(Reuters) — The relationships between veterinarians and drug companies can sometimes appear at odds with the ethics code that the profession has embraced.
That code, adopted by the American Veterinary Medical Association, calls on veterinarians to disclose all potential conflicts of interest to clients. However, neither the government nor the veterinarian association tracks or enforces the provision.
The association itself accepts money from the pharmaceutical industry and mentions on its website its “partnerships” with drug companies.
Executive vice-president Ron DeHaven said the association accepted $3.3 million from pharmaceutical companies over the past four years.
Read Also
Keep it clean on pre-harvest chemical use
Canadian farmers urged to toe the line on pre-harvest pesticide application and market product restrictions to avoid grain marketing headaches.
DeHaven said sponsorships by drug manufacturers improve the association’s educational offerings, even though the amount the group accepted last year — $706,000 — is just two percent of the group’s $33.6 million budget.
He said such contributions have no effect on the group’s policy positions, and any conflicting financial interests of the group’s own board, staff or volunteers are managed through disclosure forms that the association keeps private.
“The AVMA policy is veterinarians should disclose,” he said.
In 2009, the association appointed an Antimicrobial Use Task Force to respond to rising concerns about antibiotics in animal agriculture.
Although its 15 members filled out disclosure forms, the association will not make their responses public.
By reviewing other records, Reuters found that six of the 15 task force members had financial ties to drug makers. One of them, Michael Apley, is a leading veterinary pharmacologist and professor at Kansas State University.
Apley has been paid to speak, consult or research for most of the leading antibiotics companies. He supports continued use of the drugs to prevent and treat illness on farms and ranches.
Apley described himself in an email as “someone who lives at the intersecting agendas of animal agriculture, the veterinary profession, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, the consumer, and anti-animal agriculture groups. I live there with regulatory and legislative people.”
