Our Big Pig Problem

This really should end thedebate.  Good husbandry is superior tothe persuasive use of of non therapeutic antibiotics.  There is really no proper excuse for continuingthe practice and it should be immediately regulated out or more properlyabandoned by the industry.

Even better, retailers merelyneed to specify and market antibiotic free meat to quickly end the practice.  The consumer will respond to the labeling andeven pay a little more, though that will not be necessary.

In fact this is a battle thatneeds to be taken directly to the consumer who needs to have the choice.  The science is clear.  Antibiotic resistance jumps readily from pigsto humans as one would expect anyway.  Soit is stupid to encourage it and even dumber when a tweaking of the husbandrygives a better result.

In fact we have learned a bitabout good swine husbandry this year that should be made standard as soon as possible.

Our Big Pig Problem

The U.S. shouldfollow Denmarkand stop giving farm animals low-dose antibiotics

By The Editors  | March 30, 2011| 15

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-big-pig-problem&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110330

Image: Jana Leon Getty Images

For more than 50 years microbiologists have warned against usingantibiotics to fatten up farm animals. The practice, they argue, threatenshuman health by turning farms into breeding grounds of drug-resistant bacteria.Farmers responded that restricting antibiotics in livestock would devastate theindustry and significantly raise costs to consumers. We now have empiricaldata that should resolve this debate. Since 1995 Denmark has enforced progressivelytighter rules on the use of antibiotics in the raising of pigs, poultry andother livestock. In the process, it has shown that it is possible to protecthuman health without hurting farmers.

Farmers in many countries use antibiotics in two key ways: (1) at fullstrength to treat animals that are sick and (2) in low doses to fattenmeat-producing livestock or to prevent veterinary illnesses. (It is illegal inthe U.S.to sell milk for human consumption from dairy cattle treated with antibiotics.)Although even the proper use of antibiotics can inadvertently lead to thespread of drug-resistant bacteria, the habit of using a low or sub therapeuticdose is a formula for disaster: the treatment provides just enough antibioticto kill some but not all bacteria. The germs that survive are typically thosethat happen to bear genetic mutations for resisting the antibiotic. They thenreproduce and exchange genes with other microbial resisters. Because bacteriaare found literally everywhere, resistant strains produced in animals eventuallyfind their way into people as well. You could not design a better system forguaranteeing the spread of antibiotic resistance.

The data from multiple studies over the years support the conclusionthat low doses of antibiotics in animals increase the number of drug-resistantmicrobes in both animals and people. As Joshua M. Sharfstein, a principaldeputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, told a U.S.congressional subcommittee last summer, “You actually can trace the specificbacteria around and ... find that the resistant strains in humans match theresistant strains in the animals.” And this science is what led Denmark to stopsubtherapeutic dosing of chickens, pigs and other farm animals.

Although the transition unfolded smoothly in the poultry industry,the average weight of pigs fell in the first year. But after Danish farmers startedleaving sows and piglets together a few weeks longer to bolster thelittermates’ immune systems naturally, the animals’ weights jumped back up, andthe number of pigs per litter increased as well. The lesson is thatimproving animal husbandry—making sure that pens, stalls and cages are properlycleaned and giving animals more room or time to mature—offsets the initialnegative impact of limiting antibiotic use. Today Danish industry reports that productivityis higher than before. Meanwhile reports of antibiotic resistance in Danishpeople are mixed, which shows—as if we needed reminding—that there are no quickfixes.

Lest anyone argue that Denmarkis too small to offer a reasonable parallel to the U.S., consider that it is theworld’s largest exporter of pork. Like U.S. farmers, Danes raise pigs onan intensive, industrial scale. If they can figure out how to limit antibioticuse while actually increasing agricultural productivity, then so can Americans.

The American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society ofAmerica, the American Public Health Association, a previous FDA commissionerand many others have advised the U.S. to follow suit. Last year the FDApublished new guidelines calling for “judicious use” of antibiotics. Yet itultimately left the decision on exactly when and where to use antibiotics up toindividual farmers. That laissez-faire standard is not good enough,particularly when the health of the rest of the population is at stake.

Of course, the way veterinary antibiotics are used is not the onlycause of human drug-resistant infections. Careless use of the drugs in peoplealso contributes to the problem. But agricultural use is still a majorcontributing factor. Every day that passes brings new evidence that we are indanger of losing effective antibiotic protection against many of the mostdangerous bacteria that cause human illness [see “The Enemy Within,” by MarynMcKenna=]. The technical issues are solvable. Denmark’s example proves that it ispossible to cut antibiotic use on farms without triggering financial disaster.In fact, it might provide a competitive advantage. Stronger measures to deprivedrug-resistant bacteria of their agricultural breeding grounds simply makescientific, economic and common sense.