From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A New York congresswoman is trying to rally support for a federal bill that would restrict antibiotic use in food animals just months after a similar measure tanked in California.

Despite being voted down in Sacramento, a proposal that bans feeding antibiotics to cattle, hogs and poultry to increase their growth seems to be gaining momentum in the nation’s capital, where the Obama administration has condemned the practice.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to healthy animals. Conventional farmers and ranchers routinely feed antibiotics to their herd to help the animals use their food more efficiently and bulk up faster. They say the medication also helps ward off pathogens that could sicken or kill their livestock.

But scientists and doctors fear that the overuse of these drugs makes them less effective in fighting bacteria in humans and animals. Microbes that develop immunity to the drugs will multiply and flourish.

As I mentioned in my original post on this subject, I was surprised to learn in veterinary school that antibiotics are added to livestock feed in many instances strictly to cause food animals to grow more quickly. This economically motivated use of antibiotics is, in my opinion, unwise. Non-medical use of antibiotics could contribute to these medicines becoming less potent in sick animals and people. This activity does not pass the “smell test”. Nobody wants to eat meat that has been pumped with drugs.

Nonetheless the proposed law has its critics.

[S]ome ranchers and farmers argue that the measure would probably endanger livestock, flood the market with imported meat and raise the cost of producing food.

It is true that eliminating antibiotics from animal feeds could lead to higher food costs. But I suspect many ranchers (and food animal vets) oppose it because they fear it will dent their profits. I believe their logic is flawed.

I am not an expert in economics. But it stands to reason that if all producers of a good utilize a product (in this case, non-therapeutic antibiotics) that increases efficiency, then no single producer gains a competitive advantage. Competition will pass the savings from the efficiency to the consumer. This means that no rancher really benefits financially from antibiotic feed additives.

Except for those who decline to use them.

Many consumers already have turned to antibiotic-free meat and poultry because they want products that have been raised naturally and out of an industrial farm setting.

Many people (I suspect the number will be ever-growing) are willing to pay a premium for antibiotic-free meat. Producers of this product can charge a premium.

These producers in my estimation are the ones who have the most to lose from the proposed law. But I have a hunch they are not the ones most vocally opposing it.

Biological sense, or biological nonsense?

Some well-respected veterinarians have joined the ranks of people opposing the proposed law. And some of them are using logic that, in my opinion, is highly spurious.

“From a biological standpoint [banning antibiotic feed additives] doesn’t make sense,” said John Maas, a professor at UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and a cattle expert. “Instead of using small doses to prevent illness, you’re going to have to increase the dose 100 fold when the animal gets sick.”

Typically using antibiotics to control disease can cut potential illness by 25 to 50 percent, [said Michael Apley, a clinical pharmacologist, veterinarian and professor at Kansas State University]

If antibiotic feed additives truly prevent disease, then why limit them to livestock? Drs. Maas and Apley, do you add penicillin to your pizza or tetracyline to your turkey? Do your compliment your childrens’ lunches with tylosin in order to prevent disease?

I didn’t think so.

Elimination of antibiotics from livestock feed is inevitable. It is time to embrace this fact and move forward.

Consider the case of California’s Humane Farming Initiative, a ballot measure that passed by a landslide last November. The law states that by 2015 farm animals must be allowed enough space to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs. Pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal calves will benefit most from the new law.

When the initiative passed, some farmers and food animal veterinarians squealed louder than the pigs the law was designed to help. A few of them protested that the law will end agriculture in California.

I beg to differ.

I believe that California’s farmers will adapt to the new regulations. When the rest of the world implements similar measures (and it will), California’s farmers will be ahead of the game. The law will help California remain a dominant agricultural powerhouse.

A sea change has occurred in the public’s beliefs about animal welfare. Opponents of the Humane Farming Initiative couldn’t sense that change, but I believe that California’s farmers and food animal vets will benefit from it.

Many food animal veterinarians and two major veterinary organizations now have failed to notice a different sea change. They have taken postions on an issue that places them squarely on the wrong side of history. The organizations are the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). I am a member of both organizations.

At issue is the routine use of antibiotics in livestock.

When I was in veterinary school, I was surprised to learn that antibiotics are added to animal feeds for reasons other than disease control or prevention. Feed manufacturers may add antibiotics (such as tylosin) simply because they can cause animals to grow slightly more efficiently. This reduces the total amount of feed needed for each animal. It reduces the time to slaughter. It increases profit margins, in theory. In practice, since so many farm animals receive antibiotics I suspect that the competitive advantage farmers gain from the medicines is wiped out.

I doubted in veterinary school, and I still doubt, that adding antibiotics to animal feeds simply to increase efficiency by a few fractions of a percent is worth the risks.

What are the risks? Excessive use of antibiotics is linked to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may pose health risks to animals and people. And if antibiotics aren’t withdrawn from feed for an adequate length of time before slaughter, residues of the drug can end up in meat (controls are in place to prevent this, but it has been known to happen nonetheless).

Let’s face it: using antibiotics simply to make animals grow more rapidly does not pass the smell test. That’s how I see it, and that’s how I’m betting more and more people are going to see it. (Consider the backlash against rBST in dairy cows. In my opinion, rBST is safer than antibiotics.)

Here is my prediction for the record. In 30 years, antibiotics no longer will be used to promote efficient growth in food animals. Nobody wants tylosin in his turkey sandwich.

Yet the CVMA and the AVMA, pandering to food animal vets who have failed to sense the sea change, are proudly and actively on record in favor of using antibiotics to promote animal growth.

The CVMA recently published a newsletter in which it bragged about its role in defeating a bill in that would have required school districts to purchase meat from animals that were not fed antibiotics.

At around the same time, the AVMA sent me a link to a legislative action alert. The AVMA appears to be working to generate opposition to a bill in the US senate that would restrict antibiotic use to disease treatment and prevention.

It’s too bad. In my opinion, the elimination of antibiotics from animal feeds is inevitable. The CVMA and AVMA should be leading the way on this issue. Instead, they are standing myopically in the way of a change that I believe could benefit farmers and food animal vets in the long run.

And speaking of myopically attempting to prevent the inevitable, tomorrow we’ll talk about people who support breed standards that call for ear cropping and tail docking.