FDA will no longer pursue withdrawl of pen. and CTC in feed

[Faster horses]

Animal scientists react to FDA antibiotic policy
American Society of Animal Science | Updated: January 4, 2012

The FDA announced last week that it would close hearings on the potential risks of “subtherapeutic” antibiotic use in food animals. This announcement means the FDA will no longer pursue the withdrawal of the antibiotics penicillin and tetracycline from use in animal feed. Though some object to the policy change, FDA announcement actually comes at the recommendation of several leading animal scientists.
In the U.S., many livestock producers give their animals low-levels of antibiotics to prevent disease and promote growth. Some argue that this practice has led to increased antibiotic-resistant human diseases. When the FDA opened hearings on the issue in 1977, scientists lacked information on whether giving livestock antibiotics for “growth promotion” could lead to antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in humans. Since then, animal scientists have shown that antibiotics can be used safely to promote growth and health in livestock.
According to the FDA notice, published in the Federal Register, “FDA’s thinking on this issue has evolved over the last three decades, and FDA now generally considers disease control and prevention claims to be judicious uses (in other words, therapeutic uses), especially when the drug is administered at the direction and under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian.”
This statement reflects the conclusions of many animal scientists working in animal agriculture and clinical research. In November 2011, after a scientific symposium on antibiotic use in animals, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) concluded that “estimated farm–to–fork risk from on–farm antibiotic use is extremely low.”
Dr. Rodney Preston, a retired animal scientist and member of the Federation of Animal Science Societies’ Committee on Food Safety, agreed with the NIAA conclusion. Preston said risk of antibiotic use in animals leading to antibiotic-resistant human diseases is “minimal.”
Dr. Scott Hurd, former USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and associate professor in veterinary diagnostics and production animal medicine at Iowa State University, called the FDA announcement “a good plan.” Hurd gave his opinion on the part of the FDA announcement calling for the livestock industry to begin “voluntary reforms.”
“What they’re really asking is for the pharmaceutical companies to remove the ‘growth promotant’ labels on their products,” said Hurd.
By instituting “voluntary reform,” the FDA may be encouraging drug companies to prove the effectiveness of their products on specific bacteria—without government interference—said Hurd. Once the companies prove that their products are effective, they could re-label the drugs as “therapeutic” under FDA guidelines. It’s a measure that promotes the use of scientific evidence, Hurd said.
The FDA announcement doesn’t mean regulations on antibiotic use will be relaxed. More regulations could be on their way, Hurd added. Hurd hopes to see more studies of potential antibiotic resistance on farms before and after antibiotic use in animals.
In their notice, the FDA made it clear that end of official hearings on certain antibiotics does not mean the end of research into antibiotic-resistant diseases.
“FDA continues to view antimicrobial resistance as a significant public health issue,” wrote the administration.

[Oldtimer]

But they are removing some uses of the newer antibiotics that are needed for fighting human disease...

I understand this is common names of Excede and Spectramast...

[Faster horses]

The article isn't talking about antibiotics as a treatment, as I understand it,
but:

" potential risks of “subtherapeutic” antibiotic", meaning low doses in feed,
etc. (more of a preventative).

[Oldtimer]

[Faster horses]

Since the government is planning to take over health care, maybe
those antibiotics are something they won't have to pay for. Ya think?

[Oldtimer]

[mwj]

[Texan]

More federal government stupidity. The way I read that, it will prohibit giving Excede for metaphylactic use. But, still no additional oversight for medical doctors that over-prescribe antibiotics just because a patient insists on having something for his cold or flu.

If I give a 300 pound calf a dose of Excede in the ear, how much will still be in the edible tissue 1,100 pounds later? Idiots.

[Oldtimer]

[Faster horses]

[Oldtimer]

[Faster horses]