Science Should Guide Discussion of Antibiotic Use in Livestock

H. Scott Hurd DVM, PhD

- Associate Professor, College of  Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University

- Former Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety, USDA

- Director of World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Risk Analysis and Hazard Surveillance and Intervention in Food Animals

Consumers should know that Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) mentioned in these reports is not a food-borne disease and not usually from animals. Normally, the strain found in pigs is different than that found in humans. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has concluded, after investigating numerous human outbreaks of MRSA infections in the United States, none of these investigations had animal exposure as a risk factor.  The CDC concludes that the vast majority of infections result from person-to-person transmission of MRSA in the community, not the farm.

Of course farmers should not use antibiotics unless they are needed. However, national lawmakers who are pursuing a misguided blanket ban on certain antibiotics uses in livestock haven’t considered sound science.    

As the President said last year, “We must make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”  I fully agree.  Bacteria are nonpartisan. Salmonella and Staphylococcus don’t vote and don’t watch TV.  The basic principles of microbiology, animal disease prevention, food production and risk assessment apply equally to us all.  If new policies are not built on accurate science, they won’t work; they won’t make the world a safer place. This issue impacts me not just as a scientist, but also as the father of eight children.

I don’t accept antibiotics in my meat! And, it is critically important to understand thatmeat consumed in America is to be free from antibiotic residues. The presence of residues is illegal.  As a former leader in the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, I can assure you the system checks carefully for the presence of this stuff in meat.  However, today’s concern is about the possibility of resistant bacteria.

My years of experience and research in the food safety field have led me to the following conclusion; the published scientific risk assessments done to date (some I have published) on antibiotic use in livestock demonstrate an extremely low to nonexistent human health risk from resistant bacteria.  Therefore, the public health and political benefit of antibiotic bans will be low, nonexistent or even contrary to public health. As a veterinarian of over 25 years, I believe antibiotic bans may lead to secondary public health consequences from the consumption of unhealthy animals, not to mention added suffering of sick animals.  Experience teaches that evaluation of human health risk and the value of banning certain antibiotics must be made on a case-by-case basis; blanket bans are not effective.

The effects of such blanket bans are apparent in Denmark.  After Denmark passed its ban on preventive antibiotics in 2000, the World Health Organization found no measurable public health benefit, partly because farmers were forced to use more antibiotics to treat sick pigs; 100 percent more! Those secondary health impacts of the ban and the costs to producers haven’t been covered in recent media reports.

If you truly value food safety for your family as much as I do, you’ll realize that an antibiotic ban will actually decrease the health of meat animals entering the food chain.  Science shows us that the continued safety of our food supply depends on allowing responsible farmers, with veterinary direction, to continue to making decisions based on best science and experience.  The choice is ours. Let’s make it on what’s sound science, which is best for us all.

Feedstuffs