The Interface of Modern Food Animal Production, Antibiotics and Human Health

David E. Reeves, DVM, MS

Food Animal Health and Management Program

University of Georgia

Modern food animal production has made significant gains in productivity. These gains have been realized, at least in part, through the use of antimicrobials. Further, they have been valuable in protecting the welfare of animals and have insured a sustained supply of safe food. Now there is concern that this use adversely affects human health as resistance organisms may be disseminated through the food supply. In particular, antimicrobial use for improved growth promotion and feed efficiency has been challenged.

Society has experienced significant gains in life expectancy through improved nutrition and health management. The citizenry has high expectations that through science, the medical community and government agencies can control the risks associated with infectious disease. Challenges exist in preventing ubitiquous diseases, however, particularly those with zoonotic reservoirs. These include pathogens such as salmonella and campylobacter. These agents are of particular concern because they are ubiquitous and frequently possess resistance traits.

Restriction of antimicrobial use on farms can have many effects. Several of these are significant. There is a need for a comprehensive examination of farm level effects associated with antimicrobial restriction, including effects on family farm survival, industry competitiveness, animal welfare, land ownership, and the environment. Further, there is a need to examine alternatives such as on-farm HACCPS and remedies for individual farms with persistent contamination. As the food chain becomes more transparent, these capabilities will be enhanced. Accurate risk assessment is also needed to build confidence on the part of all stakeholders. Agreement on semantics would benefit all parties as they continue to discuss this issue. Many veterinarians and farmers are concerned that current proposals if implemented will limit pre-emptive treatment options. These are also referred to a metaphylaxis, prophylaxis, disease prevention and disease control uses. There is even disagreement on the level of need for antimicrobials in animal agriculture. Some view it as a crutch of for poor husbandry while others recognize the inevitably of disease within herds. This distrust has not abated over time. What is the degree of need? What is inappropriate use? What is the degree of inappropriate use? What is the optimal route of administration? Who should be the local decision-makers? Will the animals suffer with restricted antimicrobial availability? What will be the real risk of disease occurrence with antimicrobial limitations? Will restricted use reduce or eliminate the persistence of resistance? What is the risk of increased occupational disease with restricted use? Will diseases such as leptospirosis, ornithosis, anthrax, and erysipelas become more common in humans? If feed grade and water medication options become limited, will there be an increase in treatment associated (occupational) injuries? What are the alternatives with restricted use? Will government agencies fast track and encourage new drug approvals, competitive exclusion products, and irradiation? These socio-economic questions need to be addressed while resolving this issue.

Contact: David Reeves, University of Georgia, Athens, Department of Large Animal Medicine, Athens, GA 30602, Tel: 706-542-9330 Office, Fax: 706-542-8833 Em: dreeves@vet.uga.edu