February 10, 2010 9:42 PM

Denmark's Case for Antibiotic-Free Animals

By
Katie Couric
(CBS)  They call it the "Danish Experiment" - a source of pride for the country's 17,000 farmers. CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric reports how unlike industrial farms in the U.S., which use antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease, farmers in Denmark use antibiotics sparingly, only when animals are sick.

The experiment to stop widespread use of antibiotics was launched 12 years ago, when European studies showed a link between animals who were consuming antibiotic feed everyday and people developing antibiotic resistant infections from handling or eating that meat.

"We don't want to use more medicine than needed, and a lot of the medicine that is given is not needed," said Soren Helmer. Helmer is a second-generation pig farmer whose sows produce more than 30,000 pigs a year. When the ban started, he and his father thought the industry would suffer.

"We thought we could not produce pigs as efficient as we did before," Helmer said. "But that was proven wrong."

Since the ban, the Danish pork industry has grown by 43 percent - making it one of the top exporters of pork in the world. All of Europe followed suit in 2006. But the American Pork Industry doesn't want to.

"What we've seen in Denmark and other countries is that they actually have had some increases in cost of what it takes to produce a pig," said Liz Wagstrom, a veterinarian with the National Pork Board.

"So it's not that unqualified a success. If we did the same thing in the United States, we would likely see small producers pushed out of business, we'd have more sick and dying pigs, and none of that would result in a benefit to the U.S. consumer."

Without growth-promoting antibiotics, it only costs $5 more for every 100 pounds of pork brought to market in this country.

Animal Antibiotics a Threat?

That's a small price for public health, says Dr. Ellen Silbergeld,who has been studying the antibiotic resistance link between livestock and people for the past decade.

"I think the Danish and European experience indicate that there will be real and measurable public health benefits," she said. "There'll be improvements in food safety and actually in the prevalence of drug resistant infections in people."

Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming

According to one study, when different countries introduced certain antibiotics on farms, a surge occurred in people contracting antibiotic resistant intestinal infections one to two years later. One infection, Campylobacter, increased 20 percent in Denmark and 70 percent in Spain.

After the ban, a Danish study confirmed that removing antibiotics from farms drastically reduced antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and food.

Danish scientists believe if the U.S. doesn't stop pumping its farm animals with antibiotics, drug-resistant diseases in people will only spread.

"It's not going to be a time bomb that goes off like this," said Dr. Frank Aarestrup, of the Danish Food Institute at the University of Denmark. "It's something that's slowly getting more and more complicated, more difficult for us to actually treat infections.

Rep. Slaughter's "Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act"

Some American food producers agree.

"It's just gone too far," said Stephen McDonnell, CEO Applegate Farms.

"What most bothers you about the way industrial farmers in this country currently operate," Couric asked.

"We use too many antibiotics, we use too many growth promotants," McDonnell replied. "The singular focus is to create cheap meat. That's not always the best thing for the health of the Americans who buy it."

"We think with some subtle changes - giving them more space, feeding them a good diet, and not stressing them out by growing them too quickly - you don't even need to use antibiotics," McDonnell added.

McDonnell helps farmers like Duane Koch kick the habit.

"How long have you been raising turkeys, Duane, without using antibiotics," Couric asked.

"We started running without antibiotics roughly 14 years ago," Koch replied.

"Does it make you feel better doing it this way," Couric asked.

"Yeah," Koch said. "Because really, from using the antibiotics so long, a lot of them didn't work well any way anymore."

Today his 18 poultry farms scattered throughout Pennsylvania are more profitable than when he used antibiotics.

Koch says it costs very little to convert a farm to antibiotic-free. And it doesn't cost consumers much more either. People buying antibiotic free turkey thigh meat will spend around $1.40 versus $1.20 for conventionally raised birds.

Koch says higher-quality feed and improving living conditions, his birds are naturally healthier.

Couric asked, "What's the importance of giving them more space?"

"That's just our natural growth promotants," he said. "By giving them more space, we can get weights that are really close to what they're getting, you know, with the growth promotants."

Because farmers are raising livestock successfully without growth-promoting antibiotics - from Lebanon, Pennsylvania to outside Copenhagen - public health officials in this country say this is an idea whose time has come.

"We have identified here that we're talking about a public health issue, that the overuse of antibiotics on farms does pose a risk to human health," said Joshua Sharfstein of the FDA.

The FDA has for the first time come out against using certain antibiotics to promote growth in livestock.

And pending legislation in Congress would ban some types of antibiotics used to treat humans from being administered to healthy farm animals.


More from the pork and beef industry
National Pork Producers Council
National Pork Board's Facts About Pork
National Cattlemen's Beef Association

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 90 Comments
by HardluckStudios February 17, 2010 3:41 PM EST
Thank you for the valuable education:

We the people hold the power to make positive changes to human and animal health. Our choices at the supermarket speak louder than any words that are likely to fall on those deaf ears in the livestock industry who see this change as a threat to their bottom line. Meat products that are labeled to be antibiotic (and hormone) free cost only a few cents more per pound. It seems like a bargain when you stop to consider that a couple of dollars more at the meat counter could save you a small fortune in medical bills (not to mention your life) by preventing the contraction of an antibiotic resistant infection due to ingesting and/or handling meat that is not antibiotic free. By choosing to purchase only antibiotic free meat, you are sending them an instant message that you want change now. They may not be willing to listen to reason, but I'm betting they will act quickly to change when our choices at the grocery reduces that profit margin they are trying so fiercely to protect.
Reply to this comment
by flounder91 February 17, 2010 2:20 PM EST
IN regards to the Industry hype about that mean old Katie Couric and CBS on the Danish Study on antibiotics and the overuse there of, or not, I wish to submit the following ;

>>>We identified a clone of S. aureus previously associated with outbreaks of infections in animals and in humans who work with animals in 2 unique collections of S. aureus isolates. The first was from a population-based study of S. aureus colonization among residents of northern Manhattan in New York, NY, USA; <<<

>>>Consequently, the clone is identified by multilocus sequence typing as sequence type 398 (ST398). <<<

MRSA ST398 HUMANS

From Emerging Infectious Diseases Staphylococcus aureus ST398, New York City and Dominican Republic

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/15/2/pdfs/08-0609.pdf

First human isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type 398 in Spain

C. Potel & M. ?lvarez-Fern?ndez & L. Constenla & P. ?lvarez & S. Perez Received: 31 July 2009 / Accepted: 13 December 2009 # Springer-Verlag 2010

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8866u775tvm51w5/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Eurosurveillance, Volume 13, Issue 9, 28 February 2008

Rapid communications

First outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in a Dutch hospital, June 2007

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V13N09/art8051.pdf

EDITORIAL

MRSA in livestock animals-an epidemic waiting to happen?

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119414762/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 May; 15(5): 845-847. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081417. PMCID: PMC2687035

Copyright notice

Community-acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 Infection, Italy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687035/

Volume 15, Number 7-July 2009 Dispatch Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in Swine Farm Personnel, Belgium

Abstract We assessed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in persons on 49 swine farms in Belgium. Surveys showed that 48 (37.8%) persons carried MRSA ST398 and 1 (0.8%) had concurrent skin infection. Risk factors for carriage were MRSA carriage by pigs, regular contact with pigs and companion animals, and use of protective clothing.

http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/15/7/1098.htm

doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.12.044 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI Copyright ? 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Permissions & Reprints

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ST398 associated with clinical and subclinical mastitis in Belgian cows

http://www.sciencedirect.com/



Thursday, February 11, 2010

Denmark's Case for Antibiotic-Free Animals NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2010

http://staphmrsa.blogspot.com/2010/02/denmarks-case-for-antibiotic-free.html



please see full text below ;


http://staphmrsa.blogspot.com/


TSS
Reply to this comment
by jd2408 February 15, 2010 8:43 PM EST
No matter how much people want to scream that this article is slanted, it can only make sense that using drugs on animals is not good for humans. I am sure our congress will not pass laws preventing this because they are bought out by the drug companies. The best government money can buy.
Reply to this comment
by bkluv February 17, 2010 1:38 PM EST
http://vetmed.iastate.edu/news/isu-associate-professor-and-former-usda-deputy-undersecretary-food-safety-responds-cbs-news-seg

Go to this site and read everything and then go ahead and tell me this article isn't slanted whatsoever.
by ProductofUSPublicSchools February 28, 2010 4:57 PM EST
bkluv, there's plenty of slant in Hurd's position too. He was interviewed on local radio about this today, and I found his points there, and in your link, to be red herrings. The main concern was never food safety, but working conditions and the impact on the community in which the farm workers live. Also, increased health problems and death observed in Danish pigs immediately after the ban is just nature selecting against the trait of animals needing antibiotics just to survive, and in favor of animals with their own healthy immune systems -- a transient and positive change for the better.
by HuckFynn February 15, 2010 1:31 PM EST
Couric is an idiot and needs to report only the facts, rather than playing the "political news activist" that marches in-step with PETA. Ultimately, ilk such as Couric and PETA want the American public to convert to vegetarianism.

And besides, let's see the "research" that shows a link between feeding antibiotics to animals and human disease. And please, no more Gore powerpoints as being proof of anything other than a political agenda.
Reply to this comment
by vetstudent2011 February 12, 2010 2:08 PM EST
http://vetmed.iastate.edu/news/isu-associate-professor-and-former-usda-deputy-undersecretary-food-safety-responds-cbs-news-seg

An actual US veterinary response to this segment, complete with links to actual studies by WHO and others, not just press coverage.
Reply to this comment
by ddva February 12, 2010 12:46 AM EST
Thank you CBS! You've brought this issue to Main Street America. Europeans and the Japanese are leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. on both research and labeling for antibiotics, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms/food). Farmers are being forced into industrial agro business by policy, politics, and corporations. The U.S. government should require more research and labeling. Consumers would be amazed and perhaps horrified to find out how many ingredients are genetically modified with little or no research on the safety. I would imagine most Americans would rather pay 5 cents on the pound, than pay higher health costs later. There are groups of admirable farmers employing sustainable methods that encourage financial sustainability and peace of mind. It would be great to see a story on GMOs, particularly with the interesting legal decisions requiring more accountability by large corporations and by the FDA.
www.truefoodnow.org/2010/01/15/supreme-court-to-hear-first-
genetically-engineered-crop-case

www.food.theatlantic.com/sustainability/farmers-win-in-dirty-rice-lawsuit.php

www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/court-finds-usda-
violated-federal-law-by-allowing-genetically-engineered-sugar-beets-on-the-market.html

Great job CBS!
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 February 12, 2010 12:44 AM EST
Big Pharma will never allow the U.S. Congress to put a ban on feeding drugs to livestock. This is what happens when corporations and industry run the government. The corporations have all of the elected public officals working hard on their behalf, but what about the rest of us???
Reply to this comment
by JustineMason February 11, 2010 11:21 PM EST
Katie Couric,
Thank you for talking about the way that we treat our food animals. I don't uderstand why people are upset about you telling us about this. I know I'll be checking the labels at the grocery store for antibiotic free meats.

We humans have a choice about how we treat these animals........ These animals have no choice. We need to make changes.

Thank you.
Reply to this comment
by jokr8790 February 11, 2010 6:45 PM EST
I was involved in a case once on behalf of a young girl who had gotten into a serious accident and a severe laceration became infected. Her doctors were having a horrible time bringing the infection under control but they finally succeeded with the use of an exceptionally strong antibiotic. When I asked one of the physicians what the problem was he attributed it to antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotics in the food supply. Something to think about.
Reply to this comment
by Lucky7222 February 11, 2010 4:13 PM EST
Come on folks. On my farm we treat our animals like a human. All these people say all this stuff about "mistreated animals", well we make sure our livestock is well fed, and are treated right with a good place to stay during the day and night. When our livestock become sick we give them medicine to get better.So tell me what's the difference here? When a human gets sick, what in world does that human do? Well I would think they would take antibiotics to get better! Well for all these people that want to say an animal is like a human then giving medicine is the right way, because when the animal gets sick they will be pain free and not sufferning. But if this fails, then the next time these people that are for this crazy non-true story can just forget about taking penecillin and suffer through there sickness. By reading this story I have wasted 10 minutes of my precious life the good Lord has given me. People need to start appreciating what farmers go through and do these days.
Reply to this comment
by steveroach February 12, 2010 12:40 PM EST
Nobody is questioning the benefits of treating sick animals. Even the antibiotic free producers are required to treat and then sell the treated animals separately. The controversy is around using antibiotics routinely either to lower feeding costs (in pigs penicillin combined with chlortetracycline and sulfadrugs is used for growth) or for routine disease prevention. This is what is the difference. In addition if I or my children need antibiotics we have to go to a doctor and the doctor decides if we need and antibiotic and what antibiotic is appropriate. For livestock, most antibiotics are sold over the counter often by feed companies and are often given to healthy animals for growth or to prevent disease.
by Boartusk February 13, 2010 9:31 AM EST
So what's wrong with disease prevention? The US pigs shown looked quite healthy, while the Danish ones looked like they were in very confining pens, a lot more flies and dung. Sorry it's hard to get too excited about a farmer buying a feed additive at a farm store, any more than buying something similar at a pet store for your pet.
See all 90 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook