http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/bittman-the-fdas-not-really-such-good-news.html

Kassem CC BY-NC-SA 11/12/2013

FDA to phase out antibiotic use in food animals
▻http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/12/11/FDA-to-phase-out-antibiotic-use-in-food-animals/7321386781620

Dec. 11 (UPI) — The Food and Drug Administration is implementing a plan to phase out the use of antimicrobials, also known as antibiotics, in food production, to prevent resistance to such drugs.
Antibiotics are used in animal feed or drinking water of animals like cattle, poultry and hogs to help increase their weight without having to eat more food. Some of these antibiotics are useful to humans and their excessive use had led to bacteria and other microbes growing immune to them.

#à_suivre parce que la #FDA semble trop compter sur la bonne volonté des parties prenantes.

#résistance_aux_antibiotiques

Kassem CC BY-NC-SA

Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA 11/12/2013

FDA announces finalization of voluntary guidance on antibiotic misuse in livestock industry
▻http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/akar/fda_announces_finalization_of.html
[FDA] doesn’t do much: It’s voluntary. As I have blogged about before, the guidance is voluntary. It asks drug manufacturers to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics to speed up animal growth. The livestock industry accounts for 80% of their antibiotic sales. Do we really think the pharmaceutical industry is going to voluntarily walk away from such a big chunk of its customer base? I don’t see that happening.
Via @bittman

Kassem @kassem CC BY-NC-SA
Lyco @lyco 18/12/2013

The F.D.A.’s Not-Really-Such-Good-News
▻http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/bittman-the-fdas-not-really-such-good-news.html
When I asked Representative Louise Slaughter — who happens to be a microbiologist, and is among the few in Congress with both the knowledge and spine to call out the F.D.A. — whether the agency had the authority to ban antibiotics for any use except direct treatment, she barely let me finish my question before exclaiming, “Of course they do.” [...]
[Drug] companies are O.K. with this new “guidance,” because it’s so benign it won’t affect their bottom lines. In a Wall Street Journal piece, Jeff Simmons, the president of Eli Lilly’s “animal-health division,” was quoted as saying, “We do not see this announcement being a material event.” [...]
In fact, the worst thing about the new guidelines may be that they’re seen as a first step, and as such rule out a more meaningful one. (Center for a Livable Future’s Martin said to me, “My fear is now we won’t see anything new for a decade.”) It’s bad news masquerading as good news. The F.D.A. is claiming, “We’re controlling the use of antibiotics in animal production!” But it’s more like Congress declaring, “We’re raising the minimum wage!” and then appending “...by 10 cents an hour. And we’ll review the impact of this monumental change in three years!” [...]
As the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Mellon said to me, “This recommendation involves voluntarily giving up making money in the interest of public safety. Who does that in the United States? No one.”

Lyco @lyco
Fil @fil 30/12/2013

l’industrie dit qu’elle a déjà changé depuis un bon moment, au moins dans le bœuf :
▻http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/recently-announced-antibiotics-rule-means-little-to-beef-producers-because/article_e100e766-6f30-11e3-b8be-001a4bcf887a.html

Fil @fil

Écrire un commentaire