 |
|
By Mark Steil
September, 2000
Part of MPR's Fighting the Superbug series
|
RealAudio 3.0 |
The use of antibiotics in farm animals is coming under increasing criticism by those who believe the patients who farmers are really treating are themselves and their fellow humans.
Research has found that using the drugs causes some dangerous animal-borne bacteria to become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics, creating untreatable "super bugs" which can infect humans. Farmers say antibiotics are a longstanding tool they need to raise livestock and poultry efficiently.
 |
|
|
|
||
|
||
FEEDING TIME at the Marlin Pankratz hog farm in southwest Minnesota is a raucous affair. Hundreds of animals hip-and-shoulder their way to steel food troughs. The trough holds an oatmeal-like slurry containing typical farm-grown staples like soybean meal and corn. But most people might be surprised to learn the daily feed ration also contains low levels of antibiotics.
The regular dose helps hogs grow faster, in fact that's what the pork industry calls the feed-based use of antibiotics: Growth promoters. Pankratz says he's used some type of antibiotic in his hogs for 30 years or so. He says antibiotics in pigs have the same mission as they do in humans: to kill bacteria.
"There's all kinds of bacteria in the environment," he says. "We as humans have many different kinds of bacteria and so does a pig. A pig can handle, for the most part, low levels of bacteria. When the bacteria becomes too numerous it will cause different problems for them."
Pankratz says a regular dose of antibiotics keep a pig's bacteria level low, beneath the disease threshold. He says that means the animal can devote more energy to growth and less to fighting bacteria.
The regular use of antibiotics is attacked by critics who say it could render ineffective one of the most effective disease fighting tools humans have.
"When you deal with human lives and the emotions of someone dying, possibly because the antibiotic they use in the hospital doesn't work, it's a very compelling argument to say it came from the farm," counters Pankratz. "We've been unfairly targeted for it in the sense that there's not enough convincing evidence to us that it's happening. Bring us the evidence its happening and I think the pork industry will be more than supportive of making changes."
The Federal Food and Drug Administration has begun a years-long process to study what dangers the use of antibiotics in farm animals pose for people. The FDA will make recommendations about which antibiotics, if any, should be banned or restricted in animal use. FDA officials say there is no question animal agriculture can cause resistant bacteria in humans. But they say they're not sure what steps, if any, should be taken to deal with the problem.
Not every farmer uses antibiotics in their flocks and herds. Larry Olson sells about 2,000 chickens a year raised on his farm near Granite Falls. He says he hasn't spent a dime on animal drugs since he started raising poultry seven years ago.
Not that Olson totally opposes using antibiotics. He says if his chickens contracted a quick-moving disease, he might have to use a drug to save the flock. But Olson says the daily use of antibiotics in feed as a growth promoter is a misuse of a valuable tool and bound to to cause trouble.
"Anytime you bring in something from the outside, it does have certain side effects. I don't know of a medication that doesn't have some kind of side effect. That's true with antibiotics. They're tremendous in their place. But if we string that out and do it in low levels, that's where resistance comes from," says Olson.
The poultry industry is the main focus of concern of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics, especially antibiotics, which are also used to treat humans. A bacteria called campylobacter is an example. It's found in most chickens and causes diarrhea in humans. A Minnesota Health Department study indicates that a strain of campylobacter resistant to antibiotics - known as flouroquinolones - is increasing rapidly in chickens and being spread to people.
|
"Once you introduce a drug into treatment it isn't always predictable or controllable what effect the drug will have."
- Tamar Barlam Center for Science in the Public Interest | |
"It just shows that once you introduce a drug into treatment it isn't always predictable or controllable what effect the drug will have," says Tamara Barlam, with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group pushing to restrict the use of antibiotics in animals.
She says the concern is that this flouroquinolone-resistant campylobacter will find its way routinely to people where it will be difficult to treat, since it's already resistant to the doctor's likely first weapon: flouroquinolones.
The poultry industry doubts things are that bad. The nation's 26th-largest chicken company, Gold 'n Plump, is based in St. Cloud. Officials there refused an interview request, but did provide written answers to questions submitted by MPR.
They point out that flouroquinolones can only be used for spot treatment of chickens, it cannot be added to the daily feed ration. Asked directly whether they think the Minnesota study linking resistant campylobacter to the use of flouroquinolones in chickens is accurate, the company says only that flouroquinolones are used judiciously and responsibly by Gold 'n Plump".
Nationwide it's estimated one or two per cent of all chickens are treated with flouroquinolones. That may seem a small number, but researchers say its still possible that level of use could cause the campylobacter resistance they're finding in their labs.
"We do think it's a very disturbing trend and one we believe is good evidence that we should consider withdrawing flouroquinolones from poultry use," says Tamar Barlam.
In their written statement Gold 'n Plump officials say that step could impair their ability to bring the same level of products to market at the current price. The company also hints that overuse of flouroquinolones by humans is one reason resistant bacteria like campylobacter are evolving.
In his 40 years in the business, hog producer Marlin Pankratz says antibiotics are one of the aids he's used to raise a healthier animal and stay economically competitive. He says he's just as concerned about resistant bacteria as anyone, since it could cause health problems for him as easily as someone in a city. But he believes change is coming, he won't be surprised if some antibiotics currently used for livestock production are banned in the future. "The antibiotics are a toolkit in all the things that we do on a farm, they're one of the tools that we use," Pankratz says. "(If) you take that tool away from us, we're going to have to figure out a different strategy, a different way to do that. But it will definitely cost considerably more money, the death loss of animals will no doubt go up. We're concerned also the quality of the meat might suffer."
Pankratz says as long as he's given a reasonable amount of time to make changes, he can adjust to any restrictions handed down on antibiotic use. Food and Drug Administration officials will eventually make that decision, but say they won't be tied to a timetable.
 | The Invisible Web |
© 2024 | Home : Terms of Use : Your Privacy RightsRadio Listening : News & Features : Events Calendar : Your Voice : About Us