California is getting rid of a time-honored justification for antibiotic use in veterinary medicine [1]. No longer will it be acceptable to prescribe them for ”growth promotion”, but rather only for “prophylaxis”. Just like in humans, so it is argued, does prudent use of antibiotics have a place in prevention, not just for the treatment of infections [2].
This is an interesting argument. Think about it for a while and you may feel that this analogy makes good sense and is actually -or at least maybe – quite convincing.
Certainly, for humans, there is endocarditis prophylaxis for certain patients and procedures. I guess, Californians would want the same benefit for little chicks with valvular disease when they get their teeth cleaned, wouldn’t you? Okay, they don’t have teeth so maybe meningitis prophylaxis would be a better example. How about an immunocompromised chick getting readied for organ transplantation or some serious surgery? All good reasons for prophylactic antibiotics when the broiler environment is just not aseptic enough to prevent infection.
The California politicians may have had prophylaxis for travelers’ diarrhea on their minds, something easier to relate to than endocarditis, esp. when you live so close to Mexico. But such use is no longer condoned according to current human guidelines which strongly speak out against it [3].
CDC does not recommend antimicrobial drugs to prevent Traveler’s Diarrhea [3]
So, I am sympathetic to the need for antibiotics in veterinary medicine for certain prophylactic situations like endocarditis, surgery, and the poor transplant population (which is more at home in scientific labs than broiler units).
But maybe this is all wrong and we should look closer at the evidence and learn from the veterinary experience. Antibiotics allow animals to stay healthy in filthy environments, gain muscle without the interruptions of infectious diseases, avoid stunted growth, etc., etc. We are told that chicks tolerate antibiotics without side effects that infection does not spread from cage to cage, and that resistance is really not much of an issue.
Given all these benefits in the veterinary world isn’t it time to rethink our restrictive human policies and use antibiotics more liberally? After all, only 20% of antibiotic use is for human afflictions. Why not give our athletes antibiotics instead of steroids with all their horrific side effects? It won’t hurt them, and there is the added benefit of muscle build-up. Think about the use in children who lose valuable days at school because of strep throats. And I am also thinking of our cubicle workers that sit close together and are prone to exchanging germs. They all would benefit from antibiotics in their drinking water.
As humans, we belong to the animal kingdom. Hence, we should not feel embarrassed to admit our tendency to become antibiotic junkies! Our politicians are trailblazers in this regard and behave like chicks already.
We cannot simply remove a tool that veterinarians use to uphold their oath – Sen. Jerry Hill [2]
The logic of lobbyists has created a novel justification for continuing the widespread abuse of antibiotics in chickens and other livestock.
References:
[1] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/0/california-antibiotics-bill-close-to-becoming-law/#.VAyR5vldV8E
[2] http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/26/6580989/another-view-livestock-antibiotics.html
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/travelersdiarrhea_g.htm
