It’s embarrassing to see how timid the FDA can be when big business puts profits before human safety

Animal farm

This is a new one for me.

For the very first time, I feel embarrassed for the FDA.

Once again, they’ve shown that human health doesn’t matter when it comes to protecting profits of giant corporations.

But this time the agency is kowtowing in public, where everyone can see what’s happening. It’s disgraceful. It’s demeaning. But, yes, it’s also a little amusing. In fact, it might actually be quite funny if it weren’t for one little annoying detail about putting all of us at risk.

As low as they can go

At first glance, it looks like a strong FDA action. The agency is finally taking steps to limit the non-medical use of antibiotics in farm animals.

Antibiotics increase the weight of farm animals and accelerate growth. That boosts profits. But traces of those antibiotics find their way into humans. Over time, that adds to our collective antibiotic resistance and inability to fight off bacterial superbugs like MRSA.

So the FDA is finally putting a stop to the madness.

Or rather, that’s what I WISH I could tell you. Sadly, it’s just not so. Not even close.

That was then, this is…then

In 1977, however, it was a different story. That’s the year the FDA banned non-medical use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals. And that should have been the end of this insane nonsense.

But the agency never enforced the ban. As an Associated Press report explains, “vigorous pushback from members of Congress and lobbyists for farmers and drugmakers” prompted FDA officials to back down.

And before you start to feel a ping of sympathy, those “farmers” aren’t hard-working guys in overalls and dusty boots. They’re agri-businessmen in suits.

So for 35 years, agri-business giants just laughed at the ban while non-medical antibiotic use exploded. FDA and USDA officials did nothing. They’re little more than hapless lackeys when it comes to regulating these giant corporations.

Recently, several public safety groups stepped up and did what the regulators wouldn’t do. They took action. They sued FDA officials to get them to enforce the 1977 ban. And they won! About a month ago, a federal judge ordered the agency to take action on the ban within 60 days.

This was like waking a teenager up from a nap to make him mow the lawn: “Huh? What? I gotta do what? Aw, man!”

Agency officials have the option to appeal the federal court decision. But instead, they’ve come up with a different solution. And an agency spokesperson told the AP that it can achieve the same goal, but in even less time.

Okay, FDA. Let’s hear it. We’re all ears!

It’s a two-part plan. Part One: Ask the drug industry to change the labels on antibiotics sold to agriculture. The new labels would say something like, “For medical use only.”

Did you catch the key word? “Ask.” That’s right. It’s a recommendation — completely voluntary! But even if drug companies complied, what difference would it possibly make to factory farm owners? They already ingnore the ban. And they probably never even lay eyes on antibiotic labels.

I’d say this is a very strong contender for the most toothless, inconsequential regulatory action ever.

Part Two of the plan is almost as lame. It would change antibiotic purchasing status from over-the-counter to prescription. That’s right — you and I need a prescription for a small bottle of antibiotics, but factory farm managers just call Pfizer or Merck and have them send over a couple dozen barrels.

With the new plan, a veterinarian would prescribe the drugs. This is no reflection on veterinarians, but come on — it would be the easiest thing in the world to find a vet who would rubber stamp as many prescriptions as any “farmer” desires.

Keep in mind, this two-part plan is only a recommendation. That’s like trying to solve the antibiotic problem by crossing your fingers and wishing really really hard.

Sources: 
“FDA wants limits on antibiotics given to animals” Matthew Perrone, Associated Press, 4/11/12, ap.org