Antibiotic-resistant bacteria: where’s the beef (or pork or poultry)?

A recent article in The Economist details the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It begins with the crucial point made by Alexander Fleming upon his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin. In short: do not use antibiotics in too small doses or for too short a time or if there is a not a properly diagnosed reason.

Fleming was worried about clinical abuse of antibiotics that could lead to a rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We can only imagine what he might say about the state of antibiotic use in food animal production today, where low doses of the same precious medicines used to treat serious infections in humans are given to animals raised for food, to get them to grow a bit faster.

While the article nicely details the health dangers of a rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it dedicates only a short paragraph to the use of antibiotics in raising food animals. All further discussion of options to correct the situation deal with the doctor/patient relationship and how to curb over-prescription.

But, their use in food animal production can't be overlooked. The article mentions an estimated 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are given to food animals but fails to mention that food producers are not required to report their antibiotic use, so this proportion could be higher. Antibiotics that are given to food animals can be bought over-the-counter and without prescriptions, including those "clinically valuable" antibiotics that a doctor might prescribe: penicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, neomycin, gentamycin and more. The animals are given low, sub-therapeutic doses – the conditions that Fleming warned were most likely to lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The use of antibiotics in food animals contributes to contamination of food products by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can then cause infections in consumers. Studies of patient samples from hospitals in Spain showed that resistance to one important class of antibiotics (fluoroquinolones) sky-rocketed within several years after these antibiotics were approved for use in poultry and livestock. A recent study in the United States showed that 47 percent of beef, pork, chicken and turkey samples purchased at grocery stores around the country were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus. Bacteria from 52 percent of the contaminated samples were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, a finding that the researchers attribute directly to the use of antibiotics in food animal production.

Some studies show that low, sub-therapeutic doses can promote animal growth and move them from the factory farm to the table faster and cheaper. However, one economic analysis of antibiotics used in more than seven million chickens showed that the economic gains of fast growth were not enough to offset the costs of the antibiotics themselves – let alone the medical and human health costs associated with the rise in infections due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association have all recommended bans on using antibiotics in food animal production. Perhaps the reporter should have included these recommendations in the discussion of the actions that people can take to prevent the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The above work by Environmental Health News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.environmentalhealthnews.org.