Proposed bills limiting use of antibiotics on livestock draws criticism.

Livestock producers would be prohibited from using antibiotics on their animals for "non-therapeutic" purposes under legislation introduced in both houses of Congress. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), sponsor of the House version of the ban said, "The practice of over-using antibiotics in animal feed is certainly contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." She added: "This legislation will play a critical role in protecting the integrity of our antibiotics and the health of all Americans."

According to a press release from Slaughter's office, over 300 organizations representing health, consumer, agricultural, environmental, humane and other interests including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, have supported enactment of legislation to phase out non-therapeutic use medically important antibiotics in farm animals.

The Slaughter bill is mirrored by S 619 introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Proponents of the ban say antibiotics are given to healthy animals over a long period of time to compensate for unsanitary and crowded conditions, and to promote weight gain, rather than to combat illness. The concern is that the overuse of antibiotics in animals leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As a result, people may be at risk of becoming sick by handling, eating meat or coming in contact with animals that have an antibiotic-resistant disease.

This is not a new issue, and the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council reacted critically to the proposed legislation. Both groups argue that the ban would hurt the health of poultry and livestock while compromising efforts to protect the safety of the country's food supply.

AFBF President Bob Stallman said in a letter to Congress that his members "carefully, judiciously and according to label instructions" use antibiotics to treat, prevent and control disease in animals. "Antibiotic use in animals does not pose a serious public health threat," said Stallman, who urged lawmakers to oppose the bill. "Restricting access to these important tools will jeopardize animal health and compromise our ability to contribute to public health through food safety," he added.

"Both measures are irresponsible," said NPPC President Don Butler. "Pork producers are committed to maintaining the well-being of our animals, and we need access to a range of animal health products to keep our pigs healthy and, in turn, produce safe food products. These bills will prevent that, and we'll see more pigs die and higher production costs, and that means consumers will pay more for pork."

In defense of their position against the ban, the NPPC cited selected research on antibiotic use in livestock and its effects on humans. This includes:

Research on the 1999 ban in Denmark on some antibiotics used in pork production that some scientists believe has resulted in an increase in piglet deaths and in the amount of antibiotics used to treat diseases;

A 2000 survey of human health experts that found that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is due to human use of antibiotics;

An Animal Health Institute report that found less than 5 percent of animal antibiotics are used for nutritional efficiency--which promotes growth--and even the majority of those prevent diseases; and

An Iowa State University study conducted by Dr. Scott Hurd that found that when pigs have been sick during their life, they will have a greater presence of food-safety pathogens on their carcasses.