Letters: Antibiotics rules not enough
Re “Saving antibiotics for people,” Editorial, Dec. 12
The Times is too optimistic. The Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to curb antibiotic use in livestock addresses only part of the problem and is voluntary, an approach that has proved unsuccessful for decades.
The FDA has asked companies to voluntarily stop selling growth-promoting antibiotics. Even if a company chooses to follow the guidelines, it can continue to sell many of the same antibiotics over-the-counter to prevent disease in unsick animals.
One major drug company has stated that the guidelines will have little effect on its revenues. The FDA isn’t requiring a veterinarian’s prescription; rather, getting a prescription is voluntary for already approved drugs. The FDA has also proposed to weaken that oversight when it applies and would allow “disease prevention” use on unsick animals.
A federal district court has directed the FDA to take mandatory action on this issue; the agency has appealed.
The FDA should use its power to protect public health, not industry.
Peter Lehner
New York City
The writer is the executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
By seeking to curb the use of antibiotics in animal feed, the FDA has finally acted responsibly to protect future generations.
High antibiotic use leads to greater bacterial resistance against antibiotics. The fact that 80% of antibiotics used in the U.S. are added to animal feed vastly accelerates the development of resistance to treatment.
We are rapidly entering an era in which bacteria will be resistant to every available treatment option. Removing antibiotics from animal feed is a positive step toward slowing this process.
Susan Skinner, MD
Newport Beach
ALSO:
Letters: Retelling the Dorner story
Letters: Paul Ryan deserves credit too
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
