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.

Looks like our nation’s food safety system could get a much needed makeover.

The Obama Administration recently announced a plan to beef up federal efforts in reducing Salmonella and E. Coli contamination in our food supply.   In March, President Obama created a Food Safety Working Group to discuss ways of addressing foodborne outbreaks, focusing on proactive approaches to prevent the spread of disease.

The Food Safety Working Group provided recommendations in three specific areas of our food safety system that are in need of some attention.

First, the working group recommended focusing on preventing the spread of Salmonella contamination, specifically in eggs and poultry.  According to the CDC, eggs are one of the leading causes of Salmonella outbreaks each year.  But for years the government was unable to finalize any rules on egg safety.  We have one now.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule to control the contamination of eggs during production and transportation.  Egg producers are required to implement and comply with Salmonella prevention standards which include refrigeration requirements, pest and rodent control programs, facility sanitation requirements and recordkeeping requirements including documentation that the facility has complied with Salmonella prevention measures.   Additionally, the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) is in the process of developing new standards to reduce Salmonella in turkey and poultry, and hopes to have 90% of poultry establishments in compliance by the end of 2010.

Second, the working group discussed the importance of a national traceback and response system to help identify the source of an outbreak quickly and efficiently.  This includes developing a method to locate the origins of food outbreaks, creating a command center linking federal agencies with state and local governments to effectively communicate with one another during an outbreak, and working with state and local agencies to update their emergency and investigation procedures in the event of an outbreak.

Finally, the working group suggested ways to improve the organization of federal food safety responsibilities by creating a new position - the Deputy Commissioner of Foods.  This role will oversee the FDA’s food safety efforts and work with other entities, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), to develop a stronger food safety system.  Establishing this position creates responsibility and accountability in overseeing our food safety system as well as providing consumers with a clear authority figure to effectively enforce food safety regulations.

Many consumer, manufacturer and public health organizations are on board with this overhaul.  Consumer advocacy groups, like the Grocery Manufacturers of America and Consumer’s Union, agree that these recommendations are large steps to prioritizing the prevention of contamination in our food supply.

While these recommendations are short-term steps to finding a long-term solution, they are still steps in the right direction.  By making outbreak prevention a priority, we can improve the safety of food around the globe.  But implementing these new standards will require the time, effort and manpower of many individuals, including additional food supply veterinarians to inspect our food and enforce the standards.

And there is already a critically short supply.

Check out the video below to see what organizations, like the American Veterinary Medical Association, have to say on the role veterinarians will have in the Obama Administration’s new and improved food safety system.

F-D-A. Three little letters that play a big role in food safety. The Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition regulates nearly $470 billion in domestic and imported food through facility inspection, sample analysis, laboratory research and monitoring imported goods. But recently, USA Today reported that this agency, which touches so many aspects of our lives, failed to meet their food safety inspection goals.

The FDA contracts about half of their inspections to state authorities, and in turn, aims to audit 7% of those inspections to ensure the procedures the states use are part of the agency’s uniformed standards. But in 2007-2008, the FDA was unable to reach their audit goal of seven percent. In that year, the agency’s goal was to conduct audits in 39 states, but fell short in at least 17 of those states, including five that were not audited at all. And while 7% may sound like small potatoes, it’s a lot more audits than you think. Texas, for example, had 685 facilities scheduled for inspection in 2008. The FDA’s goal was to audit 48 of those inspections. And that is just one state. (By the way, it’s important to remember that in these audits, the FDA is checking the accuracy and thoroughness of inspections, not performing the inspection on the facility.)

The FDA says many of these audits were missed because of scheduling challenges and poor follow-up. Additionally, major foodborne illness outbreaks consumed FDA and state staffers’ time and resources. Investigating and controlling these outbreaks is always a priority, and audits generally get put on the back burner.

But are less audits occurring because of an increase in outbreaks or are outbreaks occurring because facilities are being audited less frequently? Maybe it’s a little bit of both.

This serves as a good reminder that the FDA isn’t just responsible for inspecting food processing plants. This agency works to protect public health by monitoring the safety of our food and our pets’ food, human and veterinary medicine, cosmetics and medical devices, like automatic external defibrillator machines, just to name a few of its responsibilities (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). If you add keeping track of our nation’s blood supply and monitoring radiation levels of our electronic devices to those responsibilities, the FDA has a pretty full plate.

Many food safety experts agree that the FDA isn’t doing a bad job of juggling and balancing so many areas of concern. The agency is just underfunded and lacks the resources to balance all these responsibilities, they say. New food safety regulation could be a solution, but is adding more really the answer? If the FDA doesn’t have enough resources to implement and enforce current regulations, how can they be expected to implement and enforce additional ones? In fact, many food safety experts and organizations believe federal, state and local food regulatory agencies should work closely to effectively enforce current food safety regulations, instead of simply adding new ones.

But whether more legislation and regulations, or additional funding and resources are the answer, one thing is certain, our current food safety system needs reform. Food safety is a pretty big job, and it’s important for all of us to have enough trained experts at all levels of the food safety chain, from federal to local, to maintain our high quality food safety standards.

With so much recent debate over how the federal government should improve food safety, we decided it was time to get some straight talk from an expert. Our latest Chew on This podcast has the answers and info you've been looking for on what the federal government is doing to keep our food safe.

Recent food safety outbreaks and recalls have caused many to question the efficiency and effectiveness of our federal food safety system. In this new podcast, Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Executive Officer of the AVMA, explains which federal agencies work to keep our food safe and discusses what the government can do to improve food safety.

Listen now.

As the debate over how to reform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and supervision of our nation’s food safety oversight continues, a recent study by George Washington University Medical Center (GWU) reminds everyone that the lion’s share of food safety efforts are run at the local and state levels.

For instance, when food inspectors raid and close a restaurant for poor sanitation or unclean kitchens, those inspectors are generally employed by local governments. And it is the state, not the federal government, responsible for issuing health certificates for factories and food service industries.

The GWU report, Stronger Partnerships for Safer Food, was produced by the Food Safety Research Consortium, which includes the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials and was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The primary sources of the report’s criticisms and recommendations were derived from three workshops involving dozens of health experts, consumer groups and executives from across the country, including the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Restaurant Association, H.J. Heinz Company, the International Food Information Council, and the United Food & Commercial Workers.

The report’s basic finding is that—to be effective—any reforms to food safety oversight must involve local and state food safety agencies.

Unfortunately, local and federal food safety oversight personnel, local health departments and the FDA aren’t working together very well right now. Many times, when local agencies discover a food borne illnesses, they may not choose to share the names of the victims with the Centers for Disease Control for fear violating privacy laws. And conversely, when the FDA obtains a food distribution list during a recall or food borne illness outbreak, the FDA doesn’t always share these lists with the local agencies that are charged with checking store shelves to make sure the product is recalled properly.

What’s worse, many states don’t have the funding to employ a local epidemiologist, so the support that local communities get varies nationwide. The new report from George Washington University isn’t just a stone throwing exercise. It offers 27 detailed findings on the strengths and weaknesses of our current system but also offers 19 specific recommendations for improvement.

These recommendations call on Congress to give federal agencies a mandate to begin collaborating with the 3,000 local and state public health agencies involved in food safety nationwide. Furthermore, the report recommends that these local, state and federal food safety agencies would be better served and organized through the establishment of a network of regional, federally-funded food borne outbreak response centers to investigate outbreaks. Each of these centers would be staffed by local, state and federal epidemiologists and environmental health officials.

We at keepyourfoodsafe.org feel that perhaps the most important point in the report is simply this: “State and local agencies collectively conduct many more inspections, test many more food samples for harmful contamination, and bring many more food safety enforcement actions than the federal food safety agencies. Food safety will not be complete—or successful—unless the efforts of these agencies are strengthened and integrated more fully into the national food safety system.”

In the wake of a national peanut recall—which preceded a national pistachio recall but followed the nation’s largest ever beef recall, an international pet food recall, and outbreaks of food borne illness connected to fresh peppers and spinach—the movement to create a more unified food inspection program has gained substantial traction. While many groups, including the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), have been calling for reform of the system for more than a decade, this discussion seems to have drawn enthusiastic new supporters in recent months.

Most recently, the Trust for America's Health has joined many other health and food safety organizations that are calling for a reorganization of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). What’s more, it’s not just food safety advocates that are speaking out in favor of this concept. In fact, the idea is popular with those concerned about drug inspections as well. Drug company executives are quietly supporting a split of the FDA out of concerns that its current configuration is or will slow down new drug approvals.

It’s still unclear what the Obama administration plans to do about the situation. While President Obama has discussed an overhaul of the food safety agencies in the past, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told Congress on March 31 that it was premature to determine how food regulations and inspections should be organized. He also stated that the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have competing philosophies.

We at keepourfoodsafe.org would argue that this last statement alone would seem to indicate that unified leadership to oversee food safety might be a good idea.  Food inspectors, physicians, public health veterinarians and everyone involved in the food inspection process would be better served by unified leadership instead of competing agencies with competing philosophies.  A unified agency with a single approach should be granted the resources required to manage the full scope of the food quality assurance programs from farm to fork.

Whatever reforms do take place in Washington, DC in the coming months, we at www.keepourfoodsafe.org would like to remind the politicians that they have experts across the country—veterinarians on farms and in government offices, physicians and nurses, associations like the American Medical Association and the AVMA (along with the One Health Commission, which links human, animal and environmental health), and the farmers and food producers themselves. Working together, America’s already excellent level of food safety can and will be improved.