Critics urge more livestock antibiotics oversight in Oregon
SALEM — Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of livestock antibiotics want the state of Oregon to do it instead.
Over several years, the FDA has phased out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and feed efficiency in livestock with the voluntary cooperation of pharmaceutical companies.
However, this approach hasn’t satisfied critics who say that antibiotics can still be used excessively by livestock producers for the prevention — rather than treatment — of disease.
“The loophole is they’re still allowing these drugs to be used on healthy animals,” said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with the Consumers Union, during a recent legislative hearing.
Under House Bill 785, Oregon livestock producers would only be able to provide a “medically important antibiotic” to their animals if a veterinarian determines it’s necessary to treat or control the spread of a disease or infection, or due to a medical procedure.
Farms that are considered “concentrated animal feeding operations” — such as many dairies and feedlots — would have to submit information about their antibiotic usage to the state government, with those records subject to disclosure as public documents.
Opponents argue the bill’s provisions unnecessarily infringe on a solution devised by the FDA at a federal level, creating state-specific restrictions that will leave Oregon’s livestock industry at a competitive disadvantage.
“They unfairly single out livestock producers,” said Nathan Jackson, president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.
The record-keeping requirements contained in HB 785 have also perturbed agriculture groups, who say they’re overly burdensome without being useful.
Chad Allen, president of the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, said he already tracks antibiotic usage at his dairy near Tillamook, Ore., but objected to submitting records to state authorities.
“It doesn’t serve the public any good for me to hand that over and bring a spotlight into my business,” Allen said.
Supporters of HB 785 said the FDA’s approach is ineffective because growth promotion accounted for less than one-fourth of antibiotic usage in livestock production.
Roughly two-thirds of livestock antibiotic usage has been devoted to disease prevention, which isn’t affected by the FDA policy and allows animals to be kept in “crowded, factory farm conditions,” said Hansen.
It’s also “blatantly false” and a “mischaracterization” to claim that FDA’s strategy is binding on the livestock industry, said George Kimbrell, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit activist group that supports HB 785.
The FDA has issued guidance recommending certain actions to pharmaceutical manufacturers but these suggestions are not enforceable, Kimbrell said.
“What the FDA has done here does not have the force of law,” he said.
Opponents of HB 785 argue it’s a misconception that FDA’s policy is merely voluntary.
As of early 2017, all animal drug manufacturers have committed to change the labeled uses of antibiotics, so veterinarians cannot prescribe the drugs for growth promotion or similar uses, according to opponents.
“I am highly scrutinized and it is law,” said Chuck Meyer, a veterinarian and past president of the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association.
Veterinarians can’t rely on vague possibilities and must provide specific reasons to prescribe antibiotics, such as the illness of some herd members, said Mark Wustenberg, a veterinarian and vice president of producer relations for the Tillamook County Creamery Association.
“You have to have some strong justification to say there’s a disease entity you’re targeting in that population,” he said.
Veterinarians know when livestock immune systems are likely to be suppressed — due to weather events, for example — which makes disease outbreaks more likely, said Meyer.
“The difference between prevention and treatment is usually 24 hours,” he said.
