美國 FDA承認：抗生素用於肉類構成公眾健康威脅

美國藥管局承認：抗生素用於肉類構成公眾健康威脅
Antibiotics used in meat pose a threat to public health, admits FDA
Friday, October 22, 2010
by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
translation by Autumnson Blog

(NaturalNews) On June 28 of this year, the FDA issued a draft of new guidelines urging meat producers to refrain from using antibiotics to promote livestock growth, calling the practice an "urgent public health issue."
（NaturalNews）於今年6月28日，美國食品藥品管理局發布一項新的指引草案，催促肉類生產商控制使用抗生素去促進禽畜生長，稱呼做法是一項“緊急的公共衛生議題。”
"To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible," said FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein.
“去保存[抗生素的]效力，我們祇簡單地必須盡可能明智地使用它們，”美國 FDA副專員約書亞 Sharfstein說。
The livestock industry regularly gives antibiotics to healthy animals to make them gain more weight faster, as well as to prevent infection. For more than 30 years, public health experts have warned that this practice is contributing to the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria, including strains that can infect humans.
畜牧業定期地給予健康的動物以抗生素，使他們更快地獲得更多的重量，以及防止傳染。已超過 30年公共健康專家們警告，這種做法是有助於抗藥性細菌的發展，包括能感染人類的株菌。
"We are seeing the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens," Sharfstein said. "FDA believes overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not appropriate."
“我們看到多藥耐藥病原體的危急，”Sharfstein說， “FDA認為證據的整體比重支持那結論，即使用醫學上重要的抗菌藥物作為生產目的是不合適的。”
In order to preserve the effectiveness of "medically important" antibiotics, including penicillin, tetracyclines and sulfonamides, the FDA issued new guidelines reiterating that antibiotics should be given to food animals only for health-protection purposes, and that veterinarians should oversee all such drug use, from selection to treatment.
為了維護“醫學上重要的”抗生素的有效性，包括青黴素、四環素和磺胺類藥物，FDA發出新指引重申，抗生素應被給予食用動物，只是為健康保護的目的，而獸醫應監督所有此類藥物的使用，從選擇至治療。
"Using medically important antimicrobial drugs as judiciously as possible is key to minimizing resistance development and preserving the effectiveness of these drugs as therapies for humans and animals," said Bernadette Dunham, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
“使用醫學上重要的抗菌藥物盡可能明智地，是一關鍵去減少抗藥性的發展，和保存這些藥物的有效性，作為人類和動物的療法，”FDA的獸醫醫學中心主任貝爾納黛特鄧納姆說。
The draft guidance will be open for public comment for 60 days before becoming official agency policy. Although the FDA technically has the authority to ban any veterinary use of antibiotics that it deems inappropriate, the agency is taking a more cautious path -- voluntary guidelines -- in the hopes of avoiding a battle with lawmakers and the food industry. Prior FDA attempts to regulate agricultural antibiotic use have all been blocked by Congress.
指引草案將作公開諮詢為期 60天，在成為官方機構的政策前。雖然美國 FDA技術上有權禁止任何獸醫使用抗生素，那它認為是不適當的，但機構採取一更為謹慎的途徑 - 自願準則 - 希望避免一場國會議員與食品行業的戰爭。此前 FDA試圖規範農業抗生素的使用，都已被國會阻止。
The European Union banned growth-promoting uses of antibiotics in livestock in 2006.
歐盟在2006年禁止抗生素在促進牲畜生長的使用。
"We are not expecting people to change tomorrow," Sharfstein said. "This is the first step in FDA establishing principles from which we could move to other steps, such as oversight. This does not tell people what to do, it establishes principles and tells people how to achieve those principles."

Nevertheless, the threat of mandatory regulations is an obvious subtext to the FDA's newest move.

"We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that," Sharfstein said.

The FDA's move reflects the growing concern among public health experts about the growing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

"The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious public health threat," the FDA's draft guidance statement reads.

It is estimated that 100,000 people die in the United States every year just from drug-resistant infections acquired inside hospital settings. The overall number of deaths caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria is likely much higher.

"The writing is on the wall," said infectious disease specialist Brad Spellberg of the University of California-Los Angeles, author of Rising Plague.

"We're in an era where antibiotic resistance is out of control, and we're running out of drugs and new drugs are not being developed," he said. "We can't continue along the path we're on."

The National Pork Producers Council fired back at the FDA, saying the guidelines would be an unduly heavy burden without good cause.

"There is no scientific study linking antibiotic food use in food animal production with antibiotic resistance," the council said.

"[That is] patently untrue," responded Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There is a mountain of studies linking the use of antibiotics in animals to the evolution of resistant pathogens that cause human disease."

Because many bacteria can transfer between human animals, and because many of the same drugs to treat humans are also used on livestock, health advocates have singled out agricultural antibiotic use as an area of major concern. According to the Union for Concerned Scientists, 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States in 2001 went to livestock for growth-promotion purposes, while another 14 percent went to animals for disease prevention or treatment.

The industry trade group, the Animal Health Institute, has disputed this figure, claiming that only 13 percent of agricultural antibiotics are used for growth promotion, with much of the remainder used for illness prevention -- a use that is not addressed by the new guidance. This has raised concerns that even if the FDA implemented an obligatory ban, the industry could sidestep it by reclassifying its antibiotic use without changing its practices.

Poor diets and cramped living conditions produce abnormally high infection rates among factory-farmed animals. To maintain the increased profits associated with factory farming without bearing the associated health costs, many farmers simply dose their animals with antibiotics as a preventive tactic.

"[Even] under the FDA's proposed guidelines, agribusiness could continue to routinely feed antibiotics to entire flocks or herds to prevent illnesses they may never encounter," wrote Pew Health Group Managing Director Shelley Hearne in a letter to the New York Times.

"This approach to prevention would never be allowed in human medicine, and it should not be allowed in animals."

Health and consumer groups expressed disappointment at the FDA's statement and called for an outright ban on all agricultural antibiotic use except for the treatment of illness.

"I was expecting an action plan. I was disappointed that all we have here are principles," Mellon said. "They're apparently expecting voluntary action. It's my belief that the industry's not going to act until it has to."

http://www.naturalnews.com/030132_antibiotics_meat.html