Blog Archives

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Pew Analysis Highlights Gaps in FDA’s Animal Antibiotics Policy

A year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its Guidance for Industry #213, analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that gaps in the animal antibiotics policy could allow for some drugs to be used at the same rate.

In order to reduce antibiotic misuse and address the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, FDA released Guidance #213 asking drug makers to remove indications for “feed efficiency” and “weight gain” from antibiotics labels and requiring veterinarians to oversee any addition of antibiotics to feed and water.

The agency released the policy in December 2013 and it’s expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2016.

For their report released Wednesday, Pew reviewed labels of the 287 antibiotic products affected by Guidance #213. They compared the dosage for “growth promotion” and “disease prevention” approved for each drug.

Half had no overlapping dosages. Of the labels with overlapping growth-promotion and disease-prevention dosages, 66 of them can be used in at least one species of livestock (chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cattle) for disease prevention at the same levels as the promotion doses and without a limit on duration.

FDA classifies 29 of these 66 antibiotics as critically important in human medicine and 37 as highly important.

There were 13 additional labels with overlapping dosages but with duration limits, and four that only partially overlapped.

The analysis gives weight to concerns voiced by public health advocates over the past year that, while drug companies comply with the guidance, farmers could still give their animals certain antibiotics at the same rate but call it “disease prevention” instead of “growth promotion.”

“We are concerned that dozens of products could still be added to animal feed or water throughout the animals’ lives in the absence of any threat from a specific bacterial disease,” said Gail Hansen, a senior officer with Pew’s human health and industrial farming project.

Laura Rogers, director of Pew’s campaign on human health and industrial farming, emphasized that many producers are serious about reducing antibiotic overuse and that “our analysis isn’t focused on what companies will or won’t do, we’re focused on the policy, and we’re concerned about the gaps we find on that side.”

But the Animal Health Institute (AHI), which represents the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, argued that the Pew report is wrong.

“There is no loophole,” the organization said in a statement. “Of those approved applications with growth promotion claims, only 17 also have prevention claims on their product labels, and in none of those 17 instances are the dose and duration of use the same for the growth claim and prevention claim.”

Disease prevention is important for both human and veterinary medicine, AHI said, and approved disease prevention claims are “targeted … and veterinarians can only specify their use when there is evidence for the disease or bacterium.”

In its report, Pew recommends that FDA take additional steps for detailed monitoring of antibiotic use, establish a target for reduction of use, and develop a process and timeline for reviewing the adequacy of disease-prevention label claims.

“FDA’s policy is an important step, but there is more work to do, both to effectively eliminate growth promotion and to ensure that antibiotics are prescribed by veterinarians to prevent disease only under well-defined circumstances,” Hansen said.

Food Safety News

Senators Want FDA to Collect More Animal Antibiotics Data

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are calling on the Food and Drug Administration to step up animal antibiotic tracking.

Specifically, they want the agency to propose a rule to improve collection of data on antibiotic use and resistance.

“We applaud your agency’s recent step to issue improved, more transparent reports on annual food animal antibiotic drug sales and distribution data,” the Senators wrote. “However, we are disappointed to learn that your agency has decided to delay proposing a rule that would further enhance data collected on this topic until next year, when the Office of Management and Budget estimated the rule would be released in 2014.”

Such data would enable federal agencies to take action to protect public health and support research into understanding resistance. It’s also important for monitoring the impact of policies aimed at eliminating the injudicious use of antibiotics on farms.

“We particularly hope this proposed rule will allow your agency to collect more specific data on how different antibiotics are used in different species and for different indications,” said the Senators.

The main source of data on animal antibiotics is sales data, and while this information can still be useful, it doesn’t necessarily show how farmers use the drugs “on the ground,” and public health stakeholders want to see information about use by species and the actual purposes of administration.

The Senators are also encouraging FDA to develop a plan for estimating how antibiotic sales and distribution data relate to on-farm antibiotic use practices.

“[A]ny type of antibiotic use can contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance, and data on antibiotic use practices is important for identifying and addressing risks to human and animal health,” they wrote.

Food Safety News

Study: Antibiotics May Help Spread Salmonella Between Animals

An estimated 80 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are given to livestock, which raises concerns among some scientists about the fostering of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. But a study on antibiotics just published by researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine might introduce a whole new concern to the equation.

Mice given antibiotics to treat Salmonella infections have been found to grow even sicker and start shedding more pathogens afterward. In fact, they begin to shed the same levels of bacteria as so-called “superspreaders,” the small minority of infected mice in the population who exhibit no signs of illness but spread large amounts of bacteria.

“We’ve shown that the immune state of an infected mouse given antibiotics can dictate how sick that mouse gets and also carries implications for disease transmission,” said Denise Monack, Ph.D., associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford and the study’s senior author. “If this holds true for livestock as well — and I think it will — it would have obvious public health implications. We need to think about the possibility that we’re not only selecting for antibiotic-resistant microbes, but also impairing the health of our livestock and increasing the spread of contagious pathogens among them and us.”

It’s not entirely clear why some animals — and humans — are superspreaders while others are not. Approximately 10-30 percent of mice are superspreaders who will shed large amounts of Salmonella while exhibiting no signs of illness, while the remaining 70-90 percent shed only small amounts and sometimes develop symptoms.

In the Stanford study, mice given antibiotics went from shedding small amounts to much higher levels of Salmonella. Within days, they also became very ill and several died. But, when given the same antibiotics, the superspreaders continued shedding large amounts of bacteria without any ill effects.

The researchers found that, compared to the normal mice, the superspreaders had dampened immune responses, which explained why they didn’t get sick. Instead of fighting off the infection, their immune systems tolerated it.

“Their immune cells have been rewired and aren’t responding to the inflammatory signals in the intestines the same way,” said Smita Gopinath, Ph.D., the study’s lead author.

And with the mice who do experience symptoms of illness, the antibiotics do exactly the opposite of what they’re intended to do.

These same conditions have not been observed in humans, but it’s an area worth studying, the researchers said.

Food Safety News

Documentary Explores Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals

On Tuesday night, PBS aired FRONTLINE’s two-part documentary exploring the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. The first half of “The Trouble with Antibiotics” focused on the science and politics behind the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals, presenting the history of the practice and attempts to link human illnesses back to animal antibiotics.

Highlighted research included the proximity of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases to crop fields covered with pig manure, evidence that use of antibiotics that are not so important to human medicine (such as tetracyclines) may expand bacteria’s resistance to critically important ones such as cephalosporins, and preliminary results of a whole-genome sequencing study that suggest that Flagstaff, AZ, residents with urinary tract infections resistant to antibiotics got them from the meat in their local supermarket.

Before the documentary aired, industry groups appeared worried about how animal agriculture might be portrayed in press reports about the episode.

The National Pork Board told members in an email that it was working with other livestock commodity groups, as well as the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, Animal Ag Alliance, Animal Health Institute, and American Veterinary Medical Association, “to monitor, engage and respond to” the coverage.

Industry’s “proactive steps” include offering veterinarian experts and farmers for interviews with mainstream media, a radio spot highlighting responsible antibiotics management, and paid search-engine optimization to direct certain searches to sites such as PorkCares.org — the site for the National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council’s initiative to promote responsible farming practices.

A U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance email reminded members to keep key messages in mind when answering questions about the episode: “Antibiotics are just one tool in the toolbox,” “FDA approval process is stringent,” and, “No cases of animal antibiotic use leading to antibiotic resistant superbugs.”

The second half of the FRONTLINE documentary revisits their October 2013 story about an outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in 2011. The new 2014 segment includes an interview with the parents of a young man who died from KPC a year after the outbreak when he was admitted to the hospital because of complications from a bone marrow transplant.

Food Safety News

Documentary Explores Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals

On Tuesday night, PBS aired FRONTLINE’s two-part documentary exploring the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. The first half of “The Trouble with Antibiotics” focused on the science and politics behind the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals, presenting the history of the practice and attempts to link human illnesses back to animal antibiotics.

Highlighted research included the proximity of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases to crop fields covered with pig manure, evidence that use of antibiotics that are not so important to human medicine (such as tetracyclines) may expand bacteria’s resistance to critically important ones such as cephalosporins, and preliminary results of a whole-genome sequencing study that suggest that Flagstaff, AZ, residents with urinary tract infections resistant to antibiotics got them from the meat in their local supermarket.

Before the documentary aired, industry groups appeared worried about how animal agriculture might be portrayed in press reports about the episode.

The National Pork Board told members in an email that it was working with other livestock commodity groups, as well as the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, Animal Ag Alliance, Animal Health Institute, and American Veterinary Medical Association, “to monitor, engage and respond to” the coverage.

Industry’s “proactive steps” include offering veterinarian experts and farmers for interviews with mainstream media, a radio spot highlighting responsible antibiotics management, and paid search-engine optimization to direct certain searches to sites such as PorkCares.org — the site for the National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council’s initiative to promote responsible farming practices.

A U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance email reminded members to keep key messages in mind when answering questions about the episode: “Antibiotics are just one tool in the toolbox,” “FDA approval process is stringent,” and, “No cases of animal antibiotic use leading to antibiotic resistant superbugs.”

The second half of the FRONTLINE documentary revisits their October 2013 story about an outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in 2011. The new 2014 segment includes an interview with the parents of a young man who died from KPC a year after the outbreak when he was admitted to the hospital because of complications from a bone marrow transplant.

Food Safety News

Documentary Explores Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals

On Tuesday night, PBS aired FRONTLINE’s two-part documentary exploring the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. The first half of “The Trouble with Antibiotics” focused on the science and politics behind the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals, presenting the history of the practice and attempts to link human illnesses back to animal antibiotics.

Highlighted research included the proximity of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases to crop fields covered with pig manure, evidence that use of antibiotics that are not so important to human medicine (such as tetracyclines) may expand bacteria’s resistance to critically important ones such as cephalosporins, and preliminary results of a whole-genome sequencing study that suggest that Flagstaff, AZ, residents with urinary tract infections resistant to antibiotics got them from the meat in their local supermarket.

Before the documentary aired, industry groups appeared worried about how animal agriculture might be portrayed in press reports about the episode.

The National Pork Board told members in an email that it was working with other livestock commodity groups, as well as the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, Animal Ag Alliance, Animal Health Institute, and American Veterinary Medical Association, “to monitor, engage and respond to” the coverage.

Industry’s “proactive steps” include offering veterinarian experts and farmers for interviews with mainstream media, a radio spot highlighting responsible antibiotics management, and paid search-engine optimization to direct certain searches to sites such as PorkCares.org — the site for the National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council’s initiative to promote responsible farming practices.

A U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance email reminded members to keep key messages in mind when answering questions about the episode: “Antibiotics are just one tool in the toolbox,” “FDA approval process is stringent,” and, “No cases of animal antibiotic use leading to antibiotic resistant superbugs.”

The second half of the FRONTLINE documentary revisits their October 2013 story about an outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in 2011. The new 2014 segment includes an interview with the parents of a young man who died from KPC a year after the outbreak when he was admitted to the hospital because of complications from a bone marrow transplant.

Food Safety News

Documentary Explores Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals

On Tuesday night, PBS aired FRONTLINE’s two-part documentary exploring the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. The first half of “The Trouble with Antibiotics” focused on the science and politics behind the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals, presenting the history of the practice and attempts to link human illnesses back to animal antibiotics.

Highlighted research included the proximity of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases to crop fields covered with pig manure, evidence that use of antibiotics that are not so important to human medicine (such as tetracyclines) may expand bacteria’s resistance to critically important ones such as cephalosporins, and preliminary results of a whole-genome sequencing study that suggest that Flagstaff, AZ, residents with urinary tract infections resistant to antibiotics got them from the meat in their local supermarket.

Before the documentary aired, industry groups appeared worried about how animal agriculture might be portrayed in press reports about the episode.

The National Pork Board told members in an email that it was working with other livestock commodity groups, as well as the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, Animal Ag Alliance, Animal Health Institute, and American Veterinary Medical Association, “to monitor, engage and respond to” the coverage.

Industry’s “proactive steps” include offering veterinarian experts and farmers for interviews with mainstream media, a radio spot highlighting responsible antibiotics management, and paid search-engine optimization to direct certain searches to sites such as PorkCares.org — the site for the National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council’s initiative to promote responsible farming practices.

A U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance email reminded members to keep key messages in mind when answering questions about the episode: “Antibiotics are just one tool in the toolbox,” “FDA approval process is stringent,” and, “No cases of animal antibiotic use leading to antibiotic resistant superbugs.”

The second half of the FRONTLINE documentary revisits their October 2013 story about an outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in 2011. The new 2014 segment includes an interview with the parents of a young man who died from KPC a year after the outbreak when he was admitted to the hospital because of complications from a bone marrow transplant.

Food Safety News

Documentary Explores Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals

On Tuesday night, PBS aired FRONTLINE’s two-part documentary exploring the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance. The first half of “The Trouble with Antibiotics” focused on the science and politics behind the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals, presenting the history of the practice and attempts to link human illnesses back to animal antibiotics.

Highlighted research included the proximity of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases to crop fields covered with pig manure, evidence that use of antibiotics that are not so important to human medicine (such as tetracyclines) may expand bacteria’s resistance to critically important ones such as cephalosporins, and preliminary results of a whole-genome sequencing study that suggest that Flagstaff, AZ, residents with urinary tract infections resistant to antibiotics got them from the meat in their local supermarket.

Before the documentary aired, industry groups appeared worried about how animal agriculture might be portrayed in press reports about the episode.

The National Pork Board told members in an email that it was working with other livestock commodity groups, as well as the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, Animal Ag Alliance, Animal Health Institute, and American Veterinary Medical Association, “to monitor, engage and respond to” the coverage.

Industry’s “proactive steps” include offering veterinarian experts and farmers for interviews with mainstream media, a radio spot highlighting responsible antibiotics management, and paid search-engine optimization to direct certain searches to sites such as PorkCares.org — the site for the National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council’s initiative to promote responsible farming practices.

A U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance email reminded members to keep key messages in mind when answering questions about the episode: “Antibiotics are just one tool in the toolbox,” “FDA approval process is stringent,” and, “No cases of animal antibiotic use leading to antibiotic resistant superbugs.”

The second half of the FRONTLINE documentary revisits their October 2013 story about an outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in 2011. The new 2014 segment includes an interview with the parents of a young man who died from KPC a year after the outbreak when he was admitted to the hospital because of complications from a bone marrow transplant.

Food Safety News