If you’re not in the Ag Industry, or a foodie, you probably haven’t seen the whole “to-do” about the latest ad campaign from Panera Bread.
But, I figured this was a good time to talk about what some of the labels on your food actually mean.
Here’s what I’d like you to do:
1. Head over to my friend Carrie’s blog and read all about the Panera debacle, and folks, that’s EXACTLY what this is. And while you’re there, subscribe to her feed. She’s a hilarious pragmatic smart-ass.
Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
I assure you, you won’t be disappointed in the reads over there, and it will make you think. She does a great job detailing the nitty-gritty of this ad campaign, and I don’t feel like there’s any need for me to re-hash it here.
Now, we don’t provide a finished product en-masse to the public, as we’re a cow/calf operation, but we do finish a few head of cattle each year and sell it via private treaty to people who contact us.
Our finished meat is antibiotic free because, we don’t use antibiotics, well ever. But if you read the above assignments, you understand that all meat you eat from the store is antibiotic free, because there’s a withdrawal period for antibiotics and the residues left behind to leave the system of the animal. My friend Janeal (who is brilliant, btw) does a great job explaining that here. Further, you should all subscribe to her blog feed because she posts great stuff all the time about how your food is produced! So you can see why food labels don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean. And Janeal goes into detail about that, here.
I’d like to also take this opportunity to explain that most all of the grown hormones given to cattle in this country (primarily steers) are all naturally occurring hormones already found in the animal. It’s just an extra dose to help them turn that grass into meat at a more efficient rate. For more information about hormones in meat and dairy cows, you should hustle over here!
My hope with this post is to help you sort out the mess of labels and information that’s out there, by going directly to the source – the folks that produce your food and those who study how meat is produced. If you have questions, you should certainly get in touch with someone who actually produces what you put on your plate!
If you’re interested in additional reading material that’s a hodgepodge of all things Agriculture related, head over to the AgProud Blog and read up!
Pragmatic… that’s a new one. I think I like it 😉
Well, you are!
Antibiotic residues ARE found in American agricultural products in spite of the current production rules. That’s why the USDA tests for them, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/2010_Red_Book.pdf. The greater threat to human health, however, seems to be the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are present in large percentages of meat samples: http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/superbugs/ .
When we talk about “going directly to the source, the folks who produce your food and those who study how meat is produced…” aren’t we asking the fox to guard the henhouse? Asking the agricultural establishment to criticize the agricultural establishment doesn’t seem like the most prudent approach to answering these questions.
I am a farmer who produces organic, grass-fed beef, lamb and chicken. I’m also the publisher of Mother Earth News, which of course means I have a professional basis for my skepticism, just as industrial farmers and agribusiness professors have professional interests in the endorsement of the status quo.
I just thought it was worth offering a different perspective.
Bryan, I believe you to be mislead. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm348794.htm
Bryan, you are correct that there are instances of AB residue, and yes, those that test positive are removed from the food chain. However, it should be noted that the numbers cited by EWG (in your link) even though they are labeled as “Antibiotics for Meat & Poultry Production,” include all antibiotics sold for animal use; which includes horses, dogs, cats and all other pet prescriptions. Secondly, the numbers in the EWG’s graphics for percentage of “resistant bacteria” should be no surprise. Your organic products will yield similar results. The test that they use is with penicillin, and ecoli and salmonella have always been predominately resistant to penicillin and are common in all meat species. That is why doctors do not use penicillin to treat those bacterial infections.
So, just for clarity then, would your opinion be that the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is unrelated to the use of antibiotics for livestock production?
Will bacteria, over time, develop resistance to antibiotics? Some certainly do. However, what is essential to understand is that 84% of the antibiotics used in livestock (class & family of AB’s) are not even used in humans, at least not as a first or second treatment. This leaves 16% of the antibiotic classes/families that can be used on livestock and humans. Of these, there has never been a case of a resistant bacteria stemming from livestock, but human varieties a few (DNA comparison testing is used to determine). Does this mean there never will be, I’d be crazy to say that. Should we continue to be diligent in our use of these AB’s, of course. It should also be noted, that the 16%, that are used in both humans and livestock, are not primary, nor heavily utilized in meat species, they are more commonly utilized in canines and felines. Yet, of all the AB classes and families, these are the ones to focus on and insure potential resistance does not occur, not the other 84%.
With that being said, consultations with our veterinarians is essential. Diligent use expected. And science must continue to seek, find and develop new antibiotics for the future. Resistance to a drug, by bacteria or virus, should be on our radar. Being able to keep both humans and animals healthy and having the ability to effectively treat disease is essential. Am I highly concerned, with current practices, that a “superbug” will stem from livestock and impact humans, not at this time.
Wow, there are a bunch of different ways at looking at the data.
Doing the math: in 2011 about 30 million pounds of antibiotics were sold for livestock; of that, 11.5 million pounds of it was Tetracyclines and Penicillins (38 percent of the total for animals), both families of which are still used in humans. The 84% figure is probably based on the number of different antibiotics, not the relative proportions.
From the FDA report: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallinga-md/animal-antibiotic-use_b_2654385.html) This is definitely worth reading in total.
Penicillins and tetracyclines sold for animal use increased for the second year in a row. From 11.5 million pounds in 2009, sales rose to 14.4 million pounds in 2011. The two classes of antibiotics remain the most commonly used antibiotics in livestock and poultry, despite their obvious import for treating infections in people as well. In 2011, animal sales accounted for 38 percent of total penicillin sales and 98 percent of total tetracycline sales, including in humans.
Use of antibiotics in animals overall also continues to rise, to 29.9 million pounds in 2011. That compares with at least 7.3 million pounds (according to FDA data, comparing to 7.7 million according to Pew) sold for use in humans. The fact that 3.9 times more antibiotics are used in animals than humans, as this new infographic illustrates from the PEW Charitable Trusts, may shock most Americans.
For 34 years, the FDA considered the routine use of penicillins and tetracyclines in animal feed, for purposes like growth promotion, a public health threat. The agency had moved in 1977 to withdraw its approval for these animal feed products on the grounds that such use had not been shown to be safe for people. That official stance remained on the books until 2011.
Allow me to try and break down where I think some of the confusion may be, as you have cited the HP article and Pew studies.
First, penicillin, it was first used in humans in 1944. By 1950 40% of hospital isolates of Staph aureus were resistant to Penicillin, by 1960 80% of Staph aureus isolates were resistant. Penicillin was not even being used in livestock until the 1960’s. Methicillin was introduced in 1959 and the first methicillin resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) was reported in 1960. Methicillin had not been used in livestock. For the next 40+ years almost all MRSA was a result of an invasive procedure in a hospital setting. As more patients began to receive outpatient treatments, MRSA spread to the communities. Now 1.5% of all Americans are colonized with MRSA in their nasal cavities.
Second, 30% of AB’s use on farms are ionophores, never approved for human use, 10% of AB’s are in the category Not Individually Listed, of which most are not approved for humans and 42% are the tetracycline class. Yes, this class was once important in human medicine, but they are now a very poor third or fourth choice for a few diseases; Lyme Disease, Plague and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.
Third, the two classes of AB’s of critical importance in human medicine, the cephalosporins and the flouroquinolones, make up 25% of all AB’s prescribed to humans, but make up only .3% of all AB’s used in Animal Agriculture because of FDA regulations.
Fourth, for some perspective, over a lifetime, on a pound by pound basis, humans consume 10 times more AB’s than farm animals. Also, keep in mind that there are roughly 10 billion farm animals and only 300 million humans. Humans make up roughly less than 3% of the population.
Fifth, let us not confuse foodborne and non-foodborne AB resistant bacteria. Non-food strains began emerging decades ago in hospital settings and are not linked to livestock. These are the vast majority of the cases that are so hard to treat. There are fairly rare cases of AB resistant foodborne bacteria such as salmonella. However, salmonella is killed when food is cooked and handled properly. So people becoming ill from antibiotic resistant food-borne bacteria and not being able to be treated in some manner, is rare if not almost non-existent.
The percentage of chicken carcasses testing positive for Salmonella has dropped from 17% in 2005 to a current rate of about 6%, due in large part to the Salmonella Improvement Plan launched in 2006. E coli 0157:H7 foodborne illnesses now occur in less than 1/100,000 in the US and according to the CDC, report in January 2013, foodborne illnesses have declined by 32% when comparing 2009-2010 to 2005.
Hope this helps.
One final thought, which I think is very important. All of the AB use data for animals, includes ALL animals, not just livestock for human consumption. In my personal opinion, the data needs to be collected in a manner that we can easily differentiate between livestock for human consumption and other (horses, dogs, cats, etc.). Use of penicillin and Not Individually Listed AB’s, in horses, from my personal experience and knowledge, really skews the data and we both know that the pet population is rather substantial.
Excellent information Jeff. Thanks for sharing!
I admit to still being confused about how we’re parsing the data, but I think to argue that AB use in animals is not relevant to the discussion of AB resistance in human pathogens is specious. No microbial ecologist would take that stand without a vested interest. – but a veterinarian might:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130711084851.htm
If we were only talking about MRSA then agriculture is likely off the hook. But that doesn’t mean that selecting for any number of resistant microbes won’t cause us a problem in the future, which is precisely what sub-therapeutic dosing does.
Yes, that is all true about penicillin, but the FAMILY of beta-lactams contains huge numbers of antibiotics some still in use in people, including:
From Mayo – I have not sought primary data on this:
Amoxicillin
Ampicillin
Dicloxacillin
Oxacillin
Penicillin V
Piperacillin
Piperacillin and tazobactam combined (Zosyn)
I have friends and family who were prescribed an amoxicillin and cephalosporin in the past few months.
And yes tetracyclines are less important to humans now, but not gone.
From the HACCFP Manual posted by Bio Agri Mix:
The newer tetracyclines (e.g. methacycline, demeclocycline, doxycycline and minocycline) are widely used in human medicine and remain the drugs of choice for the following organisms and infections:
Gram Negative Bacilli
Brucella
Calymmatobacterium granulomatis (granuloma inguinale)
Helicobacter pylori
Pseudomonas mallei (in combination with streptomycin)
Vibrio cholerae
V. vulnificus
Acid-fast Bacilli
Mycobacterium fortuitum (doxycycline)
M. marinum (minocycline)
Chlamydiae
Chlamydia trachomatis (urethritis, cervivitis, lymphogranuloma venereum)
C. psittaci (psittacosis, ornithosis)
C. pneumoniae
Mycoplasma
Mycoplasma pneumoniae
Rickettsia
(Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Q fever, typhus)
Spirochetes
Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease)
B. recurrentis (relapsing fever)
Protozoa
Balantidium coli
So I continue to believe that the agricultural use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics constitutes an environmental threat to human health. If we limited the use of antibiotics in animals to the therapeutic uses only, a large percentage of the total volume of antibiotics in the environment would decline dramatically, and I continue to advocate for that course of action.
Note: Even if you don’t include ionophores, which are only used in animals, then 74 percent of the rest of the antibiotics sold are used in animal production, according to the FDA. I can email you a pdf of the FDA summary if you like.
I appreciate the listing you provided.
Working from the bottom up….
The AB’s that are approved for sub-therapeutic use are not used in human medicine, at least not as a first or second choice of treatment.
Tetracylclines: Methacycline, demecycline, doxycycline and monocycline are used in humans and animals, require a prescription and consultation from a vet and are not used sub-therapeutically. Additionally, the diseases they are used for, to treat, in livestock, are all highly preventable through vaccination and/management, and rarely require treatment.
Oxytetracycline is the most used tetracycline in livestock, and to my knowledge is rarely, if ever, used in humans.
Penicillin: Once again, these are not used sub-therapeutically and also require a prescription and consultation from a vet.
I agree with you that sub-therapeutic use of AB’s in livestock needs to be carefully monitored and done under the guidance of a veterinarian (as is done). Once again, those that are used in this manner, are not used in human medicine as a first or second choice of treatment, if at all. Also, sub-therapeutic use of AB’s has been steadily declining, as we have discovered over the past 30 years, that management can be much more effective and cheaper in preventing illnesses that AB’s traditionally have been used for sub-therapeutically to prevent. Consequently, through diligence in genetic selection, the need for true growth promotants has also dropped significantly over the past 30 years.
Respectfully, I take exception to your statement that veterinarians would not “care” about AB resistance. Maintaining the health and welfare of livestock and having effective treatments is essential. Potential AB resistance in humans and animals is concerning. This is why use of AB’s in livestock is very judicious, via prescription and under consultation of a vet.
With respect to your second comment….
I mentioned in an earlier comment that the FDA data includes AB’s used in all animals, not just livestock for consumption. This data includes AB’s used for horses, dogs, cats, and all other pets seen by vets.
Once again, the 74% figure, represents AB’s that either are for animal use only, are not used in humans anymore or are a 3rd or 4th choice for human use. In other words, if resistance occurs with them, the impact is on animal use, not human use. Therefore, to me and several doctors that I have great respect for, these are of little concern.
However, once again, of all the AB’s, cephalasporins and flouraquinolones are the two that are most important for keeping effectiveness in humans, and neither are heavily used in livestock.
Remember, there are over 10 billion farm animals and over 350 million pets, while humans number around 300 million. Very rough math would show that 3% (humans) use 25%+ of the AB’s sold. It is logical that more total volume of AB’s would be sold for animal use. What is concerning to me is that over 25% of all AB’s are used by less than 3% of users (humans).
By the way, I appreciate your taking the time for an informative, civil, professional discussion of a very “hot” topic. Thank you!