© Copyright 2007/2008. All rights reserved.
Pork producers use antibiotics for three purposes: to treat illness, to prevent disease and to improve the nutritional efficiency of their animals. Antibiotics can be given by injection of individual animals or delivered through feed or water. Producers and their veterinarians use their experience and knowledge, in with scientific information to decide when to use antibiotics in their pigs. The use of animal health products, including antibiotics, is only one part of a comprehensive herd health program. Biosecurity, diagnostics, vaccination, facility maintenance and animal care also contribute to a farm's overall animal health picture.
The appropriate use of antibiotics does not negatively impact food safety. There are animal health and societal benefits to using antibiotics to increase nutritional efficiency. Experience in Europe, where the political decision was made to ban the use of antibiotics to improve nutritional efficiency, shows that there are disease prevention benefits to using low levels of antibiotics. The ban was put in place in 1997 and there has been no demonstrated human health benefit from it.1 In addition, animals that convert feed efficiently consume less feed and produce less waste. That means more corn available for human food and for the production of renewable fuels and less manure for the producer to manage.
Concerns have also been raised about the potential for antibiotics used to protect the health of pigs to impact our water supplies. The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) identified small amounts of antibiotics in waterways in both rural and urban settings.2 It is thought that the antibiotics in rural settings may come from animal agriculture through manure application as well as human wastewater, while in urban settings it may largely be from human wastewater sources. A University of Minnesota study demonstrated that the very low levels of antibiotics found in the rural waters in the USGS study did not have any impact on the development or persistence of bacteria resistant to the antibiotics tested.3
Antibiotics for use in animals are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA the use of antibiotics only after they undergo a vigorous review for safety to animals, humans and the environment. This ensures that food products from animals treated with antibiotics are safe. Additionally, the FDA has mandated that food or milk from animals that have been treated with an antibiotic may not enter the food supply until a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since the animal's last dosage. Random and on-going samples of meat and milk are tested to ensure adherence to the withdrawal regulations.
It is a common misperception that only large producers use antibiotics. A 2000 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) determined that the use of antibiotics was not related to the size of operation. In fact, a similar percentage of small producers and large producers report using antibiotics.4
Antibiotic resistance refers to the capability of some bacteria to withstand exposure to antibiotics. As is the case with every living organism, bacteria evolve as a means to respond to threats in their environment. One such response is the development of resistance following the bacteria's exposure to antibiotics. Some medical doctors and veterinarians are concerned about antibiotic resistance because it may limit the efficacy of certain antibiotics. Resistant bacteria are not innately more dangerous than others; however, resistant bacterial infections may more difficult to treat than infections caused by non-resistant bacteria.
The extent to which antibiotic use in animals affects human health is difficult to impossible to determine due to a lack of scientifically definitive ways to measure it. However, one panel of experts estimates that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is due to human use of antibiotics and not because of antibiotic use in animals.5
Studies have determined that the risk of resistance in humans from antibiotics used in animals is extremely low and that the social benefits of using the antibiotics outweigh the low risk of antimicrobial resistance.6
Even though resistance problems in humans are largely not attributable to antibiotic use in pork production, pork producers need to do their share to minimize risks of antibiotic resistance. Producers are committed to protecting public health and preserving animal health and well-being by using antibiotics responsibly as outlined in the National Pork Board's Pork Quality Assurance Plus™ program and the Take Care - Use Antibiotics Responsibly™ program.
In these programs, the National Pork Board lists five principles that will ensure the responsible use of antibiotics. Producers are committed to: Use antibiotics only when they provide measurable benefits; Take appropriate steps to decrease the need for their application; Adhere to responsible antibiotic use guidelines; Assess the benefits and costs of all uses of antimicrobials; Complete the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program and implement the practices described for responsible use of animal health products into their operations.
Producers understand that it is essential to public health and food safety, animal health and well-being, and the environment to maintain the effectiveness and availability of antimicrobials.
Endnotes
1 World Health Organization. 2002. Impacts of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Termination in Denmark.
2 United States Geological Survey. 2002. Water-Quality Data for Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000.
http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/OFR-02-94/#occurrence Accessed September 27, 2007.
3 Munoz-Aguayo J, Lang K, LaPara RM, et al. 2007. Evaluating the Effects of Chlortetracycline on the Proliferation of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in a Simulated River Water
Ecosystem. Applied and EnvironmentalMicrobiology. 73(17):
4 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/swine/index.htm.
5 Casewell and Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46: 639-645, 2000.
6 Institute of Food Technologists, www.ift.org, Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System, July 14, 2006.
The appropriate use of antibiotics does not negatively impact food safety. There are animal health and societal benefits to using antibiotics to increase nutritional efficiency. Experience in Europe, where the political decision was made to ban the use of antibiotics to improve nutritional efficiency, shows that there are disease prevention benefits to using low levels of antibiotics. The ban was put in place in 1997 and there has been no demonstrated human health benefit from it.1 In addition, animals that convert feed efficiently consume less feed and produce less waste. That means more corn available for human food and for the production of renewable fuels and less manure for the producer to manage.
Concerns have also been raised about the potential for antibiotics used to protect the health of pigs to impact our water supplies. The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) identified small amounts of antibiotics in waterways in both rural and urban settings.2 It is thought that the antibiotics in rural settings may come from animal agriculture through manure application as well as human wastewater, while in urban settings it may largely be from human wastewater sources. A University of Minnesota study demonstrated that the very low levels of antibiotics found in the rural waters in the USGS study did not have any impact on the development or persistence of bacteria resistant to the antibiotics tested.3
Antibiotics for use in animals are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA the use of antibiotics only after they undergo a vigorous review for safety to animals, humans and the environment. This ensures that food products from animals treated with antibiotics are safe. Additionally, the FDA has mandated that food or milk from animals that have been treated with an antibiotic may not enter the food supply until a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since the animal's last dosage. Random and on-going samples of meat and milk are tested to ensure adherence to the withdrawal regulations.
It is a common misperception that only large producers use antibiotics. A 2000 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) determined that the use of antibiotics was not related to the size of operation. In fact, a similar percentage of small producers and large producers report using antibiotics.4
Antibiotic resistance refers to the capability of some bacteria to withstand exposure to antibiotics. As is the case with every living organism, bacteria evolve as a means to respond to threats in their environment. One such response is the development of resistance following the bacteria's exposure to antibiotics. Some medical doctors and veterinarians are concerned about antibiotic resistance because it may limit the efficacy of certain antibiotics. Resistant bacteria are not innately more dangerous than others; however, resistant bacterial infections may more difficult to treat than infections caused by non-resistant bacteria.
The extent to which antibiotic use in animals affects human health is difficult to impossible to determine due to a lack of scientifically definitive ways to measure it. However, one panel of experts estimates that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is due to human use of antibiotics and not because of antibiotic use in animals.5
Studies have determined that the risk of resistance in humans from antibiotics used in animals is extremely low and that the social benefits of using the antibiotics outweigh the low risk of antimicrobial resistance.6
Even though resistance problems in humans are largely not attributable to antibiotic use in pork production, pork producers need to do their share to minimize risks of antibiotic resistance. Producers are committed to protecting public health and preserving animal health and well-being by using antibiotics responsibly as outlined in the National Pork Board's Pork Quality Assurance Plus™ program and the Take Care - Use Antibiotics Responsibly™ program.
In these programs, the National Pork Board lists five principles that will ensure the responsible use of antibiotics. Producers are committed to: Use antibiotics only when they provide measurable benefits; Take appropriate steps to decrease the need for their application; Adhere to responsible antibiotic use guidelines; Assess the benefits and costs of all uses of antimicrobials; Complete the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program and implement the practices described for responsible use of animal health products into their operations.
Producers understand that it is essential to public health and food safety, animal health and well-being, and the environment to maintain the effectiveness and availability of antimicrobials.
Endnotes
1 World Health Organization. 2002. Impacts of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Termination in Denmark.
2 United States Geological Survey. 2002. Water-Quality Data for Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000.
http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/OFR-02-94/#occurrence Accessed September 27, 2007.
3 Munoz-Aguayo J, Lang K, LaPara RM, et al. 2007. Evaluating the Effects of Chlortetracycline on the Proliferation of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in a Simulated River Water
Ecosystem. Applied and EnvironmentalMicrobiology. 73(17):
4 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/swine/index.htm.
5 Casewell and Bywater, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46: 639-645, 2000.
6 Institute of Food Technologists, www.ift.org, Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System, July 14, 2006.
Download the PDF here!
Information provided by: National Pork Board
