Antibiotic sense
We have known for decades that routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock intended for human consumption is one of the ways in which micro-organisms develop resistance to antimicrobial therapy. Nevertheless, we have done little about it because of the power of the vested interests which find antibiotic supplementation commercially advantageous. Unfortunately
this habit enables food producers to speed production by increasing
the rate of growth of their livestock. This must be regarded as a foolish
and short-sighted policy.
The attitude is gradually changing. According to a report published in
Science for 22 August, the World Health Organization has recently published
a statement to the effect that eliminating the routine antibiotic treatment
of stock can reduce the hazard to humans of induced resistance of micro-organisms
to any necessary therapy without significantly threatening the health
of livestock or the income of farmers. And the European Union
has ordered member countries to cease the controversial practice by the
year 2006.
The bulk of the evidence on which WHO came to a decision has come from
Denmark, which has now eliminated the practice. The WHO co-ordinator
on food-borne diseases has commented: “Under conditions similar
to those in Denmark, the use of antimicrobials for the sole purpose of
growth promotion can be discontinued.”
It is true that low doses of antibiotics make animals grow slightly faster
on less feed, presumably by suppressing minor infections that do not
produce symptoms of illness. At the same time, some organisms become
resistant to the agents employed, and resistant strains may be transferred
by way of the meat and find their way into the human gut. There is no
rooted objection to treating sick animals with antibiotics to achieve
a cure, or to using them to prevent spread of an infection to other animals.
But here we reach the limit of justifiable treatment.
In the Danish research on which these conclusions are based, the prevalence
of antibiotic-resistant strains of the organisms in farm animals, abattoirs,
articles of grocery and healthy consumers was studied over a space of
four years. Animal health and farming economics were also noted. Total
use of antibiotics in pigs and poultry over the period fell by some 54
per cent, and at the same time there was a significant reduction of resistant
strains of organisms such as enterococci. No figures regarding the incidence
of resistant strains in consumers were obtained. Farmers suffered a slight
economic disadvantage, but at the same time they found a reduction in
expenses involved in keeping infection out of barns and hiring additional
staff to deal with that problem.
In contrast, in the United States no restrictions have so far been introduced
to deal with the problem, although a bill has been introduced into Congress
to prevent livestock producers from using penicillins, tetracyclines
and six other antibiotics on entire herds until the harmlessness of the
procedure has been proven. And one at least of the fast-food chains operating
in the US has insisted on a reduction in antibiotic treatment of the
chickens it purchases.
Back to Top |
In the August issue of The Countryman is an interesting account by Jo Kirby of an attractive plant that is now prominent in our rough pastures. It grows in
the hollows that run along the hedges and provide a moist habitat for it. 