But of particular concern to the UCS, however, is the non-therapeutic agricultural overuse of antibiotics identical or similar to those used to treat humans.

"The problem is that you create antibiotic resistance in various strains of bacteria," says Whitford, "and then there's a crossover to what affects human beings."

But the subject remains little-known outside of scientific and agribusiness circles.

What's the beef?

One reason the UCS antibiotics-resistance position is beginning to attract more attention is that the organization has steered clear of getting involved with issues unless there is enough scientific evidence to prompt a measured response.

"We really want to concentrate on areas where there is clear scientific evidence," says Michael Khoo, Washington, D.C., representative and corporate campaigner for UCS.

To many, the evidence is now in.

In late 2000, the FDA recommended banning a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones in livestock. This class of drugs includes Cipro, used to treat gonorrhea and anthrax.

The decision was based in part on a study that examined people who were sick because of a bacterium called campylobacter, which can build up after poultry is treated with other antibiotics for E. coli - another bacterium that can cause human illness. The research determined - to a 90% confidence rate - that human resistance to fluoroquinolones was increased when chickens treated with the antibiotics had been ingested.

According to the FDA, campylobacter is the most commonly diagnosed bacterial cause of food-borne illness in the USA. The agency estimates that campylobacter annually causes:

The FDA Consumer Magazine notes, "People who consume chicken or turkey contaminated with fluoroquinolone-resistant campylobacter are at risk of becoming infected with bacteria that current drugs can't easily kill."

The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also have advocated banning fluoroquinolones.

That recommendation is resisted by organizations like Illinois Corn, which says there still isn't enough evidence to back up these arguments. "I'd like to see more scientific examination of this issue," says Mark Lambert, Illinois Corn's communications director. "The evidence, as such, is quite limited."

The UCS and others think there's already enough evidence.

"The massive amount of antibiotics used in agriculture around the world is primarily utilized to treat animals that are not sick," says Dr. Tamar Barlam, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Project at the Center for Science and the Public Interest.

Giant meat businesses believe that the antibiotics profitably lower the food-to-animal weight ratio by eliminating the action of various bacteria in the gut.

"Basically, if the animal can put all its energy into digesting food and absorbing it, they can get fatter," says Barlam. "But the data to support that is not very current, and we're talking about increases of 4-5%."

"The byproduct of this use of antibiotics is the same or very similar to the antibiotics we use in humans is that we create a human health problem in sections linked most directly to food," says Barlam.

The dosages and amounts that may foster resistance to harmful meat-borne bacteria like salmonella vary, says the UCS. "Low dosages of antibiotics given over a long period of time are precisely what you would use if you wanted to intentionally develop resistant strains," says Khoo. "Antibiotics are used in ill animals or humans at high doses over a short period of time - exactly the opposite."

Economy of use

"The concern is that these resistant germs select out in the animals and create infections in us," says Barlam. "The result is fewer treatment options and worse disease than otherwise. We don't have that many new antibiotics coming down the pike, so we have to treat this as a serious problem at every step. That includes human use, but also not wasting these antibiotics in animals either."

Nobody in agribusiness is suggesting that antibiotics should be used at the expense of human health, says Lambert. These prohibitions could result in more corn being fed to domestic animals.

"But that would likely be short term," he says. "Many other countries that compete with the United States would be at an advantage in exporting their products because they would continue to use antibiotics, possibly at greater levels. That affects not just those who sell meats, but all of those who grow the feed for these animals."

The UCS sees some relief from this dilemma:

While the bill does not prohibit the importation of animal foods treated with human-use antibiotics, Khoo says its passage may allow other governmental agencies to enact such protective measures.

And as a concerned advocate, Whitford couldn't script a better directive for the occupant of the West Wing.

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) | http://www.ucsusa.org

Article found @ http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/2002/05/13-whitford.htm

[UCS | Top]