SECOND OPINION:
Overuse on cattle
feedlots is a key factor in antibiotic resistance, report says
By Susan Perry |
06/29/2020
In 2018, nearly as many
antibiotics of medical importance were sold for use in cattle as for human use.
REUTERS/Ross Courtney
In 2018, nearly as many
antibiotics of medical importance were sold for use in cattle as for human use.
Cattle producers
purchased 42 percent of all medically important antibiotics sold for livestock
use in the United States in 2018 — about the same amount sold for chicken and
pork production combined, according to a scathing report published this month
by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
In fact, in 2018, nearly
as many antibiotics of medical importance were sold for use in cattle (5.6
million pounds) as for human use (7.5 million pounds).
Most of those
antibiotics wouldn’t be necessary if the U.S. beef industry made changes in how
they raise cattle and produce meat. Cattle producers in the U.S. use
antibiotics three to six times more intensively than do their counterparts in
the European Union, the report points out. That’s because the drugs are fed
routinely to cattle on U.S. feedlots — even when no animals are sick.
The European Union,
which is the third-largest beef producer globally, not only discourages the
routine feeding of antibiotics to cattle, it has announced that it will no
longer allow the practice starting in 2022.
And with good reason.
The overuse and misuse of antibiotics in cattle and other livestock has been a
key contributor to the growing crisis of antibiotic resistance, which, as the
NRDC report stresses, is “one of the gravest threats” to human health.
Right now, of course,
the world is focused on a deadly viral infection — COVID-19 — for which, as
yet, there is no vaccine or curative medicines. But antibiotic-resistant
bacterial infections — ones that are extremely difficult or impossible to treat
with any type of drug — have been with us longer and have reached epidemic
proportions as well.
Each year, 2.8 million
Americans develop an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that those infections lead to
about 35,000 deaths annually, although others have estimated the number to be
much higher — more than 162,000 deaths annually.
‘A dangerous crutch’
In the U.S., the beef
industry is dominated by giant feedlots in a handful of states (Texas,
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas), and it’s on those feedlots where
antibiotics are most likely to be misused, the NRDC report says. Practices such
as crowding the cattle together and feeding them a diet high in grains, to
which the animals’ ruminant stomachs are not well adapted, leave the cattle
susceptible to liver abscesses and bovine respiratory disease (also known as
“shipping fever”).
Cattle producers and
their veterinarians say the routine use of antibiotics is needed to keep the
animals from getting these and other illnesses. But as the NRDC report
describes in detail, most of the antibiotics could be avoided if changes were
made to the cattle’s living conditions in the feedlots.
“Overusing precious
antibiotics is a dangerous crutch for feedlots that want to put off or ignore
the need for real changes in how cattle are being produced,” writes Dr. David
Wallinga, the report’s author and a senior health adviser with NRDC, in a blog
posting that accompanies the report.
“If anything, U.S.
feedlots today are experiencing more cattle illnesses and deaths due to liver
abscesses and shipping fever, not less, according to industry vets and
infrequent [U.S. Department of Agriculture] surveys,” he adds. “The paradox is
that feedlot cattle seem to be getting sicker at the same time that feeding
them antibiotics routinely is touted as an essential tool for preventing
disease.”
Change is possible
The beef industry is not
transparent about its antibiotic use, for it doesn’t have to give a direct
accounting to government regulators of the drugs it puts in its feed, the
report says. And the industry apparently doesn’t feel any urgency to do so.
That could change, says
Wallinga, if one or more of the four major meatpacking companies (Cargill,
Tyson Foods, JBS and National Beef) were to put policies in place to end
routine antibiotic use on feedlots.
“The chicken industry
proved that changes in meat supply chains can happen quickly,” he writes. “By
the end of 2018, more than 90 percent of chicken sold in the United States was
being produced without the routine use of medically important antibiotics —
nearly double the amount from just a few years before. Some U.S. producers
including Perdue, Foster Farms, and Tyson, as well as fast food giants like
McDonald’s, Subway, and KFC, provided critical leadership in making that change
happen.”
Chickens now account for
only 4 percent of all medically important drugs sold for use in U.S. livestock,
he adds.
It’s time — long past
time — for cattle producers to take similar steps.
“Sometime in the future,
many or even most of us will suffer a superbug infection that may turn
life-threatening. When that happens, will antibiotics be left that work?” asks
Wallinga.
“On our current course,
that is every much in questions,” he says. “But if the nation’s beef companies
and their suppliers change their practices, that could make a tremendous
difference and help change the course of this approaching storm.”
FMI: You can read the
full report, “Better Burgers: Why It’s High Time the U.S. Beef Industry Kicked
Its Antibiotics Habit” on the NRDC website.
Related
Tags:antibiotic-resistant bacteriaantibioticsinfectiousmeat consumption
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Susan Perry
Susan Perry writes
Second Opinion for MinnPost, covering consumer health. She has written several
health-related books, and her articles have appeared in a wide variety of
publications.
COMMENTS (1)
SUBMITTED BY BRUCE
POMERANTZ ON 06/29/2020 - 09:12 PM.
The Natural Resources
Defense Council study confirms previousl studies of misuse of antibiotics on
animals. However, Ms. Perry’s description of 5.6 million pounds of antibiotics
for animal use as “nearly equal” to 7.5 million pounds for human use is
inaccurate because 5.6 is 75% of 7.5. A difference of 25% does not equate to
“nearly equal” unless you subtract the amount of unneeded use of antibiotics on
humans.
National Latino
Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
1029 Vermont
Avenue, NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC
20005
Office: (202)
628-8833
Fax No.: (202)
393-1816
Twitter: @NLFRTA
