McDonald’s, Costco and Chick-fil-A are curbing their use of chickens raised on antibiotics due to rising concerns from the American public that consuming such meat and poultry can foster drug resistance.
Congress, however, isn’t likely to act on the issue.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., reintroduced on Tuesday for the fifth time legislation to curb antibiotic use in livestock. The bill stalled every time after pushback from agribusiness, who use the drugs to help their livestock grow and keep the animals well, and pharmaceutical companies that sell the antibiotics to farmers and ranchers.
However, Slaughter, a microbiologist, believes that her bill has a better chance of passing now that the general public is more aware of the link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance in humans.
A 2012 poll of 1,000 U.S. residents conducted by Consumer Reports found 86 percent of consumers indicated that meat raised without antibiotics should be in their local supermarket.
“The people of the United States are really understanding what is going on here more than the House of Representatives,” Slaughter told the Washington Examiner.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said excessive antibiotic use in animals could create resistance in humans.
If antibiotics are used too much, livestock such as cows and chickens could build up a resistance to it. That resistant bacteria can remain on animal meat and, when not cooked properly, spread to humans, according to the CDC.
It isn’t just through consumed meat. Fertilizer or water containing animal waste and drug-resistant bacteria are used on crops, and the bacteria in the animal waste can remain on the crops and be eaten, CDC said.
Another source of antibiotic resistance is overprescribing by doctors.
The agency estimates that at least 23,000 people die each year from drug-resistant infections.
Slaughter’s bill would ban eight classes of medically important antibiotics, such as penicillin and tetracycline, from being used to help livestock get bigger. The antibiotics could still be used to treat sick animals.
However, the legislation is completely unnecessary, as farmers already are moving to reduce antibiotic use to grow animals, said Dave Warren, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council.
Next year, an FDA regulatory guidance will go into effect that says medically important antibiotics shouldn’t be used to enhance growth. Medical use of the drugs would require veterinary oversight.
The Animal Health Institute, which is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, also highlighted the FDA guidance.
“When fully implemented, medically important antibiotics will be used only to fight disease under the supervision of a veterinarian,” the institute told the Examiner.
Slaughter said the FDA’s guidance is only voluntary, and contains a loophole that allows antibiotic use for prevention of illnesses — a loophole that her bill would close. Warren countered that if farmers can’t use antibiotics to prevent illnesses, then it will result in more sick animals.
“Would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick or one that was healthy?” he asked.
Warren also noted that there are no studies that definitively link antibiotic use in livestock to antibiotic-resistant treatment failures in people.
A source tells the Examiner that the House Energy & Commerce Committee, to which Slaughter’s bill was referred, doesn’t have any plans to take up legislation.
While Slaughter was optimistic, she wouldn’t be surprised if the fifth time wasn’t the charm.
“This is not a Congress that has a great scientific background or in many cases believes in it,” she said. “I don’t expect anybody is going to be jumping to bring up this bill.”
