Objections Over Antibiotic Approved for Use in Cattle

An anonymous reader writes "The Washington post reports that the FDA is expected to approve the marketing of the new antibiotic called Cefquinome for use in cattle. This is over objections of the American medical association, the FDA advisory board and the World Health Organization. Cefquinome is from a class of highly potent 'last line of defense' antibiotics for several serious human infections. It is feared that large scale use in cattle will allow bacteria to develop a resistance to these drugs. This news follows complaints from the FDA that it is no longer getting the funds needed to do the research required for the desired level of food safety."

Comments

This goes beyond idiocy

[dsanfte]

This goes beyond idiocy... This is blatant pandering to the cattle lobby at the expense of our health. Everyone of us who might one day get MRSA, or flesh-eating disease...

Any increased use of these drugs, especially on bacteria present in the food supply, is asking for disaster. When a federal agency start making bad decisions for corporate lobbyists that will cost real lives, it's time for heads to roll.

Re:This goes beyond idiocy

[Frumious Wombat]

Or, we could try a free-market approach: We charge ranchers market-rates for grazing lands and water, we stop propping up corn-states with subsidies so that dirt-cheap corn isn't available for feedlot use as clearance prices, and we treat feedlots as the industrial polluters they are, and regulate them accordingly. While we're at it, label beef openly. You should be able to pick up a package of beef, look at the label, and see "feedlot-raised herford routinely injected with the following antibiotics@concentration@interval just in case". Next to it would be, "grass-fed, open-range, dusted for ticks and certified treated only for illness and not within 120 days of slaughter". End result: a whole whack of inefficient cattlemen go under (at least we won't have to list to the whining of rugged individualists who only need continual tax subsidies but no other gub'mint involvement to stay in business), meat prices rise a bit, successful ranchers will go back to open-range grazing like Argentina does, and possibly some of that fertilizer-gulping corn will be plowed under and prarie grass for grazing planted in its place.

With better animal-husbandry (don't feed a grazing animal expecting a high-fiber diet acidic corn and make it stand in one place all day), you'll get healthier animals, and less need for antibiotics and other promoters to make them grow. And before anyone starts the accusations, I eat meat and look askance at soybean-based alleged food products. These are the same people pushing irradiation of food so that they don't have to slow down slaughterhouses and worry about what bits of cattle-waste end up on or in meat. Sometimes the answer really is, "it's not a machine, and we should not be producing beef as if it was Nikes, so worry about public health first, then about m

Re:"Feared?"

[Dunbal]

some invincible strain of ecoli

E. coli is not, and has never been the problem - gram negative bacilli are fairly easy to deal with - we have loads of antibiotic families for them. The BIG problem is the various form of Staphylococci - gram positive cocci - with their built in enzymes that inactivate antibiotics plus all their other enzymes that are just perfect for digesting tissue.

      If I had to choose between a gram negative and gram positive infection, I'd choose the gram negative. Shoot me full of an aminoglucoside or a fluoroquinolone and I'll probably be ok. But gram positives... oops.

      This stuff is a _BIG_ deal. Vets have been using Vancomycin on chicken farms for YEARS. The more antibiotic we put into the environment, the more we encourage resistant strains. There is no doubt that those strains eventually transmit their resistance genes to human pathogens.

Micotil

[vladilinsky]

I'm a farmer/cattle rancher and i actuality get to respond to something on slashdot. I'm so happy. I can say that this really worries me because about 10 years ago we got a new drug Micotil for treating cattle. it would kill anything cattle got (people too if you inadvertently stabbed yourself) now doses for cattle have doubled or even tripled the treatment times need to be increased and the effectiveness, (in my view from my experience ie completely non scientific) is about 1/3 of what it was when Micotil first came out. Maby instead of looking for better antibiotics for the cattle we should be looking at why there are getting sick to begin with, because virtually all cattle that go through the Industrial livestock system get sick.

Re:Micotil

[vladilinsky]

Its not rude, most farmers/ranchers don't know it. and all vets ever do and tell us is pump more antibiotics into animals, so thats what farmers do. I do know it, i moved away from the feedlot system to grass feed antibiotic free cattle about 5 years a go. i just wanted to make other people think

Re:Micotil

[vladilinsky]

the rest of the people around here (Alberta Canada) mostly are indifferent, some react offended at the thought that what they are doing could be considered harmful, and a few understand completely.

the problems come in trying to market the meat independently. It is really hard. If you try to go through a store they tack on a minimum of 30% which forces me to sell it for market price. (how many people go into a store and are willing to pay more for there food) and if I sell it independently there are a whole other set of problems (to much to get into) so basically i can't sell it for more at this time. I do believe though that there is a growing market for antibiotic free meat.

The Big One

[DogDude]

The Big Thing that's gonna take humans down a notch won't be nuclear attack. It won't be global warming. It'll be a simple bacteria, maybe a version of something common like strep or staph that doctors just can't kill because of simple resistance. I can't wait.

Can't teach an old cow new tricks

[novus ordo]

What's in that milk?

"The sale of Posilac is illegal in virtually every developed country with the exception of the United States. Recent studies have shown that lab rats absorbed IGF-1 during the digestive process, which subsequently caused cysts and other cancerous growths to form in the test animals flesh. Despite numerous official requests for the FDA to revoke the approval for Monsanto's product, no such action has been taken thus far."

Don't try and tell people though.

As for FDA, I can't even begin to tell you how badly it's managed. Thankfully they thought about a perfect side dish to our Dolly steaks. Maybe we shouldn't wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing and people are getting fatter...

Follow the money

[Scrameustache]

Just don't approve anything. In about 6 months you'll get the funds you need. I don't think that would work:

September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

[...]
July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products.

[...]
September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Re:"Feared?"

[Dunbal]

I'm a physician and my friend who is an infectious disease doc happened to be next to me when I read your comment.

      I'm a GP - so I won't argue with an infectologist. I'm also in the 3rd world. We barely have access to vanco in our (poor) public healthcare system - much less linezolid and the other new anti-staph drugs. If you have access to linezolid - great, I agree with you.

      For us if we run into MRSA that patient is pretty much screwed, whereas with a gram negative - despite having to use two or more drugs like genta/clinda, we can usually do something for the patient. I'm by no means an infectologist however ;)