---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Subject: re: Antibiotic Use, and Abuse, on the Farms
To: "letters@nytimes.com"
From: barry levine
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:30 AM
Subject: re: Antibiotic Use, and Abuse, on the Farms
To: "letters@nytimes.com"
To the Editor:
It is beyond me to tell whether this editorial is merely poorly written, or is deliberately obfuscating. If the program is "voluntary", then is a prescription now "required"? The change in the packaging is of interest only to the printer of those packages. It is the move from Over-the-counter to prescription--buried in paragraph six--that puts teeth into the change. But if only 25 of the 26 have agreed to this change, then the 25 are foregoing profits and their 26th competitor will make enough money to buy them in short order. And the abuse of antibiotics will go on unchanged.
Barry Haskell Levine
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/opinion/antibiotic-use-and-abuse-on-the-farms.html?_r=0
The Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to get the voluntary cooperation of drug companies to curb the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed is off to a rousing good start.
The agency announced on Wednesday that 25 of the 26 manufacturers of the antibiotics of greatest concern had agreed to modify their labels to block such usage. They account for almost all sales of these drugs.
Medical experts have long been concerned that rampant overuse of antibiotics in agriculture — to speed the growth of cattle, pigs and chickens and to prevent disease among animals crowded together in unsanitary conditions — is stimulating the emergence of bacteria resistant to treatment by some of the most important antibiotics used to treat humans.
The F.D.A. issued new policy guidelines in December that called for drug companies to revise their labels voluntarily to reduce overuse. This week, it announced that 25 companies agreed to remove “growth promotion” as one of the purposes for which their drugs can be used.
That effectively makes it illegal for farmers and ranchers to use the drugs to grow fatter animals faster. Although some skeptics worry that these voluntary steps can be reversed in the future, that appears unlikely.
Should a company want to reinstate “growth promotion” as a purpose on its labels, it would need F.D.A. approval to do so. The agency has said that using the drugs to produce faster weight gain is no longer appropriate, implying that it would not approve such a change.
The other major abuse is putting antibiotics in the food or water of healthy animals to protect them from contracting and spreading disease in crowded pens and cages. The F.D.A. guidelines called for all therapeutic uses to be overseen by veterinarians.
The 25 companies agreed to stop selling these drugs over the counter and will, instead, require that they be prescribed by a veterinarian, who will be expected to curb unwarranted use of the drugs in healthy animals.
Skeptics worry that veterinarians will be cavalier in writing prescriptions to keep ranchers and farmers happy, but there are ways to mitigate that risk. Both the veterinarians and the farmers and ranchers could be vulnerable to penalties if they use these medically important drugs for unauthorized purposes.
The F.D.A. is still finalizing its rule on what will be required of veterinarians. One reasonable suggestion is that veterinarians be required to visit the farms for which they are prescribing drugs — to educate the farmers and prevent a few rogue prescribers from undermining the effort to reduce usage.
The agency pledged to monitor how well the companies are abiding by the changes and to take further actions if necessary. It will also be important to measure whether there is a decline in antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance on farms and ranches. If not, the F.D.A. may need to pursue other regulatory action.
