GOT ANTIBIOTICS?
Health Sciences Institute e-Alert
May 8, 2002
**************************************************************
Dear Reader,
Last month I told you about a mystery in upstate New York, where
someone has been surreptitiously contaminating milk with
antibiotics. So far, authorities still don't know who is
sabotaging the milk or why. But the situation has focused more
attention on the day-to-day contamination that occurs on the
vast majority of dairy and cattle farms every day - where
farmers routinely force-feed their own animals antibiotics.
Many health authorities and activists have been warning of this
danger for years. Yet most people still don't think the threat
is real. In fact, we even received a number of disbelieving
e-mails in the HSI mailbox after I wrote that first e-Alert.
Milk is dangerous? Even contaminated? And by dairy farmers
themselves? Couldn't be.
But concerns about farming's role in the rise of antibiotic
resistance is not hysterical overreaction. Recent research shows
that consuming even small doses of antibiotics through dairy
products and meat can have potentially severe, long-range
consequences on your health and on our collective health, as the
number of antibiotic resistant strains increases.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doing the math
--------------------------------------------------------------
The use of antibiotics in agriculture is not new. But it seems
to be growing each year - and even the mainstream is beginning
to take notice. In recent years, a growing body of research has
shown that antibiotics are grossly overused in dairy and
livestock farming - and that that overuse may play a significant
role in the development of human antibiotic resistance.
Consider this: the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge,
Mass., found that as much as 80% of the total antibiotic
production in the U.S. is used in agriculture - not just on
dairy animals, but on every type of livestock and poultry. A
substantial portion of that is not even used to fight disease,
but to promote growth. Now, a new study out of the University of
Maryland supports the idea that agricultural antibiotic use may
be introducing new antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria into
the human population - while at the same time making antibiotics
less effective in fighting disease.
The study, published in the April 30th issue of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, evaluated the medical
impact of simultaneously using the same antibiotics in livestock
animals and as medicine for humans. Using complex mathematical
models, the scientists calculated humans' every day exposure to
animal bacteria and each bacteria's rate of transmission. And
based on their research, here's their terrifying conclusion: by
the time an antibiotic-resistant bacteria infection could be
detected in humans, its course would be irreversible.
I don't mind telling you that the math in this study is way over
my head. But even though the model is theoretical, the results
are logical - and the science makes a strong argument that
something needs to be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Who's guarding the henhouse?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, not everyone agrees. One critic of this study is
Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council who
dismisses the conclusions as not being "real-world" research. He
defends the use of antibiotics by poultry farmers, saying, "They
are always used in a responsible manner in the chicken
industry."
Hmmm. Why am I not convinced? The National Chicken Council
doesn't have anything to gain (or lose) in this issue, do they?
The truth is, the mainstream has been dismissing concerns about
agricultural antibiotic use for years as baseless and not
supported by science. Now, there's more and more science to back
it up - but now the research isn't good enough.
The authors of the UM study recommend that authorities regulate
and limit the agricultural use of new antibiotics to extend
their effectiveness in humans. With all due respect to the
Maryland scientists, this isn't a "real-world" solution. We
already know that farmers are persistent and can be quite
creative in their efforts to sidestep regulations by finding
ways to mask their use of antibiotics. As I reported in the
first e-Alert on this issue, use of unapproved (and therefore,
undetectable) antibiotics in agriculture is widespread. After
all, there's a huge economic risk for farmers in NOT using
them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing it all back home
--------------------------------------------------------------
So what can we do? On the large scale, the problem is daunting.
But in our own homes, there are steps we can take to protect
ourselves and our families. Many people simply choose not to eat
animal products. That's one alternative. But if you do eat
dairy, eggs, or meats, choose organic whenever possible. Organic
farmers do not use antibiotics or growth hormones. One bright
spot: organic products are much more accessible that they used
to be. You can now find organic dairy and meats - clearly marked
- in many mainstream supermarkets.
There's also another way you can help fight the spread of
antibiotic-resistant animal bacteria. It's not new advice, but
it bears repeating. Cook your meats thoroughly, and be diligent
in scrubbing cutting boards and utensils, and always washing
your hands well after handling raw meats.
And, remember, farming is a business first and foremost. So
given the opportunity to choose whether you want your milk and
meat with "antibiotics added" or "guaranteed antibiotic free,"
speak up - with your wallet. And let the farming industry know
that you demand honest information and antibiotic-free foods.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute