Claims withdrawal process expensive and resource intensive
Curbing use of antibiotics in animal feed can help reduce drug resistance in livestock and humans who consume dairy products and meat. But the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), it seems, is not inclined to do so. On November 7, USFDA rejected two citizens ' petitions seeking ban on use of antibiotics in animal feed or in water for purposes other than treatment of diseases. The petitions also sought withdrawal of approval for most uses of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed.
[highlights]
The petitions were filed in 1999 and 2005 by Environmental Defense, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) and the Union of Concerned Scientists along with some other groups. When there was no response from the agency to the previous two petitions, the organisations filed a suit against USFDA in May this year.
The petitions were filed based on evidence that use of antibiotics in animals led to antibiotic resistance in livestock and humans, making treatment of diseases difficult. The United States Department of Agriculture had admitted in August last year that they would be working with USFDA to reduce and eliminate the use of antibiotics in animals.
Though it did not challenge the claims of the petitioners, USFDA argued that withdrawing the antibiotics would be an expensive and a resource-intensive process. Instead of implementing a formal process to take drugs off the market, the agency plans to reduce the use through voluntary withdrawal by pharmaceutical companies that market antibiotics for feed.
This approach has received flak from the petitioners. "Instead of adhering to its mission to protect consumers, the FDA is waiting for the drug companies to voluntarily do what the agency is legally mandated to do. There is absolutely no reason to believe that drug companies will voluntarily reduce sales of antibiotics and act against their own financial self-interest. Without reductions in antibiotics used, it is impossible for there to be any public health benefit," said Steven Roach, FACT's public health programme director. "For this reason we do not see the FDA's plan as an answer to the petitions or the problem of antibiotic resistance."
FACT is a Chicago-based non-profit that promotes humane and healthy farms through science-based advocacy and support to farmers; it also supports the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This federal legislation has been introduced in the Congress and has been referred to the committee on health, education, labour and pension. If passed, the Act would require FDA to address non-therapeutic antibiotic use and make it easier for the agency to withdraw animal antibiotics, found to be unsafe from the antibiotic resistance standpoint.
"Reducing antibiotic overuse is essential for making sure antibiotics will keep working for years to come—to treat our sick children, families and animals. It is outrageous that FDA considers voluntary self-regulation by drug companies to be enough. It is clearly not," said FACT's executive director, Richard Wood.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.