|
Congressman Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) used to be a full-time farmer and still owns a farm that raises cattle. On July 13 he testified before the House Committee on Rules in connection with H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009. I've posted the full text of his testimony after the jump, but here are some highlights of the case he made against new limits on routine use of antibiotics by livestock producers:
1. Science doesn't support blaming the livestock industry for antibiotic resistance. "Pound for pound, humans and their pets use 10 times the amount of antibiotics used in food animal production."
2. "America's livestock, dairy and poultry producers [...] are committed to using antibiotics responsibly and have developed responsible-use guidelines for each of their respective industries."
3. By removing some classes of antibiotics from the market, H.R. 1549 "would require antibiotic sponsors to prove again what has already been proven during their initial FDA approval" and would leave livestock producers with "few, if any, medicines to prevent and control animal disease."
4. Denmark has seen more disease and piglet mortality in its swine herd since a ban on preventive and growth-promoting use of antibiotics went into effect. That has increased the use of therapeutic antibiotics to treat sick animals.
5. Pigs that have been sick during their lives "have a greater presence of food-safety pathogens on their carcasses." Public health could be undermined if we eliminate animal antibiotics.
6. The 2008 Farm Bill provided for more USDA research on antibiotic resistance, and the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008 require the FDA to collect more information about antibiotic sales. Those provisions should be allowed to work before Congress removes products from the market, as H.R. 1549 would.
Post any relevant comments or rebuttals in this thread.
|
