E-DRUG: WHO Urges End to Use of Antibiotics for Animal Growth
--------------------------------------------------
[An important proposal by WHO: let us stop using antibiotics for growth
promotion in animals. From the Washington Post, copied as fair use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51996-2003Aug12.html WB]
WHO Urges End to Use of Antibiotics for Animal Growth
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2003; Page A01
The World Health Organization will recommend today that nations phase out
the widespread and controversial use of antibiotic growth promoters in
animal feed, saying the move will help preserve the effectiveness of
antibiotics for medicine and can be done without significant expense or
health consequences to farm animals.
Based on a study of Denmark's experience following a 1998 voluntary ban on
antibiotic growth promoters, WHO concluded that under similar conditions the
use of low-dosage antibiotics "for the sole purpose of growth promotion can
be discontinued."
WHO's findings and recommendation do not require nations to act. But they
will add to the growing movement to stop routine use of antibiotics on
farms, and to the kind of public pressure that led the McDonald's fast-food
chain to recently tell suppliers to cut back on antibiotic growth promoters.
WHO officials say that about half of the antibiotics used by livestock
growers worldwide are low-dose growth promoters, the type that public health
experts say are most likely to promote the growth of bacteria that are
resistant to antibiotics.
"We have believed for some time that giving animals low dosages of
antibiotics throughout their lives to make them grow faster is a bad idea,"
said Peter Braam, project leader for the WHO report. "Now we have solid
scientific information from Denmark that producers can terminate this
practice without negative effects for the animals and growers, and with good
effects for the human population."
Denmark is the world's largest exporter of pork products and has an
industrial-style farming system similar to the American one.
The report, by a team including U.S. public health and agriculture experts,
makes clear that there were negative effects from the ban on antibiotic
growth promoters -- the cost of producing pigs rose by about 1 percent, and
the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals increased. But even with that
increase, the amount of antibiotics used on Danish farms fell by about 50
percent after the ban went into effect.
The report also found that once growth promoters were dropped, the amount of
resistant bacteria in pork and chicken declined "dramatically." In chicken,
60 percent to 80 percent of birds had bacteria resistant to three widely
used antibiotics before the ban; afterward 5 percent to 35 percent of birds
had resistant bacteria. The report found a similar decline in bacteria
resistant to two antibiotics widely fed to pigs.
The WHO report said there are indications that levels of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans decreased, but the data were too
limited to make conclusive judgments.
WHO has taken the lead in focusing attention on the potential hazards of
antibiotic growth promoters -- which speed pigs, poultry and cattle to
market but also speed the development of bacteria that are resistant to
antibiotics. Many researchers believe that resistant bacteria that grow in
spite of low-dosage antibiotic growth promoters are playing a significant
role in making related antibiotics less effective for human patients.
But many meat and poultry growers, as well as drug companies that make
animal medicines and antibiotic feed additives, say phasing out growth
promoters would be costly and counterproductive.
"It just doesn't make sense to us to focus so much on antibiotic growth
promoters on the farm," said Dan Murphy, vice president of public affairs at
the American Meat Institute. "The real hot spot for the development of
antibiotic resistance is in the hospital and the doctor's office, where
antibiotics are overused and resistance is clearly growing. What might be
coming from the farm is minor in comparison."
WHO officials acknowledge that antibiotic resistance is being caused by
over-prescribing drugs for people as well, but say that the routine and
low-dosage use of antibiotics is the least important use of antibiotics and
should be curtailed.
Braam of WHO said the results in Denmark appear to be applicable to American
farmers, because they operate a similarly intensive form of farming. He said
that there was dispute on whether techniques used in Denmark to make up for
the loss of growth promoters could be used by large, developing nations such
as China, but that he believes they are applicable worldwide. Although WHO
has warned before against widespread use of low-dosage antibiotics, Braam
said the Danish results made it possible and necessary to make a clearer
statement against their use.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been grappling with the issue for
several years and is evaluating both new and established animal antibiotics
on the likelihood of increasing resistance to human drugs.
But Richard Carnevale, vice president of regulatory, scientific and
international affairs at the Animal Health Institute, which represents
makers of animal drugs, said WHO's approach does not and should not apply in
the United States.
"The FDA is a science-based agency, and their job is to look at each of
these drugs individually," he said. "Not all animal drugs are the same or
present the same risks. So I think we should stick with our approach to this
issue and avoid any broad bans that may be unwise and unnecessary."
Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, said
the FDA and WHO were "leaning in the same direction," but they do have
differences. He said the FDA is examining each animal antibiotic -- whether
used to treat sick animals or to promote growth -- and deciding which pose
the greatest risk to antibiotics for people.
"The FDA's concern is that a ban on types of products is way too general,"
he said. "I don't think it makes sense to say one kind of usage is bad, when
others might be equally bad or worse."
WHO's recommendation goes well beyond the steps taken by the McDonald's
fast-food chain in June, when it told its meat suppliers it wanted them to
reduce or stop the use of some growth promoters by the end of next year.
McDonald's policy would prohibit the use of 24 antibiotic growth promoters
but would allow low-dose antibiotics that act to prevent disease rather than
solely promote growth. The Danish ban is on all low-dosage antibiotics,
whatever their purpose. A similar ban will go into effect across the
European Union in 2006.
According to the Animal Health Institute, 13 percent to 17 percent of
antibiotics used on U.S. farms was for growth promotion. But the Union of
Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, said it had found that about 50
percent of the antibiotic use was in the form of low-dosage growth
promoters.
� 2003 The Washington Post Company
Access Essential Drugs Monitor #32 at http://www.who.int/medicines/mon/mon32.shtml
--
To send a message to E-Drug, write to: e-drug@healthnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@healthnet.org
in the body of the message type: subscribe e-drug OR unsubscribe e-drug
To contact a person, send a message to: e-drug-help@healthnet.org
Information and archives: http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug