Recently, Congress re-introduced legislation that could have a profound impact on public health. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009 (PAMTA) was introduced in both the House (H.R. 1549) and Senate (S. 619). While the authors of the bill hope it will improve public health, an increasing number of science-based organizations disagree and, in fact, argue that the bill could have negative consequences on public health.

PAMTA would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to limit the use of antimicrobials in food animals only if they’re used to treat disease in hopes of maintaining their effectiveness. But no one knows if it will really help. PAMTA supporters contend that eliminating the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animals will significantly curtail the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in people. When a similar approach was tried in Europe in the late 1990s and Denmark enacted a blanket ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in food animals, there wasn’t a significant improvement in human health. What did happen was that they saw an increase in animal disease and death, as well as the use of larger doses of these drugs to treat the resulting disease.

In 2008, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released a report on industrial farm animal production, including a strong recommendation to ban the use of antibiotics in food animals, implying that the use of antibiotics makes food animals, and the people who consume them, more vulnerable to dangerous bacteria. This report is now being used to advocate for the passage of PAMTA.

So why do some science-based organization object to that approach?

A veterinarian’s ability to prescribe antibiotics to food animals is an essential part of making sure animals that eventually become food will be safe to eat. Veterinarians use antibiotics to fight disease before an outbreak occurs and bacteria spreads through the entire population. It’s a practice that has been used for years to keep animals, and our food, healthy.

We know how quickly bacteria can spread from person to person, especially in close groups. For example, if someone in a classroom, a dormitory or any close space contracts a disease like meningitis, everyone around that person is vaccinated to keep them from getting sick. The same thing applies to food animals. Livestock, swine and other food animals live in close groups and share food and water. If one animal gets sick, the entire herd needs to be treated. That’s why it’s so important for veterinarians to have the ability to administer antibiotics to food animals before they get sick -- to minimize the risk of the bacteria showing up in our food.

Healthy animals produce food that’s more likely to be disease-free. Wouldn’t we want veterinarians to be able to do what they need to do in order to ensure that our food comes from the healthiest possible source?

Public health experts have testified before Congress on some of the benefits of using antimicrobial drugs in food production, and how these drugs keep our food safe. Before our government enacts a sweeping ban on an important component of food safety, it’s important to make sure they have all the facts when making their decision. And you can help make sure that Congress has all the facts on PAMTA. Send a message to Congress today!

Learn about the use of antibiotics to keep our food animals healthy.

It's time for another Chew on This podcast -- covering, as always, important and hot topics related to food safety. This installment's topic: keeping food animals healthy.

Preventing and treating disease in livestock is crucial to keeping our meat, eggs and dairy products safe. In the latest Chew on This podcast, Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of the AVMA’s Scientific Activities Division, talks about the methods and treatments used to keep livestock healthy and discusses the important relationship between animal and human health.

Listen to the new podcast now.

Recently, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that traces of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aurerus, the bacteria commonly known as MRSA, are present on swine farms in the Midwest, prompting some members of Congress and public health advocates to call for an investigation of our food supply for the presence of the bacteria. While we here at Keep Our Food Safe are strong advocates of vigilance when it comes to protecting our nation’s food supply, this reaction may be a little too premature.  Let me explain.

Staphylococcus aurerus is a bacteria found in many forms; sometimes it can cause an infection, but not always.  In fact, about one-third of the people in this country are colonized with the staph bacteria.  But don’t worry, that just means the bacteria is present on their body somewhere, not necessarily causing an infection.  Staph bacteria is the most common cause of minor skin infections, like pimples and boils, and is usually treated with antibiotics.  But staph infections can also be responsible for more serious illnesses, like pneumonia, which is why it’s so important to practice good hygiene to minimize the chance of the bacteria spreading.

Human strains of MRSA are some of the more deadly types of staph infections.  What puts the MR in MRSA is the fact that this strain is resistant to the antibiotic methicillin, making infection difficult to treat.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates about 1.5 percent of the U.S. population is colonized with MRSA.

For a long time, health officials thought MRSA was only present in people, but evidence of colonization has been found in our dogs, cats, horses and pigs.  Additionally, a report surfaced indicating the bacteria was present in pork in the Netherlands and Canada.  Since the United States imports more than 760 million pounds of Canadian pork, Dr. Tara Smith, an epidemiologist from the University of Iowa College of Public Health, was prompted to conduct a series of tests on swine farms in Iowa and Illinois. Dr. Smith’s report indicated nearly 70 percent of the pigs and more than 60 percent of workers tested positive for a MRSA colonization.

But before you fill up your garbage can with all the pork in your freezer, it’s important to think about a few things.  The sample size Dr. Smith used to conduct her study was incredibly small – 299 pigs and only 20 employees – and what she found was a unique strain of MRSA unrelated to the strains causing human illness.  In addition, MRSA colonization was present on only one of the farms.

Dr. Smith suggested in her report that there might be a link between the use of antibiotics and the presence of MRSA in the swine, and that perhaps the use resulted in an increased incidence of MRSA in the animals. She makes a good point, but if this particular MRSA isn’t causing the animals to get sick and it’s not causing humans to get sick, we should probably make sure that the use of those antibiotics is actually a bad thing before we go jumping to conclusions.

Antibiotics can be a good thing.  They really don’t stay in the animal’s system long enough that you’d be consuming antibiotics.  Plus antibiotics keep both animals and people healthy, and without them, more diseases can spread. The American Veterinary Medical Association agrees. 

Bottom line?   Colonization means the bacteria is present, not that infection is present.  And while it may be worthwhile to test livestock and workers to minimize occupational hazards, most public health officials and food animal veterinarians agree MRSA transmission is not a problem in our food supply.  So as always, practice good hygiene and cook your meat according to the directions or to suggestions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.   As for that ham sandwich?  Go ahead and enjoy.

“Self basting,” “Natural,” “Hormone Free” What do all the claims on a turkey package mean? There are many things to be thankful for this time of year. Friends and family are near to us. The price of gas has plummeted.

One thing you shouldn’t be thankful about, however, is paying extra to purchase a turkey advertised as “hormone-free.” Why? Because 100 percent of turkeys for sale in America are growth-hormone free. Really – it’s true! Despite this fact, many retailers—some with gourmet reputations—advertise their birds with claims that they have “never contained added hormones or steroids.” In fact, it’s been illegal to treat poultry with growth hormones since the 1950s!

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which offers turkey shoppers a great deal of information about turkeys on its website, reports they get more questions on their hotline about turkey than anything else. If you have questions about ol’ Tom the Turkey, you’re not alone. Keep Our Food Safe will endeavor to keep you informed. (By the way, if you missed last week’s podcast on food safety at Thanksgiving, check it out.)

Here’s a common question this time of year: what exactly does “self basting” mean? Self-basting refers to a turkey that’s been injected with asolution made up of salt, MSG, broth, spices and/or butter to help keep the meat moist during roasting. The solution can be up to 3 percent of the bird’s weight. Turkeys that are “self basting” tend to be a little saltier and a little fattier.

Turkeys are also often sold as “organic” or “natural,” and there is a big difference between the two claims. There are no real standards as to what “natural” means, while organic is overseen by the USDA National Organic Standards Board.

As we’ve told you before, organic standards are lengthy. For example, organic poultry cannot be given antibiotics after the first day of their lives. While this might sound important for those who are concerned about antibiotics in the meat they eat, often the only mass application of antibiotics in conventional turkey production is on or before the first day of their lives. So in this regard, organic producers aren’t really doing much different from conventional producers. It’s also important to note that all food animals conventionally raised are not allowed to be sold for food until any drug treatment (including antibiotics) that the food animals have been given is allowed to naturally be metabolized and excreted. (This is known as the “withdrawal period”). The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service randomly tests turkey meat (and all other types of meat, for that matter) to ensure that the FDA established “withdrawal” period has successfully rendered the meat safe to eat. Any fears about antibiotics in conventionally raised birds are unfounded.

Other common turkey questions according to the USDA: What qualifies as a “fresh” turkey? It’s never been below 26 degrees. Is there any difference between hens or Toms? Tom is often bigger and he’s a male; the meat is the same. When is a turkey done and safe to eat? The magic number is 165 degrees on a thermometer inserted into the middle of the bird.

Hopefully, this information will help you be thankful for whatever turkey you wind up roasting or frying this year. At least you now know a bit more about what you’re eating.

A couple of weeks go, we talked about the differences between “organic” and “natural” food. Since then, many of you have called, written, texted, faxed and emailed us, demanding that we discuss organic meat… and explain what, exactly, it is. Well, here we go…

Just like the organic foods we talked about two weeks ago, there are certain standards that meat has to meet in order to be considered and labeled organic.

Food animals raised on an organic farm need to consume organic feed and have access to the outdoors. These animals are not administered antibiotics or growth hormones, either. In order to minimize diseases in organic food animals, farmers use methods such as rotational grazing, different housing systems and “organic” or “natural” diets, as opposed to synthetic growth hormones, antibiotics and the majority of modern, synthetic medications. Instead, they use older, non-synthetic substances that our great-great grandfathers used a century ago. Unfortunately, these drugs have not gone through the rigorous review and approval process like the newer drugs have. Consequently, we don’t have good information about the effectiveness and safety of the old drugs.

While organic production may have its ups and downs, it’s considered to be a safe and healthy food source but not any healthier or safer than conventionally produced food. Some studies show organically grown meat to have higher levels of bacterial contamination, but the bacteria that are present are sometimes less resistant to antibiotics. So if a foodborne illness does occur that requires treatment with an antibiotic, which is not common, then the antibiotic treatment may have a higher chance of success. But the trade-off may be more cases of foodborne disease.

Food veterinarians have experienced some difficulty treating ill organic livestock because they had a limited list of remedies for these animals. If an animal on an organic farm is sick, veterinarians now have a short list of the newer synthetic treatments that they can use to relieve pain. But food animal veterinarians still cannot use antibiotics. If the animal is treated with a non-listed substance, it can no longer be part of organic production. The organic standards recommend that necessary treatment be given to the animal and the animal be removed from organic production. But we fear that many animals could be denied appropriate medical care so the farm can remain organic.

This doesn’t sit well with the AVMA. While we recognize the interest in organically produced food, the well-being of food animals should not be compromised in the process, and medically necessary treatments should not be avoided to preserve organic status. The AVMA proposed that the ill animals should be treated with the best drug available to make them well. If the drug is a newer synthetic drug, the animal should be able to be returned to the organic classification after an extended withholding period. But it’s comforting to know the USDA has approved amendments that allow a few chemicals to be used in a few species of animals for pain management purposes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic livestock. But antibiotics need to be added to permit reliable treatment of disease.

Earlier today, the AVMA testified before the U.S. Congress – talking about advances to animal health in the livestock industry and explaining how food safety and animal and human health are intertwined. The hearing went well, and as promised, you’ll find the link to the testimony below.

Speaking for the AVMA was Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of the AVMA’s Scientific Activities Division. Dr. Hoang addressed the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, which is part of the Committee on Agriculture.

One highlight from Dr. Hoang’s oral testimony:

“Our profession has made many advances in animal health and food safety – in areas such as the development and implementation of animal disease control programs and biotechnology. Other successes through collaborative efforts include a decline in foodborne illness from meat and poultry products as well as a decline in the prevalence of foodborne pathogens, including Salmonella, associated with meat and poultry and resistance of those organisms."

The hearing also covered the use of antibiotics by veterinarians to treat food animals. As you may recall, the AVMA testified in June before a U.S. Senate committee about this subject. You can read the testimony from the June hearing here.

One more thing from today’s hearing: Dr. Hoang again reiterated the importance to food safety of having systems that monitor the use of drugs in livestock – and reminded the subcommittee how desperately these systems need additional funding. This – especially the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)’s dire need for funding – shouldn’t come as news to regular readers of this blog. We’ve been telling you for months that FARAD is a critical food safety program at risk.

Read the complete written testimony from today’s hearing here.

As promised, we’ve posted our full testimony (scroll down) from yesterday’s U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing at which we testified about the positive reasons for using antimicrobials in food animals and reminded the Senators of the need for veterinarians to use antibiotics in livestock to keep our food safe. In the absence of committee chair Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senator Sherrod Brown, D- Ohio, ran the hearing, which focused primarily on the human implications of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).

Dr. Lyle P. Vogel, AVMA's assistant executive vice president, testified for us. He soothed concerns that use of antimicrobials – such as penicillin and tetracycline – in food animals leads to human resistance of the drugs and said that scientific data does not support a ban on the use of antibiotics in food animals to prevent disease.

"Risk assessments demonstrate a very low risk to human health from the use of antimicrobials in food animals, and some models predict an increased human health burden if the use is withdrawn," Dr. Vogel testified. "Non-risk based bans of approved uses of antimicrobials will negatively impact animal health and welfare without predictably improving public health."

Antibiotic resistance in some instances, he added, is ten times greater in Denmark than in the United States despite a Danish ban since the 90s on some uses of the drugs.

Finally, Dr. Vogel told the committee that FDA’s evaluations of antibiotics used in livestock are more stringent than for human antibiotics. The FDA, he said, evaluates each food animal antibiotic for human, environmental and animal safety, and additionally, public and private surveillance systems monitor the use of the drugs for the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

>> Read AVMA's complete written testimony

>> View executive summary of testimony

We’ve been invited to testify about the use of antibiotics in food animals and its impact on our health before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Tuesday, June 24. (Check  out the above link to see who’s on the committee – it’s really a who’s who of Senate powerbrokers, chaired by the remarkable Senator Edward Kennedy.) Testifying for us at the hearing will be Dr. Lyle Vogel, AVMA’s Assistant Executive Vice President, who has spent many years researching this issue. In the coming weeks, we’ll post Dr. Vogel’s written testimony – and additional info about antibiotic resistance – so that you can keep track and stay informed.

As we prep for the testimony, here’s some insight on the issue….

Antibiotics are among the most important tools a food animal veterinarian has in the ongoing battle to keep our food safe. Many folks don’t know that penicillin and tetracycline, two drugs everyone knows as human drugs, are crucial to keeping salmonella and other bacteria out of our food supply. Veterinarians use these antibiotics in a number of ways to keep our meat, eggs and dairy products free of bacteria and viruses. Obviously, they’d be prescribed for an animal that is sick. But sometimes, the antibiotics are given as a preventative, to help keep animals at a high risk of illness from getting sick.

Why? Well, think about it this way: these animals -- cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, etc -- live in close groups called herds or flocks. They share food and water. If one animal from the group is sick, the whole herd has to be treated because it is very likely that the bacteria or illness has already spread to the others in the group. This is similar to treating students who have been exposed to another student with bacterial meningitis at school. And I think we can all agree that we do not want sick animals or salmonella and other bacteria in the foods we eat.

Sounds complicated, doesn’t it? Well, it is. Thankfully, we don’t have to make these decisions ourselves daily. We don’t have to constantly worry if each bite of meat, each sip of milk is safe to consume. And this is because veterinarians are out there making these tough calls – decisions about animal health and its impact on human health.