FDA Concealed the 'High Risk' Livestock Antibiotics Pose to People

[Octafish]

Documents obtained by NRDC show FDA documented danger but allowed antibiotics anyway

Sarah Lazare, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 by Common Dreams

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed at least 30 antibiotics used in animal feed to remain on the market despite its own internal analysis finding a majority of them contribute to the dangerous problem of antibiotic- resistant bacteria in people.

The scientific analysis, which was conducted between 2001 and 2010 by the FDA, was kept quiet and only made public when the Natural Resources Defense Council obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The FDA, which is the government body responsible for regulating the use of antibiotics in animal livestock, examined 30 penicillin and tetracycline additives —which play an important role in human medical care — in animal feed.

They found that 18 of these additives are at "high risk" of exposing people to antibiotic-resistant bacteria through food consumption and constitute a danger to human health. In addition, the FDA found all 30 of the antibiotics would not meet requirements for approval today due to insufficient information about their safety for humans, and 26 of them would not satisfy the safety standards established by the FDA in 1973, according to an NRDC summary of the documents.

Yet the FDA took no meaningful action on these additives, according to the NRDC. As a result, "at least nine of these additives are being marketed today, and all but the two voluntarily withdrawn additives remain approved for use today," according to a statement released by the NRDC.

CONTINUED with links...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/28-4

PS: I'm so old, I remember when the government worked for us.

PPS: Heck, I'm so old I even remember a time when the government was us -- We the People.

[Faux pas]

1. I'm old and

remember that too. All for the almighty dollar, sickening.

[Octafish]

4. Revolving door for them that remain.

[Faux pas]

12. It's worse than I imagined, yikes!

I only take thyroid meds and am working on a way to fix that with nutrition and supplementation. It ain't easy but a lot safer than messing with man made poisons.

[KT2000]

2. the effect of this

will be, and already has been, catastrophic. I guess they have been paid lots of money to do this to the world.

[Octafish]

5. FDA Expands on Subtherapeutic Antibiotic Use (2011)

BY HELENA BOTTEMILLER
Food Safety News | MAY 16, 2011

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has revealed new detail about how antibiotics are used in animal agriculture, an issue of growing controversy in food policy and public health circles. According to FDA, approximately 74 percent of antibiotics given to food animals are administered sub-therapeutically through feed and another 16 percent through water. Only three percent of antibiotics are administered through injections.

In a letter late last week, FDA released this breakdown for the first time to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist serving in Congress, who has taken the lead on curbing the use of antibiotics in agriculture to slow growing antibiotic resistance.

[font color="blue"]“These statistics tell the tale of an industry that is rampantly misusing antibiotics in an attempt to cover up filthy, unsanitary living conditions among animals,” said Slaughter in a statement Friday. “As they feed antibiotics to animals to keep them healthy, they are making our families sicker by spreading these deadly strains of bacteria. When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without worrying that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria no longer responsive to medical treatments.” [/font color]

The FDA also confirmed in its report that 80 percent of antibiotics are sold for use in agriculture in the letter, a revelation made public by Slaughter’s office in February. Previous estimates ranged from 40 to 70 percent.

CONTINUED...

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/05/fda-reveals-more-detail-on-subtherapeutic-antibiotic-use/#.UugigNIo4rg

It's like Upton Sinclair never lived.

[BrotherIvan]

3. It must be woo!

Because any concern about your health or wanting to avoid drugs, harmful additives and pesticides must be mocked at every turn. If you oppose GMOs then you are a Luddite. Profits and ease for corporations are so much more important that public health. And it doesn't matter what you eat. Because Science!

[Octafish]

6. Odd what that crowd says. Here a fiction writer made a big impact on reality, reform and progress...

Upton Sinclairs The Jungle:

Muckraking the Meat-Packing Industry

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
FALL 2008 (Volume 24, No. 1)

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle to expose the appalling working conditions in the meat-packing industry. His description of diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat shocked the public and led to new federal food safety laws.

Before the turn of the 20th century, a major reform movement had emerged in the United States. Known as progressives, the reformers were reacting to problems caused by the rapid growth of factories and cities. Progressives at first concentrated on improving the lives of those living in slums and in getting rid of corruption in government.

By the beginning of the new century, progressives had started to attack huge corporations like Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, and the Armour meat-packing company for their unjust practices. The progressives revealed how these companies eliminated competition, set high prices, and treated workers as "wage slaves."

The progressives differed, however, on how best to control these big businesses. Some progressives wanted to break up the large corporations with anti-monopoly laws. Others thought state or federal government regulation would be more effective. A growing minority argued in favor of socialism, the public ownership of industries. The owners of the large industries dismissed all these proposals: They demanded that they be left alone to run their businesses as they saw fit.

Theodore Roosevelt was the president when the progressive reformers were gathering strength. Assuming the presidency in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley, he remained in the White House until 1909. Roosevelt favored large-scale enterprises. "The corporation is here to stay," he declared. But he favored government regulation of them "with due regard of the public as a whole."

Roosevelt did not always approve of the progressive-minded journalists and other writers who exposed what they saw as corporate injustices. When David Phillips, a progressive journalist, wrote a series of articles that attacked U.S. senators of both political parties for serving the interests of big business rather than the people, President Roosevelt thought Phillips had gone too far. He referred to him as a man with a "muck-rake."

Even so, Roosevelt had to admit, "There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake." The term "muckraker" caught on. It referred to investigative writers who uncovered the dark side of society.

Few places had more "filth on the floor" than the meat- packing houses of Chicago. Upton Sinclair, a largely unknown fiction writer, became an "accidental muckraker" when he wrote a novel about the meat-packing industry.

CONTINUED...

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html

[KT2000]

9. +1 n/t

[riderinthestorm]

7. Scary, sad K&R... nt

[Octafish]

11. Don't worry! Big Business has little to worry about.

Why Antibiotic Makers Aren't Worried About FDA's Livestock Rules

By Venessa Wong
Business Week, December 12, 2013

In a move to alleviate concerns about overuse of antibiotics on farms, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance directing at animal pharmaceutical companies to phase out the use of certain drugs to promote weight gain in animals. But this won’t mean drug-free livestock: The three-year initiative is voluntary—drug companies don’t have to participate—and it only affects antibiotics that are also used to treat humans, not animal-only antibiotics or growth promoters that are not antibiotics.

The plan asks drug makers to revise labels to remove usage of the products for growth enhancement, and “by law, drugs administered through feed must be used according to the approved labeling,” according to the FDA. Farmers can still use them to treat or prevent specific animal diseases, but the plan also asks companies to change the drugs’ over-the-counter status so that farmers will require a prescription or order from a licensed veterinarian.

Zoetis (ZTS) and Eli Lilly’s (LLY) Elanco, which sell a large share of the drugs, both plan to adopt the voluntary guidelines (Elanco will implement a similar policy worldwide). But neither expects a significant impact on overall sales. The FDA said 25 to 27 companies will be affected by the plan, and the drugs that will be the most affected are tetracyclines, penicillins and macrolides, as Reuters reported.

Rob Aukerman, president of the U.S. and Canada operations at Elanco Animal Health, says farms will still use the drugs to treat disease, which will help sustain sales. As the plan limits antibiotic use, the company is also exploring other treatments for animals such as enzymes and vaccines, some of which are set be be launched next year.

SNIP...

Still, some argue worries about drug resistance are misguided. The American Veterinary Medical Association disputes claims that the use of antibiotics in animals harms human health, saying, “it doesn’t account for the benefits of preventing disease … While outbreaks of resistant foodborne pathogens have been reported, very few have been epidemiologically traced back to the farm.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-12/why-antibiotic-makers-arent-worried-about-fdas-livestock-rules

I don't mind there being two sides to this thing, what I do worry about is the end run those with deep pockets can make. And when the public is kept in the dark because administrators are in the same deep pockets, I don't trust what comes out in terms of policy from the de-re-de-re-regulators.

[G_j]

8. isn't this a crime of some kind?

unbelievable... well maybe not

[woo me with science]

10. Criminal.

[L0oniX]

13. FDA also gave the ok to Rumsfeld's aspartame after the dead test rats were disappeared.

The FDA is just another tool of the corporations.

[Berlum]

15. "Smirk, Sneer" - Rummy (R - Profiteer)

[flamingdem]

14. hmm time to go veggie

or at least avoid all corporate grown meats, yeech