BLOG#11
Antibiotic and
the Consumers
Antibiotic is something created by scientists to treat people and any living things depend on the diseases, everyone has their own type of antibiotic they can be treated with. In case of farming, the farmers used the antibiotics to feed the animals to make them grow faster
and produce more.
According to a research done by the FDA, they are reported that;
they have found no harm so far to the public health by consumed the meat that
are feed and treated with the antibiotics released this statement; "not
all antibiotics are the same, some are used primarily in animals and are not
medically important to people. And aren't leading to the development of
antibiotic resistant bacteria that is harmful to people". Of the antibiotics used in farm
animals today, about one third are called Ionophrones and
are not medically important, nor used in humans. Meaning if resistance to the
drugs did develop, it will have little impact on the public health. Further,
use of medically important antibiotics actually decreased from 2010 to 2011 on
farms while the meat production increased. So far there is no major effects on
people or the consumer, because the antibiotics the farmers used are not
harmful to the public. My concern is; if there is no effect on the public, the
farmers are cleaned on that subject of the antibiotics, but what why the
farmers need to treat the animals with antibiotics preemptively.
The
farmers are reportedly saying that the used to the antibiotics is to treat the
animals, human and animals’ health treatment differs. In human, doctors tend to
treat the individual. In farm animals veterinarians tend to treat the herd.
Farmers and ranchers work closely to with veterinarians to develop a
comprehensive herd health program. Which includes many tools such as
vaccination, proper housing, hygiene, and antibiotics. Preventing or
controlling the spread of a disease is critical to keep animals safe and
health. For example; I used to see my Dad have his animals vaccinated, which
was on the best interest of the animals to keep them safe. Mostly when the
Climate changes, also to prevent animals suffering or unsafe conditions. They
can't stay isolate themselves waited to die when they are ill. It’s more human
and safer to prevent illness than to treat a sick animal that may infect other
animals. If the farmers are using the antibiotics in a good manner I think they
should continued doing their jobs as farmers.
Now
while they researchers and FDA stated that there is no effect on public by
feeding the animals the antibiotics, they should focused more what is caused
the problem why some people got sick after consumer an humbugger, a sandwich, a
meat ball where is the problem is from': it is from the processing industries,
it is how they packing the meat where is the problem. According to a recent
study done by FDA; www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmupdates/ucm335102htm they
have found that "High rates of meat and poultry tainted with antibiotic-
resistant strains of bacteria" 80% ground turkey, 61% pork chops and 55%
ground beef so what is going on? if the farmers didn't do any harm now who is
responsible for this problem. According to a survey by the consumer report they
have came up with this scale.
The turkey with no-antibiotics they have less E. coll,
less Enterococcus, less staph and less ALL than those conventional.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is implementing a
voluntary plan with industry to phase out the use of certain antibiotics for
enhanced food production.
Antibiotics are
added to the animal feed or drinking water of cattle, hogs, poultry and other
food-producing animals to help them gain weight faster or use less food to gain
weight.
Because all uses
of antimicrobial drugs, in both humans and animals, contribute to the
development of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to use these drugs
only when medically necessary. Governments around the world consider
antimicrobial-resistant bacteria a major threat to public health. Illnesses
caused by drug-resistant strains of bacteria are more likely to be potentially
fatal when the medicines used to treat them are rendered less effective.
FDA is working to
address the use of “medically important” antibiotics in food-producing animals
for production uses, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency.
These drugs are deemed important because they are also used to treat human
disease and might not work if the bacteria they target become resistant to the
drugs’ effects.
“We need to be
selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them,” says William
Flynn, DVM, MS, deputy director for science policy at FDA’s Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM). “Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely
preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down.”
FDA is issuing a final
guidance document that explains how animal pharmaceutical companies can work
with the agency to voluntarily remove growth enhancement and feed efficiency
indications from the approved uses of their medically important antimicrobial
drug products, and move the therapeutic uses of these products from
over-the-counter (OTC) availability to marketing status requiring veterinary
oversight.
Once manufacturers
voluntarily make these changes, the affected products can then only be used in
food-producing animals to treat, prevent or control disease under the order of
or by prescription from a licensed veterinarian.
“This action
promotes the judicious use of important antimicrobials, which protects public
health and, at the same time, ensures that sick and at-risk animals receive the
therapy they need,” says CVM Director Bernadette Dunham, DVM, Ph.D. “We realize
that these steps represent changes for veterinarians and animal producers, and
we have been working to make this transition as seamless as possible.”
Flynn explains that all the drugs affected by this plan are
antibacterial products. They have long been FDA-approved for production (e.g.
growth enhancement) purposes as well as for the treatment, control or
prevention of animal diseases. Even today, he says, it is not entirely
understood how these drugs make animals grow faster. The drugs are primarily
added to feed, although they are sometimes added to the animals’ drinking
water.
Bacteria evolve to
survive threats to their existence. In both humans and animals, even
appropriate therapeutic uses of antibiotics can promote the development of drug
resistant bacteria. When such bacteria enter the food supply, they can be
transferred to the people who eat food from the treated animal.
In 2010, FDA
called for a strategy to phase out production use of medically important
antimicrobial products and to bring the remaining therapeutic uses under the
oversight of a veterinarian. The guidance document that FDA is issuing on Dec.
11, 2013, which was previously issued in draft form in 2012, lays out such a
strategy and marks the beginning of the formal implementation period.
The agency is
asking animal pharmaceutical companies to notify FDA within the next three
months of their intent to voluntarily make the changes recommended in the
guidance. Based on timeframes set out in the guidance, these companies would
then have three years to fully implement these changes.
To help
veterinarians and producers of food-producing animals comply with the new terms
of use for these products once the recommended changes are implemented, FDA is
proposing changes to the Veterinary Feed Directives (VFD) process. This is an
existing system that governs the distribution and use of certain drugs (VFD
drugs) that can only be used in animal feed with the specific authorization of
a licensed veterinarian. Flynn explains that feed-use antibiotics that are
considered medically important and are currently available, as OTC products
will, as a result of implementation of the guidance document, come under the
VFD process.
The proposed
changes to the VFD process are intended to clarify the administrative
requirements for the distribution and use of VFD drugs and improve the
efficiency of the VFD program. Such updates to the VFD process will assist in
the transition of OTC products to their new VFD status.
Flynn explains that the final guidance document made
participation voluntary because it is the fastest, most efficient way to make
these changes. FDA has been working with associations that include those representing
drug companies, the feed industry, and producers of beef, pork and turkey, as
well as veterinarians and consumer groups.
"Based on our
outreach, we have every reason to believe that animal pharmaceutical companies
will support us in this effort," says Michael R. Taylor, FDA's deputy
commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. Www.http.fda.gov.
We can all agree
that the antibiotics have a good and bad side, the good side is that its
maintained the animals healthy, grown fast but for our health it is a disaster
according to the researchers. We have growth obesity populations, the heart
disease rampage, and cancer. Even though there is no research related so far
what causes cancer but we can have a point of view, those who consumed no meat
vegetarians are less likely to suffer from those diseases than the meat
consumers according to the researchers. We have a big population (USA) and it’s
the government and the farmer to work together for those people to be fed, but
they are not doing it in the right way. Using some antibiotics are murdered
people, and I think the best thing is like so many country do is everyone farm
they own meat and food but in here we don’t have time and space for that. We
need people we can trust with what’s going in our system, people that will
protect our society with the spread of so many killers(diseases), and I think
we are so far away because everyone is worry about how much money they can make
out of something not how hurt it will be to other people.
