New findings that support the link between overuse of antibiotics in food animals and antibiotic-resistant infections in humans are sure to catch Mrs. Consumer's attention.
What's most surprising about a new California study's conclusions, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, is that it's not just gastrointestinal infections in humans that are foodborne and resistant to some antibiotics, but urinary tract infections as well. The study, conducted by scientists at the University of California at Berkeley, shows pathogens causing UTIs are resistant to the same antibiotics that are fed to cattle. It concludes that an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections was probably caused by foodborne bacteria and resistance in such bacteria likely arises from use of antibiotics in agricultural animals.
"This research shows that the millions of American women who suffer from UTIs each year have a stake in ending the overuse of antibiotics in food animals," said Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the Food and Agriculture Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mass.
So, along with organic, free-range, naturally and humanely raised products, beef and poultry that are free of antibiotics could represent another marketing niche for retailers. Indeed, Marsh Supermarkets, Indianapolis, has had sales success with premium beef raised with no hormones or antibiotics.
Consumers have shown increasing concern about antibiotic use in food animals and the recent findings put the practice in the spotlight once again.
Just this month, in a bow to consumer concerns, McDonald's Corp., Oak Brook, Ill., has asked its poultry suppliers to eliminate the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in the broilers destined for McDonald's.
Studies have shown the costs to produce antibiotic-free animals would not be prohibitive. In fact, a Danish Veterinary Institute study shows that, with percentage increases passed along the supply chain, it would cost the consumer less than $10 a year if all antibiotics were eliminated from food animal production. The World Health Organization ran its own research and came to the same conclusion.
A Minneapolis-based medical doctor, David Wallinga, a member of Washington-based Keep Antibiotics Working, told SN the $10 figure may be high.
"We know the cost to consumers would be negligible because the cost impact on the producer is negligible. Feed without antibiotics costs less. Producers just have to change the way they operate. We used to know how to produce antibiotic-free beef and poultry, and we'll have to learn how to do it again," Wallinga said.
Wallinga and others told SN that, for the most part, antibiotics are given to animals to promote growth and as a preventative, not for treating illness in the animals. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70% of all antibiotics used in the United States are used on livestock for non-therapeutic reasons.
