22, but no timeline on implementing the new positions has yet been given.


Company seeks alternatives to gestation crates, layer cages
The company's new animal welfare standards involve working with its suppliers to “find and implement solutions to address animal welfare concerns” that include animal housing systems. Walmart and Sam's Club specifically mentions finding alternatives to gestation crates for pigs and battery cages for laying hens. The company also has provisions that seek alternatives to veal crates.
The company is also expecting its suppliers to not conduct potentially painful procedures such a pig tail docking and cattle dehorning without using proper pain management practices.


Limiting animal antibiotic use
Walmart stated that the company believes antibiotics should be used responsibly in farm animals. With that in mind, it is asking suppliers to adopt and implement the Judicious Use Principles of Antimicrobial Use from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA),  including accurate record-keeping, veterinary oversight, and limiting antimicrobial treatment to animals that are ill or at risk, effectively eliminating the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion purposes.
Additionally, the company wants to promote transparency by having suppliers provide a report on antibiotics management to Walmart and publicly report antibiotic use on an annual basis.

Antibiotic use deserves serious talks, not scare tactics

Dr. Robin Ganzert, American Humane Association president and CEO
ADVERTISEMENT
The recent release of the Food and Drug Administration’s report on antibiotic sales brought a round of calls from certain advocacy groups to ban the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. These advocates remind me of another crowd: the anti-vaccination movement. Both the groups pushing for an antibiotic-free animal agriculture and the “anti-vaxxers” ignore established science on their respective issues in a way that leads to diminished human and animal welfare.
We certainly should have a debate about the judicious use of antibiotics in agriculture, but jumping to an outright ban defies science and common sense, will cause more animal suffering, and may have adverse effects on public health.
While those pushing for an outright ban are on the fringe, concerns about antibiotic-resistant bacteria in agriculture are starting to hit the mainstream. In American Humane Association’s 2014 Humane Heartland Farm Animal Welfare Survey, more than half of the respondents indicated that they seek out food labeled “antibiotic free,” second only behind “humanely raised.”
Lack of evidence that animal antibiotic use is bad for human health
Opponents of antibiotics frequently point to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that at least two million Americans become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics every year. Reports indicate that the most resistant infections reside in human hospital settings. However, there is no evidence that antibiotics used in animal agriculture have decreased the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans. According to Dr. Stephanie Doores of Pennsylvania State University, “People would be more likely to die from a bee sting than for their antibiotic treatment to fail because of macrolide-resistant bacteria in meat or poultry.”
A look across the world to Denmark is also instructive. Despite a complete ban on antibiotic use for growth promotion instituted in 2000, there is very little evidence that it led to any positive impacts on human health or a decline in antibiotic resistant bacteria. In fact, it has resulted in a significant increase in the therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals, due to animals getting sick.
Antibiotics can and do  help animal well-being
Science – and common sense – tell us that antibiotics can and do help improve well-being, decrease mortality rates of farm animals, and prevent unnecessary suffering. Just as they do when given to a child with strep throat, antibiotics relieve the pain and distress of sick animals while helping them to recover. One of the Five Freedoms upon which the American Humane Certified program is based is the freedom “from pain, injury and disease.” An outright ban would be inhumane to sick animals, and would violate one of the Five Freedoms that serves as the internationally accepted social contract with animals.
Additionally, what is not often discussed is that use of antibiotics in farm animals provides for a safer food supply, and that the FDA has long required withdrawal periods for such use. As noted by Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of the American Veterinary Medical Association, in her 2010 testimony to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health: “For food animals, drugs additionally contribute to the public health by mitigating disease and thereby reducing the numbers of bacteria entering the food supply. Studies show that a reduction in the incidence of food animal illness will reduce bacterial contamination on meat, thereby reducing the risk of human illness.”
Science-based dialogues on antibiotics needed
Because it is an issue of concern for the public, antibiotic use in agriculture demands a healthy and robust discussion. But veterinarians, public health professionals and scientists should be determining what the appropriate use of antibiotics is. And such a discussion needs to include outcomes for the sick animal, as it’s simply not humane to leave an animal to suffer needlessly.
Recent moves by Chick-fil-A and McDonald’s demonstrate that the issue is becoming more urgent. Let’s set aside the scare tactics and pressure campaigns and have a real, honest conversation about safe and proper antibiotic use that’s driven by science.
Agriculture, researchers and humane organizations must work together to educate the public and food companies about proper antibiotic use, or else the dialogue will be led by misinformation. In working together, we can develop policies that improve animal health and welfare, safeguard our abundant food supply and protect public health. Better science is needed to advance a better understanding of human and animal health, and define what it is to be humane.
The views expressed in the guest commentaries on WATTAgnet.com are those of the authors’ and do not reflect the opinions of the editors at Watt Global Media. Those with differing opinions are encouraged to comment on this site or contact tokeefe@wattnet.net