“Pretty Please” is Not Enough. Why FDA Should Ban Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Livestock
By Sarah Borron
For decades, farmers have given livestock low doses of antibiotics in their feed to speed growth and prevent infection. And, for decades, scientists and public health officials have warned that this practice, known as “subtherapeutic use,” leads to the creation and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have grown more common both in people and in meat at the grocery store. Doctors encounter patients with infections that are harder to treat and last year, we saw a massive food recall—the third-largest recall of meat in USDA’s records—thanks to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella in ground turkey.
The FDA acknowledges there’s a problem, but has done little to actually rein it in. The agency tracks antibiotic resistance in bacteria in meat and has created regulations to limit subtherapeutic uses in two classes of antibiotics, but has mostly focused on voluntary initiatives, citing lack of resources to implement enforceable rules.
Finally, the warnings from a vast chorus of science, health and consumer experts and the evidence that subtherapeutic use is a serious health concern could no longer be ignored. The last three weeks have brought about promising movement towards curtailing the dangerous practice, but we still have a long way to go.
First, on March 23, the FDA lost a lawsuit. A federal judge ruled that the agency must act on a proposal it made in 1977 to prevent two antibiotics important to human medicine – tetracyclines and penicillins – from being given routinely to healthy livestock. After citizen petitions in 1999 and 2005 and a lawsuit filed last year, FDA finally took action—quietly withdrawing the proposal just before Christmas—but the federal judge ruled that FDA actually had to address the concerns it identified over thirty years ago. The drug manufacturers will have a chance to make their case that the drugs are safe to feed to livestock routinely. But if they aren’t able to (and science indicates they won’t), the FDA must withdraw its approval of subtherapeutic uses of the drugs. Read the full article…

Those of us who grew up in the 1950‚ fondly remember the Nestle‚ television and radio commercials featuring the wooden puppets Danny ODay and his trusty basset hound sidekick Farfel extolling the virtues of the company‚ cocoa powder for milk. For those who were not yet born to experience such great culture, Danny ODay would sing: ‚N-E-S-T-L-E-S. Nestle‚ makes the very best” and Farfel would chime in ‚Cha-a-aw-klit.” (If you want to see what I am talking about, there are various renditions of the commercial on the Internet). Back then, Nestle‚ had a wholesome image among U.S. consumers.
I’ve never been much of a milk drinker. Born with extremely picky taste buds, I would only pour it into my cereal or use it in some pancake mix. Taste wasn’t too much of an issue for me, so frankly, the amount of fat was all I considered when purchasing milk. Of course everything is way more complicated than that, and growing up I learned about organic milk, but I’ve found even that discussion has its problems. As a new Food & Water Watch (FWW) intern, I’ve learned that there are a large number of factors to bear in mind when buying milk. It’s not only about personal health but also treatment of cattle and environmental impact.
Why is it so important to know where your produce is coming from? It’s because, as discussed in the report, Americans are now buying more imported produce than ever before. The concern with that comes from some countries not having equivalent food safety standards, combined with the Food & Drug Administration inspecting less than one percent of food shipments coming into the country. In addition,
So what exactly is the “Global Grocer”? It is a virtual supermarket, in which you can fill your shopping cart with a variety of fruits and vegetables, and then learn the probabilities of those products being imported and where from. In other words, it is a fun and informative way to learn about food safety, and find out which are the smart decisions to make while shopping for produce.
Can you imagine a food processing company that is given a Certificate of Achievement despite having dry-roasted rodents and salmonella-tainted products at their facilities? It‚ one of the crazy things about the world we live in. Nine deaths and almost 700 illnesses have been counted since the peanut scandal began a few months ago. All because the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) decided to take a few shortcuts and withhold the fact that they had discovered salmonella in some of their production plants. Responsibility for this does not just fall upon PCA, however. The Food & Drug Administration‚ lax oversight, coupled with the sporadic and ineffective use of state inspectors and third party auditors, allowed for this situation to unfold.