In April, 2015, the FDA released its 2013 SUMMARY REPORT On Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals.

Of course the first footnote below every graph and table says “Includes antimicrobial drug applications which are approved and labeled for use in both food-producing animals (e.g. cattle and swine) and nonfood-producing animals (e.g. dogs and cats).”

They should have also mentioned horses. It takes a lot more antibiotic to cure a horse of what ails it than a kitty cat.

It is also my understanding those prized animals get lots of antibiotics, including carbapenem beads placed under the skin to prevent post-op infections. Carbapenem is one of those last of the line desperation antibiotics often used in life-threatening illnesses in humans.

Why does the FDA insist on throwing fuel on the rhetorical fire with this misleading label that leads to the claims so often repeated by everyone, including Princeton University researchers in their recent paper, Global Trends in Antibiotic Use in Food Animals, that in the U.S. “antimicrobial use in food animals is estimated to account for 80 percent of the nations’ annual antimicrobial consumptions”.

They cite the FDA document that I am referring to, but failed to read the footnotes.

So what is new on the sales of antimicrobials for use in animals of all species?

The naysayers jumped all over the 1 percent overall total increase in sales comparing 2013 with 2012.

One “expert” went so far as to say the voluntary withdrawal of antibiotics used for growth promotions is obviously failing and called for legislative action. (The cessation of using antibiotics for growth promotion is scheduled for January 2, 2017.)

More importantly, to me at least, is what caused this increase besides a possible increase in animal numbers.

Those drugs I consider vitally important to my health actually saw a decrease in sales:

Penicillin: down 14 percent

Sulfa: down 22 percent

Macrolides: down 9 percent

Flouroquinolones make up such a small (less than 0.1 percent) part of total sales that they are not even referenced.

Cephalosporins were up 2 percent, but still less than 0.2 percent of the overall total, so insignificant in the increase figures.

Ionophores, those anti-parasitics never used in human medicine, increased by 19 percent from 2009 to 2013, but actually decreased by 3 percent from 2012-2013.

The Increase?

Tetracyclines: GUILTY.

The tets increased in sales by 9 percent, and since they comprise 71 percent of all antibiotics sold for use in animals that are dual use, or used also in human medicine, that 9 percent is a very big number.

Before we all cry the sky is falling, let me remind you that tetracyclines make up less than 3 percent of all human sales and have pretty much been replaced by better antibiotic classes.

One year does not create a trend, but I do hope this is a start of one, as it would be a very good trend to see repeated year after year.

The latest FDA report on antibiotics used in food animals

Join for free* to continue reading.