The right Rx for the farm

The American agriculture industry maintains that the use of antibiotics on livestock poses no threat to humans. It may be correct, but the numbers are alarming.

An investigative series by the Associated Press reported, "The overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the United States last year alone - more than prostate and breast cancer combine. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent."

That's hardly reassuring, and the Obama administration appears ready to tighten controls, while the agriculture industry and drug makers are engaged in a furious lobbying effort to block new rules.

But even if the industry should be successful in Washington, the controversy is likely to hurt American farmers. Simply preventing regulations is not going to eliminate the public's concern.

A better strategy for the industry would be to support a comprehensive and independent assessment of the risks posed by the antibiotics that would recommend appropriate safeguards.

There is no question the promiscuous use of antibiotics can result in virulent strains of germs. For instance, there have been numerous cases of drug-resistant strep throat, which not long ago readily responded to antibiotics.

But no one knows how many of the 65,000 deaths that the Associated Press cites are linked to the drugs used on livestock. In the Netherlands, the AP reports, 20 percent of drug-resistant staph infections could be traced to animals.

Ellen Silbergeld, a John Hopkins University health sciences professor who has studied all the research on the issue, told AP that drug use in farm animals is a "major driver of antimicrobial resistance worldwide." But it is not the only driver.

Antibiotics are widely prescribed, and sometimes patients want - and doctors prescribe - them for colds, which are mostly caused by viruses that do not respond to antibiotics.

Often patients quit taking the antibiotics once they begin feeling well, instead of taking them for the prescribed length of time. This can increase the chances of germs becoming drug-tolerant. It is significant that Norway dramatically reduced infectious diseases by severely cutting the medical use of antibiotics.

While the concern about the overuse of antibiotics should not be confined to agriculture, the industry must honestly address its practices. The drugs are used heavily in hog and poultry operations. They are used on cattle mostly in feed lots, where the animals are congregated and more prone to sickness.

Some use obviously is necessary to treat sick animals and prevent the spread of disease. But many farmers use the drugs to increase the animals' growth rate. This may be understandable, given that every added pound increases revenue, but it hardly seems a wise use of drugs whose effectiveness is essential to public health.

Yet Washington's ability to curtail such practices is limited. The Food and Drug Administration approved antibiotic use in 1951, when there were no concerns about drug resistance. The AP found the only way now to withdraw that approval is through a lengthy drug-by-drug review.

The industry has successfully blocked most proposed limits. The results: Americans consumers don't know what or how much drugs are going into their food. The situation is not healthy for the public or the industry, which is likely to see health-conscious consumers turn to alteratives.

An independent assessment of farming practices would highlight potential problems and produce protocols that could prevent overuse. More importantly, it would give consumers confidence that an order of pork did not come with a potential side of super germs.