Shaping The Industry
Cracking down on the overuse of antibiotics may do more than curb the spread of superbugs — it could also promote more spacious, healthy environments for state livestock. That means fewer animals per farm. And, considering the fact that many companies’ economic model involves churning out the mass amount of product in the smallest amount of space, some industry experts speculate that stricter regulations in this area could push some companies out of state altogether.
So far, though, the industry players in California don’t seem concerned.
“I think the bill is basically doing something that we in California have been doing all along, which is phasing out antibiotic use,” Bill Mattos, president of California Poultry Federation, told Bloomberg. “It’s something that the industry is living with. We’re happy to get this bill the way it is, and I think we’re going to see more of this.”
And beef farmers seem to agree.
“The issue is going away nationally anyway, even though it’s voluntary,” said Justin Oldfield, vice president of government relations for the California Cattlemen’s Association — which remained neutral on the recent bill. “We’re just making it official. I don’t see this affecting the industry. We care about antimicrobial resistance.”
In March 2014, 25 out of the 26 pharmaceutical companies that sponsor animal drugs said they would comply with the FDA’s voluntary guidance — which still includes the therapeutic drugs. But Oldfield said overall compliance wouldn’t be as impossible as it seems. He knows of no one wanting to move their business out of state.
“I’d only be vocal if it threatens smaller, more rural farmers who don’t have timely access to veterinarians,” he said. “We won’t allow anything that risks the animal’s health and welfare.”