[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 11349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




STATEMENT AGAINST PRESERVATION FOR ANTIBIOTICS FOR HUMAN TREATMENT ACT 
                                OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. ROY BLUNT

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 25, 2002

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, often in Congress, we ignore science in favor 
of emotional appeals and sound bites. The ``Preservation for 
Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002'' is a case in point. The 
bill focuses on a type of antibiotic known as fluoroquinolones. It 
grants FDA the authority to ban any product containing the antibiotic 
while providing no recourse to fight against this new mandate. The bill 
suggests that there is a direct correlation between the increased use 
of antibiotics in food production and human health problems. Yet, no 
scientific study exists to corroborate the link.
  The bill also singles out a beneficial class of products, used in the 
production of poultry, without ample scientific evidence. The family 
farmers that I represent do not choose to use antibiotics unless there 
is a great need in their flocks or herds. The class of antibiotics 
mentioned in the proposed bill is used rarely and only under the 
direction of a veterinarian on a prescriptive basis. In addition, 
farmers must wait until the drug is out of the birds' systems before 
they can send them to the processing plant. This proposal could cost 
poultry growers and processors millions of dollars with no scientific 
proof of harm to human health. While public health must come before 
economic considerations, Congress should not impose severe economic 
damage upon one segment of agriculture without sufficient evidence that 
the action would be beneficial to human health.
  The proposal will also ignore the benefits to human health from the 
scientific and prescriptive use of antibiotics in animal production. It 
is unknown what all of the consequences would be to humans if 
antibiotics were removed from poultry production. One consequence that 
could occur is an increased level of pathogens in the food chain as a 
result of the arrival of ill animals to processing plants. Food 
processors are directed to keep pathogen numbers as low as possible, 
and withdrawal of the use of antibiotics in food production will make 
that job harder.
  Another troublesome aspect of the bill is the intrusion of Congress 
into the FDA regulatory process where these debates and decisions can 
and should be made. I know the regulatory process can be cumbersome and 
lengthy; however, that forum, when implemented properly, allows for 
debate in the scientific arena.
  The consequences to the poultry farmers in my district if the bill is 
passed could be economically disastrous. The bill is unnecessary, weak 
in science and a new government mandate. Congress should think before 
it reacts to irrational, unfounded fears.

                          ____________________