At last November's National Institute of Animal Agriculture's Antibiotics Symposium in Kansas City, the co-chair of the biannual event, Dr. Nevil Speer, a professor at Western Kentucky University, described antibiotic resistance as the single most complex problem in public health. The common thread running through the program's presentations was that the science behind the emergence, amplification, persistence and transfer of antibiotic resistance is highly complex and open to misinterpretation and misuse.
One speaker described the study of antibiotic resistance as trying "to know the unknowable." Another researcher in the use of antibiotics in food animal production said, "If you think you understand antimicrobial resistance, it hasn't been properly explained."
Apparently many journalists, consumer watchdogs, anti-agriculture activists and beltway wonks haven't had the situation explained to them properly. In early December the Los Angeles Times noted its support for the FDA ruling to limit the use of antibiotics in food animal production. But it made a gross implication (in one sentence) that the two million Americans infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria and the resulting 23,000 deaths (according to the CDC) are linked to the antibiotics fed to beef, swine and poultry. The question is whether the LA Times spun the connection innocently or lazily? Or was it sneaking an anti-agriculture agenda point across to its readers?
The fact is those infections and deaths have been attributed to excessive use of antibiotics in hospitals and clinics, to over-prescribing and the readily available over-the-counter antibiotic products. Not one case of human infection or death stemming from the use of antibiotics in food animals, either to treat sick animals or to promote growth, has been observed, reported or documented.
That's not to say it couldn't happen. Which is why the agriculture industry, animal health scientists and the veterinary profession are leading the way in assuring food safety and human health. Agriculture uses science-based information in drawing its conclusions and initiating courses of action. Anti-agriculture groups apply political science to initiate bans and limitations on use. While farmers and meat-industry executives immediately signaled their compliance with new FDA rules, activists continued to rail against......well, just about anything.
One speaker described the study of antibiotic resistance as trying "to know the unknowable." Another researcher in the use of antibiotics in food animal production said, "If you think you understand antimicrobial resistance, it hasn't been properly explained."
Apparently many journalists, consumer watchdogs, anti-agriculture activists and beltway wonks haven't had the situation explained to them properly. In early December the Los Angeles Times noted its support for the FDA ruling to limit the use of antibiotics in food animal production. But it made a gross implication (in one sentence) that the two million Americans infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria and the resulting 23,000 deaths (according to the CDC) are linked to the antibiotics fed to beef, swine and poultry. The question is whether the LA Times spun the connection innocently or lazily? Or was it sneaking an anti-agriculture agenda point across to its readers?
The fact is those infections and deaths have been attributed to excessive use of antibiotics in hospitals and clinics, to over-prescribing and the readily available over-the-counter antibiotic products. Not one case of human infection or death stemming from the use of antibiotics in food animals, either to treat sick animals or to promote growth, has been observed, reported or documented.
That's not to say it couldn't happen. Which is why the agriculture industry, animal health scientists and the veterinary profession are leading the way in assuring food safety and human health. Agriculture uses science-based information in drawing its conclusions and initiating courses of action. Anti-agriculture groups apply political science to initiate bans and limitations on use. While farmers and meat-industry executives immediately signaled their compliance with new FDA rules, activists continued to rail against......well, just about anything.
RSS Feed
