FROM THE EDITOR: February 2007

Saying No to Drugs

Ever since the global medical community rang the alarm bell in the late 1990s, antibiotic use in animal agriculture has been under the microscope.  Once reliable antidotes, antibiotics were becoming increasingly ineffective against a multitude of infections affecting humans. 

The common practice of giving farm animals low doses of antibiotics for growth promotant (sub-therapeutic) use was blamed for contaminating the food supply and environment, providing antibiotics the opportunity to figure out how to survive this arsenal of antibiotics by adapting their genetic makeup and creating resistance. 

This concern led the European Union to gradually phase out sub-therapeutic antibiotic use in livestock, with a total ban taking effect in January of last year.

It appears that the U.S. is moving in the same direction. Senator Edward Kennedy, current chairman of the Senate Health Committee in the U.S. is sponsoring The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which will phase out the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine as animal feed additives within two years. This bill has been endorsed by more than 350 health, agriculture and other interested groups nationwide.

In Canada we talk about the possibility of reducing and/or eliminating sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, but so far there has been little pressure from government to do so. This is not surprising if you consider the fact that those groups who regulate animal feed and health in country take ridiculous amounts of time to register alternative products, if they register them at all.

However, it is difficult to ban products when there are no alternatives to take their place.  The EU experience has shown that eliminating sub-therapeutics can be a difficult venture, resulting in an increased incidence of disease and reduced productivity if alternative products are not used or careful management is not practised.

But despite the lack of legislative push, numerous companies, researchers and producers in Canada have recognized the ethical and consumer consequences of not taking action to reduce sub-therapeutic antibiotic use. They’ve also recognized that to overcome dependence on antibiotics, we need to enable the immune systems of animals so that they are well equipped to handle and ward off disease on their own.

We have the tools to do this; the challenge is changing our mindset.

Think about this: feeding poultry antibiotics from hatch to slaughter is the equivalent of feeding our children antibiotics every day until they’re 18. We don’t do this to our own – so why should we continue doing it to the food we produce, when it’s been shown that we don’t need to? 

Poultry and other livestock can be reared in a productive manner without sub-therapeutics. It’s about preventing disease rather than just medicating for it.  

Vaccination plays a key role in prevention, but misuse or use of the same type for several growouts can also result in resistance.  Our regulatory authorities should consider at the very least legislating rotation so that vaccines don’t become has-beens. 

Nevertheless, the Canadian industry is proving that we can be ready to meet international standards and expectations and reduce our antibiotic usage.  We just have to wait for our government to catch up so that we are no longer considered by international groups to be behind in this regard.