FDA Denies Petitions to Ban Certain Antibiotics in Livestock

Image via Wikipedia

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally ruled on a petition that was filed with them twelve long years ago as well as a newer one filed in 2005 to ban the use of certain antibiotics that are used to treat humans from being used for non-medical purposes in livestock used for human consumption.

The petitions were filed in 1999 and 2005 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Environmental Defense, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), and the Union of Concerned scientists. Both petitions asked the FDA to withdrawal its approval of certain antimicrobial drugs that are considered important for human medicine, like penicillins, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, streptogramins, macrolides, lincomycin and sulfonamides.

For years the animal agricultural industry has been mixing drugs like these in the water and feed of livestock to promote faster growth and prevent disease in the animals.

By the animal agricultural industry unnecessarily feeding tons of antibiotics to healthy animals, they are responsible for helping to create drug-resistant strains of food borne illnesses, like Salmonella Heidelberg, Salmonella Newport, Salmonella Typhimurium, E. coli O157:H7 among many, many others.

Numerous studies have clearly documented the direct transference of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals to humans. After antibiotics started being administered to livestock, the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli and Campylobacter bacteria also increased in humans.

One group of Salmonella Newport strains are now resistant to most available antibiotic medications approved by the FDA for the treatment of Salmonellosis, especially in children. (Gupta et al., 2003).

Multi-drug resistance was found in 10 out of 14 outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant foodborne illness reported between 2000 and 2009 according to a recent study performed by CSPI.

The FDA cited several reasons for not starting a formal withdrawal proceeding. “The agency’s experience with contested, formal withdrawal proceedings is that the process can consume extensive periods of time and agency resources,” said FDA in the denial letter. The agency also cited the withdrawal of diethylstilbestrol (DES) in 1979, which took a full seven years to complete, and the withdrawal of enrofloxacin in poultry, which took almost five years and cost FDA approximately $3.3 million.

Apparently it sounds like the FDA is more concerned with what it will cost them to withdraw its approval for the use of antibiotic drugs for non-medical purposes in animals than they are with the health and safety of the countless consumers around the world that consume food produced in the United States.

The FDA is so concerned with what it will cost them, but they ignore what it will cost us. Bacteria that is resistant to one or more antibiotics makes it very difficult to treat humans who become infected. This results in longer and more expensive hospital stays, and higher fatality rates.

So, is the FDA trying to put a price tag on the value of your life to determine if it is worth them doing their job and protecting you?