Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune | March 18, 2002 | Joy Powell and Jill Burcum Minnesota poultry producers and scientists are being swept up in the increasingly contentious national debate over the use of antibiotics in animals. Treating sick animals with antibiotics, and using drugs to promote growth in healthy ones, has been controversial since the practice became widespread in the 1970s. Many physicians and scientists long have feared that using the drugs in animals contributes to so-called "super bugs" -- bacteria that infect both animals and humans and don't respond to antibiotics. But developments in the past several weeks have brought the issue to a head. An Ohio congressman has introduced a bill to ban most antibiotics in farm animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently began the process of banning one important class of antibiotics -- a type known as fluoroquinolones, which includes the anthrax drug Cipro -- from use in poultry. In the meantime, fast-food restaurant chains McDonald's, Wendy's and Popeye's declared that they won't buy fluoroquinolone-treated chicken. And even as four of the biggest U.S. poultry producers announced similar measures, the animal drug industry has waged a fierce battle to retain use of fluoroquinolones and other antibiotics. The industry offensive included a harsh assault on a 1999 study by Minnesota scientists that's considered key evidence of the link between antibiotics used in poultry and resistant bacteria in humans. The industry contends there's no link between resistant bugs and animal drugs. Minnesota is the top turkey-producing state in the nation and home to the Midwest's leading chicken processor, and poultry companies have been tracking the battle closely. A national coalition representing the Minnesota poultry producers says that restricting antibiotics could devastate the industry and potentially raise consumer meat prices because of the added production costs. Ralph Michelson, head of chicken production at St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Poultry, has been in the industry for nearly 30 years. A grandfather and former high school teacher, Michelson says he is as concerned as anyone about resistant bacteria. "We know it's real," he said. "But are we making it worse? We don't think so." Michelson, like many other producers, believes that antibiotics are critical for quality in his industry and also for safe food for consumers. Banning them completely, or even banning one type, could hurt the health of the 200,000 chickens hatched at the plant daily. If they become ill, which about 1 to 2 percent do each year, the company needs to be able to treat them with effective drugs. Right now, that means access to the current arsenal of antibiotics -- including fluoroquinolones in a few severe cases. The Gold'n Plump officials say using "sub-therapeutic" doses of drugs to prevent disease can help keep contamination levels down in the processing plants. Without those drugs, more sick chickens would be removed from the processing line and production costs would climb as workers would have to kill more bacteria left behind. Gold'n Plump, which employs 1,600 people in Minnesota and Wisconsin, would feel the burden much more than the largest chicken companies, which can more easily absorb the extra cost. Under its contracts, Gold'n Plump must pay farmers for all chickens, even those that die. While opposed to any type of ban, Michelson said the company wants to do its part for public health. It already has reduced the amount of antibiotics it uses to prevent disease in healthy birds and is looking at ways to minimize it further. "If we don't have to use any antibiotics and can still maintain reasonable bird health, that's what we would try to do," Michelson said. If research becomes conclusive, the company would eliminate fluoroquinolones, which currently are used in only one-half of 1 percent of the chickens each year, he said. Another of Minnesota's major poultry producers, Jennie-O Turkey Stores of Willmar, a subsidiary of Hormel Foods, has similar concerns. Officials there said Jennie-O uses antibiotics prudently and according to government guidelines but declined further comment. Jennie-O is the largest U.S. turkey producer. National meat producers' trade groups echoed the Minnesota companies' concerns. The measure would deal a devastating blow to animal health without providing much public health benefit, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Turkey Federation, the National Chicken Council and other industry representatives. A counterattack Infectious disease experts and groups opposed to antibiotic use in animals have been waging a counterattack against the industry's moves. The American Medical Association has endorsed the Congressional bill, introduced by Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Keep Antibiotics Working, an advocacy group co-founded by Minnesota physician Dr. David Wallinga, also has launched a campaign to drum up support. Well-known infectious disease experts have added their support to these efforts, including Dr. Sherwood Gorbach, a Tufts University physician. Gorbach wrote an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine last year calling for major restrictions on antibiotics in animals. Gorbach noted that few new antibiotics have been developed. Even if human misuse of the drugs is considered the most important cause of resistant bacteria, he said all measures must be considered and must be acted upon quickly to protect the potency of current antibiotics. "We are running out of time," Gorbach said. The Minnesota study that's helping fuel the debate over animal antibiotics relies on data gathered at the meat counters of Minnesota grocery stores. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999. In it, Dr. Kirk Smith and other scientists at the Minnesota Department of Health focused on a type of foodborne illness caused by the bacteria campylobacter. Smith and colleagues tested chicken bought in Minnesota grocery stores for campylobacter and found that up to 80 percent of the tested chickens was contaminated with it. The scientists discovered that the same bacterial strains found on the chicken were affecting Minnesotans, and that many of these strains were resistant to human fluoroquinolone drugs. They also found that the number of Minnesotans infected with resistant campylobacter rose dramatically in the state after the drugs were approved to treat poultry in 1995. Drug company Bayer Corp. blasted the study in a report filed in late February with the FDA, questioning the researchers' methodology, conclusions and even the words chosen to write up the study. Helping lead the charge for Bayer is a former Minnesota veterinarian, Dr. Dennis Copeland, who once practiced in Buffalo, Minn. The Minnesota study "proved nothing," Copeland said. "The resistant [campylobacter] could have come from anywhere. They did not establish it came from poultry." The Minnesota researchers said they expected the attack but were surprised by its tone and the extent of its criticism. Study co-author and former state epidemiologist Michael Osterholm likened the company's tactics to those employed by tobacco companies against stop-smoking advocates. Smith, the study's lead author, said Bayer's arguments were off-point, wrong and often left out critical information in order to obscure the issue and bolster the company's position. FDA officials said they will continue to cite the study as key evidence in their quest to ban fluoroquinolone use in poultry. "It was a very well-done study," said Dr. Linda Tollefson, deputy director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "The vast majority of scientists stand behind Kirk Smith's data." When the debate will subside and compromises will be reached remains unclear. Food safety expert Dr. William Hueston said it's unfortunate that the issue seems to have pitted the agricultural industry and public health professionals against each other when both have a common goal: a safe, abundant and affordable food supply. Hueston is the director of the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety at the University of Minnesota. "There are answers to this problem, but it's going to take a unified search," Hueston said. "The answer will come from working together, not this pointing of fingers."Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune:
