United States president Barack Obama issued an executive order last week designed to combat the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria that threaten human health.
The beam of this spotlight will extend to agricultural use of antibiotics, which is a suspected contributor to development of the enemy bacteria. In a nutshell, antibiotic resistant bacteria could render existing treatments ineffective against human infections and illnesses.
Obama’s recent action will exert pressure on Canada to speed the phasing out of antibiotics used for growth promotion in food animals, even as Health Canada has been quietly moving in this direction.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
And in the face of health concerns and consumer attention to the issue, it is time to pay heed. Use of antibiotics to increase animal growth cannot be justified if that use comes at the risk of human health.
The general public, the often-reckless driver of food animal production these days, won’t stand for the risks perceived from feeding antibiotics to animals just to make them grow faster. The benefits of cheaper and more plentiful protein don’t trump the risk that people could one day die of simple infections.
However, antibiotic resistance is a complex problem that will require complex solutions. Complete removal of these important drugs in the veterinary realm would be immoral on an animal welfare basis and potentially disastrous on a food production basis.
Growth promotant use? No. Animal health and welfare use? Yes.
The tricky part lies in balancing the latter needs against public pressure for drastic reduction in antibiotic use for animals.
There is global consensus that over-prescription and over-use of antibiotics by humans are the main sources of the problem.
The drugs’ use in animal agriculture may exacerbate it, though the science on that isn’t completely clear.
The antibiotics most commonly used on livestock are not the same ones commonly used on people. Public Health Agency of Canada figures show less than 20 percent of the antibiotics sold for animal and pet use are also important for human treatments.
Alberta research specific to cattle use indicates less than one percent of antibiotic doses involve the types used on humans.
These figures, though low, are not insignificant, considering the toll they may take. The point is that antibiotic use in agriculture is only part of the issue. That said, agriculture bears responsibility, along with other sectors, for prudent use of antibiotics, and the industry appears to be taking it seriously.
A U.S. government report released Sept. 18 suggests the main thrusts to address the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria include:
- providing incentives to develop new antibiotics and other therapeutics
- finding alternatives to human-relevant antibiotics for livestock producers
- employing greater surveillance of antibiotic use in agriculture and humans
Those also make sense from a Canadian perspective. There hasn’t been a new antibiotic developed anywhere since 1987. Research, development, testing and drug approval are expensive and cumbersome.
In Canada, where antibiotic sales for animal agriculture are regulated by the federal government and their use is regulated provincially, it’s well nigh impossible to know how much is being used. That information would help determine level of risk and provide guidance if changes are needed in food animal use.
In any case, public support for use of antibiotics for growth promotion is nil. Livestock producers must heed that message.
