Stressing The Specifics
“This is a very, very good bill. It shines a light on a loophole the FDA has ignored for too long,” said Laura Rogers, deputy director of ARAC. “The devil is always in the details. And these companies love the details.”
One of those details lies in the FDA’s voluntary guidance on antibiotics use that was implemented in 2013. The guidance, while suggesting a ban on growth-promoting antibiotics, approves producers to use “therapeutic” drugs on livestock with veterinary oversight. “Therapeutic” can easily be translated into the more overarching disease prevention drugs added to all of the animal’s feed, not just ones who have an actual illness. And “veterinary oversight” usually means an off-site signature, said Rogers.
“You have to look at all the pieces of the puzzle,” she said.
California’s legislation is attempting to fill in the gaps left behind by the federal government in other ways. A common barrier in understanding state — and national — antibiotic resistance issues is the lack of reliable information. The FDA doesn’t track the use of any human antibiotics on livestock. California’s new law hopes to remedy this.
“We have terrible data collection methods in California rights now,” said Patty Lovera, the assistant director of Food and Water Watch, an environmental nonprofit that focuses on food safety. “ It makes it challenging to bring evidence to the table. Now we can start looking at real numbers to influence future policy.”