Background

Antibiotics have been routinely used in commercial feed and agriculture since the 1950s. The use of antibiotics has not been limited to treating sick animals, but has included subtherapeutic usage that increases animal growth and the output of milk. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that approximately 24 million pounds, or 70 percent, of antibiotics in the United States are routinely placed in the feed and water of healthy livestock. More than half of the drugs are identical or nearly identical to antibiotics routinely used for humans.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have become a common method of rearing animals in recent years. Instead of traditional family-size farms, animals are now raised by the thousands in an industrialized, profit-driven manner. As a result of the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, animals have become more susceptible to disease and morbidity. To compensate for these animal husbandry techniques, animals are now administered antibiotics routinely administered in human medicine, including fluoroquinolones, penicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, lincomycin, tylosin and virginiamycin.

Mounting evidence of the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulting from the unnecessary administration of these antibiotics is prompting two major concerns. The first concern is that antibiotics routinely used to treat human ailments are becoming useless; the second, that the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria may have deadly consequences. Bacteria can be transmitted through many routes including the consumption of contaminated meat, cross-contamination, and through improperly managed open air manure pits. Consequently, the bacteria of concern, Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7, for example, are being passed along to unsuspecting consumers.

In recent years, Federal legislation was introduced to combat this problem, although it never left committee. States, including California, Hawaii, and Minnesota, introduced legislation, in 2002, which again failed to pass out of committee. In 2003, legislation once again was introduced, this time in Arkansas, where it is currently in committee. The bill text included in this package is based on Minnesota’s language (introduced in 2002), which is also the model for Arkansas’s 2003 Assembly bill. The bill seeks to curb the placement of low levels of commonly used antibiotics in animal feed by target dates and place a surcharge on individuals who sell or distribute feed. The money earned from the surcharge would be used to create education and prevention programs for both consumers and farmers.

Federal Legislation

SB 2058 and HB 3084 (2002): To preserve the effectiveness of medically important antibiotics by restricting their use as additives to animal feed.

HB 3266 (2002): To direct that essential antibiotic drugs not be used in livestock unless there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health.

HB 1771 (2001): To provide for funding for the top priority action items in the interagency public health action plan that has been developed in response to the problem of antimicrobial resistance.

State Legislation

California SB 2043 (2002): Requires a study to be performed that looks into whether or not the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that affect human health.

Hawaii HB 2790 and SB 2166 (2002): Ban the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics, hormones, and sulfas in pig farming.

Minnesota SB 2824 (2002): Bans the subtherapeutic use of certain antibiotics in feed and establishes a surcharge on commercially-sold feed.

Arkansas HB 2379 (2003): Bans the subtherapeutic use of certain antibiotics in feed and establishes a surcharge on commercially-sold feed. Also creates a fund to educate farmers about different practices and monitors antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meats.

This type of antibiotic use has led to a growing concern about the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. A summary of actions taken throughout the years is below (courtesy of a Federal Drug Administration-Center for Veterinary Medicine 2000 report):

• In 1969, the Swann Committee (UK) found that the use of antibiotics in poultry and swine posed no risk to humans. However, a Salmonella outbreak in humans was linked to the use of antibiotics in sick calves and the following was recommended:
  • Antibiotics used in animals should be divided into “feed” or “therapeutic” classes.
  • The “feed” antibiotic class should not include drugs used therapeutically in humans or animals.
  • “Therapeutic” antibiotics should be available only by prescription.
• In 1970, a Federal Drug Administration (FDA) task force made the following statements, prompting multiple microbiological studies looking at the safety and implications of antibiotic use in livestock:
  • The use of subtherapeutic amounts of antimicrobials favored the selection and development of resistant bacteria.
  • Animals receiving antimicrobial treatment may serve as a reservoir of antibiotic- resistant pathogens that can produce human disease.
  • The prevalence of multi-resistance bacteria in animals has increased due to the use of antimicrobials.
  • Resistant bacteria are present in meat and meat products.
  • There has been an increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in humans.
• In 1977, the FDA proposed to have penicillin and tetracyclines fully removed from animal feeds because of their importance in human medicine. Critics of the proposal contended that antimicrobial resistance was the result of human use; there was insufficient evidence of antibiotics that were added to feed affecting human health; and, the transfer of deadly bacteria from animals to humans was rare.
• In 1984, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to immediately cease the practice of using penicillin and tetracycline because of the “imminent hazard” it posed to humans. In November 1985, the HHS denied the petition because it did not demonstrate an imminent hazard, although two case studies by the CDC demonstrated otherwise.
• In 1988, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted another review on the subtherapeutic use of penicillin and tetracyclines for animals. The expert committee that was convened found indirect evidence that subtherapeutic and therapeutic use of penicillin and tetracyclines was a potential human health hazard.
• In December 1998, the European Union (EU) voted to ban bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, tylosin, and virginiamycin – common antibiotics used in low levels in animal feed to promote animal growth.