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.

We reminded you yesterday that eating pork products in no way exposes you to the so-called "swine flu." Today, we bring you more information about the current H1N1 virus.

Courtesy of an interview with the Brownfield Ag News Network, Dr. Ron DeHaven, CEO of the American Veterinary Medical Association, explains that this is a virus not known to exist in animals... and that there are no reasons for food safety concerns.

From a recap of the interview with Dr. DeHaven, which is available in audio form:

As the "swine flu" outbreak continues to dominate the news, consumers who are concerned about the illness should know that exposure to pork products poses no threat in the spread of this disease.

“This disease is transmitted from human to human and, as far as we know right now, it does not involve pigs, livestock or pets,” explained Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive Officer of the American Veterinary Medical Association, which issued a statement today. The association advised people to follow the same proper cooking guidelines they should always follow for all meat products to avoid food-borne illnesses, such as salmonella.

Experts have said that the flu is, in fact, misnamed and that it consists of viruses including swine, poultry and human. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack issued a statement on April 26 that there was no evidence swine have been infected with the virus.

This new virus was first reported in North America. The virus has caused more severe illness and some deaths in Mexico, and, to date, there has been only one death from the illness reported in the United States.

Although American Association of Swine Veterinarians has reported that it is not immediately known whether pigs are susceptible to the virus, it has not been reported in pigs. As a result, there is no reason to fear that this flu can be caught be cooking, eating or handling pork products or from exposure to pigs or any other animals.

The symptoms of this new influenza are similar to seasonal flu but may have additional gastrointestinal problems, such as vomiting, stomach ache and diarrhea. For more information, please visit www.avma.org.

It's time for another Chew on This podcast. This week's topic: Food Safety Across Borders.

More and more people these days want to know where their food comes from. How can we tell if it’s safe? How do we know what country it came from? What does animal identification have to do with the meat, eggs and dairy products that we enjoy? In this new Chew on This podcast, Dr. Barbara Masters, Senior Policy Advisor at Olsson Frank Weeda P.C and former Administrator of the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service, talks about the safety of food imported into the U.S. and answers questions about labeling and animal identification. Listen to the podcast now.

In case you missed it, the final law on the Country of Origin Labeling program, or COOL, took effect this week. You can read our post on COOL here.

And finally, learn more about the National Animal Identification System, another crucial program in tracking our food supply by going here.

So now we have to be worried about peanut butter treats … and baby formula?  This year, a national salmonella outbreak tied, to the Peanut Corporation of America, has so far claimed eight lives and sickened an estimated 19,000 people in 43 states.  It also triggered a national recall of everything from dog treats to TV dinners.  Combined with last year’s melamine outbreak in China, which did make it into some of our infant formulas, it shows that Americans have reason to be concerned about the safety of food produced in this country and abroad.

So why does this keep happening?  We at keepourfoodsafe.org, and many other organizations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have been calling for changes that we feel would dramatically improve food safety in America.  In short, there should be one federal body overseeing food safety.

Today, the job of overseeing food safety is split between numerous agencies.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the primary players, but a baker’s dozen of other agencies also help divide up food safety oversight.  Clearly, in this case, more isn’t better. 

When oversight is split between agencies in this fashion, it raises questions about coordination of efforts.  For example, some products, like a frozen, pepperoni pizza, fall under both USDA and FDA oversight—one pizza, two U.S. inspection bodies.  The cheese on the pizza has FDA regulatory oversight, and the pepperoni has USDA oversight. And a split system creates added hurdles in keeping food safety inspections balanced.  In a sense, under our current system, the USDA is competing with the FDA for federal food-safety funding, and visa versa.

What’s more, at the FDA, food inspection services are overshadowed by regulation of drugs, which receives the lion’s share of federal budgets for the FDA.  There is little relationship between food inspections and drugs approvals, so it makes perfect sense to split the FDA and create a new agency under the direction of the USDA.

The concept of reorganizing our nation’s food safety systems has allies on Capitol Hill.  Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the Senate’s top Democrats, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) have both called for reform of food-inspection service in the past year.  But perhaps this is a change so fundamental that it will require the leadership of the president to get it done.

There are other problems.  The USDA is chronically short of meat inspectors due to a growing shortage of veterinarians.  Currently, it’s estimated that only about 900 of 1,200 of these positions are filled at the USDA.  To make the new food safety administration work properly, it will need a skilled workforce to staff it.  Veterinarians are important players in our food-safety systems.  They inspect meat, keep animals healthy and work at state and federal public health agencies.  Investments in veterinary education will be required to accomplish the goal of improving food safety in America.

It’s important to remember that America does enjoy some of the safest food in the world, but we shouldn’t rest on our laurels when there is such a clear course to improving food safety systems and saving lives.  It’s just common sense—one agency should oversee our nation’s food supply.