Media Response
Editorials written by the Columbus Dispatch and Dayton Daily News called for limitations on the use of antibiotics in animal feed. They wrote that antibiotics in livestock feed "present a serious risk to humans;" and that farmers "pump animal feed full of antibiotics… which are freely dispensed over the counter with very few controls." Farmers know these allegations are untrue. The editorial writers, rather than seeking the truth, chose instead to parrot dire warnings and misleading statements of an activist group that opposes modern livestock production methods. Following are excerpts from Farm Bureau’s response. Dear Editor, Farmers firmly believe that people deserve to be assured their food is safe. Your readers should know there is data that offers such assurance. All antibiotics and the way they’re used in America must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This federal agency exhaustively researches all drugs and will not approve them unless they are proven safe for both animals and humans. If new information suggests a drug is a cause for concern, FDA has the authority to remove it from the market. A peer-reviewed scientific study conducted by independent experts in human microbiology, risk assessment, veterinary medicine and animal health, published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, concludes that judicious use of antibiotics, along with improvements in food hygiene, are the best ways to safely ensure healthy animals without endangering public health. Other experts, including the American Medical Association, agree that the real antibiotic resistance problems result from bacteria-drug combinations that arise in hospital and community settings, not from the use of animal antibiotics. Even though safety is not in question, livestock producers have voluntarily reduced antibiotic use by nearly 10 percent in the past four years. They can do so because their modern management practices protect livestock from air or wildlife borne diseases thus reducing the need for antibiotics. Your editorial called for an end to using antibiotics as way to prevent disease (as opposed to treating disease). About 10 percent of U.S. livestock antibiotic use is for this purpose, not 70 percent as cited in your editorial. Recent history shows this kind of prohibition has unintended consequences. In the European Union, fearful speculation trumped scientific evidence, and the EU instituted such a ban. The result was an increase in animal disease that led to the need for more antibiotic use to treat sick animals. In France, therapeutic antibiotic use climbed 51 percent. Neither American consumers nor farmers would benefit from repeating Europe’s mistake. The thousands of Ohio farm families who raise our meat, poultry and dairy products take great pride in their use of modern technology and old fashioned hard work to give us abundant, affordable and healthful food. Farmers support additional research to assure us our food is safe. Meanwhile, we should not ignore the data which says it is. John C. (Jack) Fisher, executive vice president | |