Editor’s note: Christine B. Navarre, a professor in the LSU Department of Veterinary Science, wrote this letter in response to Andrew Shockey’s column in which he argued that using antibiotics on animals is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Navarre dismisses most of Shockey’s claims, saying the antibiotics are helpful when used correctly. Both accounts express different sides of a long-debated issue, The Daily Reveille endorses neither.
Dear Reveille Staff,
I am responding to the opinion piece “Antibiotics for animals unnecessary and potentially harmful” printed in The Reveille on April 14. The credentials from which I base my own opinion are listed behind my name.
 
I will start with the title. When I graduated from the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine, I took a professional oath to relieve animal suffering.  Antimicrobials help me live up to that oath. I believe animals, including food producing animals, have the right to antimicrobials to prevent and treat diseases just like people do. However, part of the veterinary oath also obligates me to protect public health. As a food animal veterinarian, every decision I make regarding the use of antimicrobials in food animals is weighed against the benefits and risks to human health.   
In fact, the FDA limits my use of all pharmaceutical products in food animals, not just antimicrobials. Pharmaceutical use laws in food animals are more restrictive than those for pets and people (Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act, 1994). If I determine an animal or group of animals needs a particular antimicrobial, but the use of that antimicrobial puts the food supply at risk, I cannot use that product. Public safety takes precedence. For more information see “Use of Pharmaceuticals in Food-producing Animals” at lsuagcenter.com.
The issue of antimicrobial resistance of bacterial pathogens is very complicated. It involves antimicrobial use in people and animals, the use of hand sanitizer, antibacterial soap, etc.
Mr. Shockey’s claim that exposure to low levels of antibiotics leads to resistance is not true in every case. Each situation is different. Each antimictrobial, bacteria, animal-dose and environment combination is different and should be evaluated separately. Making generalizations and acting on them is dangerous – for both humans and animals. I do not want antimicrobials to stop working. It is as detrimental to the animals I treat as it is to people.  
Mr. Shockey states, “Modern factory farming necessitates the use of low-dose antibiotics to preserve animal health under a set of decidedly unhealthy conditions.” He continues, “factory farming is clearly an animal rights disaster” and “most American livestock producers rely on low-dose antibiotics.” These statements are not true.
In fact, traditional modern farming protects both animals and people from disease. Trichinellosis in people from pork consumption has been eliminated with modern farming practices. Some bacterial diseases are actually lower in modern facilities compared to pastured animals, and in fact, animal health and well-being is better in many modern facilities because we can protect them from disease exposure. 
The Denmark situation is commonly cited in the media as an example of why banning some uses of antimicrobials in food animals is good. This is the story put out by their government. If you would like a more balanced view, go to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s “Frequently Asked Questions about Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance” at http://www.avma.org/public_health/antimicrobial_use.asp.
Lastly, I would like to address organic farming. To say that organically grown food is safer than traditionally produced food or vice versa is a gross oversimplification.
All food, including organic food, has potential safety risks. The risks may just be different. However, organically grown food is usually more expensive. 
Statements like those of Mr. Shockey implying that organically grown food is safer puts unnecessary guilt on parents who may not be able to afford to buy these foods for their children. The United States produces the safest food in the world, no matter how it’s grown. Properly handling and cooking food will make it even safer. For more information about the safety measures in place for foods of animal origin see “Facts About Antibiotic Use in Food Producing Animals” at lsuagcenter.com.
I am disappointed the staff of the Reveille chooses to reprint misinformation and rhetoric that is rampant in the national media instead of researching issues and reporting facts.
Misinforming consumers about something as important as food safety is irresponsible. Time would be better spent writing to our legislators. Urge them to make sure that the Food and Drug Administration is sheltered from political pressure so it can make science-based decisions. Urge them to fund both FDA and USDA at levels that give them the resources to do the job that they are charged with. Urge them to fund food safety research at land grant institutions so we can learn how to make the safest food in the world even safer.  
 
Christine B. Navarre, DVM, MS
Professor, Department of Veterinary Science
Extension Veterinarian, LSU AgCenter
Board Certified –Veterinary Internal Medicine
President, American Association  of Bovine Practitioners
AVMA Food Safety Advisory Committee
AVMA Antimicrobial Use Task Force  
 
Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]