The demand for animal protein products derived from
animals raised without antibiotics is on the rise in the United States, but
there are concerns about the potential impact on animal welfare.
“We know that ensuring the safety, health and overall
well-being of animals raised for food is an ethical obligation,” said
veterinarian Randall Singer, professor of epidemiology at the University of
Minnesota. “I say that as a veterinarian, as someone who works in animal
agriculture and as a consumer.”
At the Animal Agriculture Alliance Summit held in
Arlington, VA, Singer presented the results of a survey of veterinarians and
producers regarding the impact on animals raised with no antibiotics ever.
Singer said there have been numerous changes in the way
antibiotics are used in food animal agriculture, and that many producers have
reduced or eliminated antibiotics entirely. “That has been fast-growing in the
poultry sector,” he said, “but all of the commodity groups have seen this trend
of moving toward more production in a ‘raised without antibiotics’ (RWA)
system.” Singer mentioned the many terms associated with RWA, including “no
antibiotics ever,” “antibiotic-free” and “never ever,” but used the term RWA
for survey purposes.
In one section of the survey, participants currently
participating in RWA programs were asked why they converted to RWA. “To fulfill
a client or customer request is the major reason everyone across the
commodities gave for why they are raising animals without antibiotics,” said
Singer. Other factors, including increasing sale price and gaining market entry
into a retail program, were also top reasons for enrolling in an RWA program.
Of low importance to RWA respondents were decreasing antibiotic resistance,
improving animal welfare and eliminating the use of medically important
antibiotics.
Conventional producers were asked why they were not
currently participating in RWA programs. The major driver (94 percent) was that
these producers were concerned about the negative impacts to animal health and
welfare without the option of using antibiotics to treat illnesses. In
addition, more than half of the respondents said they were already raising
animals in a responsible antibiotic use program.
“I want us to think carefully about what it means to
state that you are RWA,” said Singer. “You are never going to use antibiotics,
at least if you are going to label it with your brand name, versus believing
antibiotics do play a role in raising animals and maintaining health and
welfare, and you enter into a responsible use program.” Singer said there is a
label for a responsible use program, and other labels are being discussed.
Regarding food safety, the majority of respondents
believed that there was either no change to food safety or that raising animals
without antibiotics worsens food safety. “That is from either RWA experience or
the opinion of the conventional respondents about shifting to an RWA system,”
said Singer. “The second part of the question asks ‘In your opinion, how do
retailers/restaurants/food services think raised without antibiotics production
impacts food safety?’ Respondents, whether veterinarians or producers, believe
that customers think food safety is being improved even though they responded
that food safety is being worsened. That is quite a disparity in response.”
For health and welfare, respondents were asked “How do
you think raised without antibiotics production impacts animal health and
welfare?” “Most of the respondents think that RWA production is either slightly
worsening or significantly worsening animal health and welfare,” said Singer. “For
customers purchasing RWA, according to the respondents (veterinarians and
producers), their perception is that animal health and welfare are being
significantly improved by RWA production, whereas their experience is that it
is significantly worsened.” Singer said this gap is the most dramatic
difference in the survey.
The overall perception of both producers and veterinarians
is that RWA production significantly increases the cost of production. When
asked how RWA impacts the overall demand for a specific protein, such as from
beef, poultry or swine (rather than the animals specifically), most respondents
said there would be either no change or a slight increase. “It’s hard for me to
imagine how that is a positive return on investment when you have a significant
increase in cost,” said Singer, “but most were thinking there was not going to
be much of a significant increase in demand.”
Singer said one set of results was particularly troubling
to him. The statement was phrased “There are times that maintaining an RWA
label has priority over flock/herd health and welfare.” Many of the respondents
stated that they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed. “As a person working in
the industry and as a consumer, I am concerned,” said Singer. “I would hope to
never see health and welfare are being sacrificed at the expense of a label.”
Most participants, including those already in RWA
programs, agreed that RWA production should include more stringent auditing and
assessment of health and welfare. Respondents were also asked to provide an
opinion on the statement “Antibiotic use in my animals does not cause problems
in humans.” Most respondents, including RWA producers, agreed that antibiotic
use does not cause problems in humans.
“How does RWA even fit in there?” said Singer, adding
that those respondents may have replied with a general opinion. “Even within
RWA production systems, there are times those animals will be diseased and
require antibiotics, so they may be responding based on that event. Regardless,
most respondents are saying that they agree with the statement that ‘use of
antibiotics does not cause problems in humans.’”
In general, respondents said the use of antibiotics in
their animals may make it more difficult to treat infections in the future.
However, the majority of the same respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed
that antibiotic use in animals may lead to bacterial infections in humans that
are more difficult to treat.
Would producers be willing to treat animals with
alternatives to antibiotics if those treatments were equally effective?
Respondents for all species overwhelming agreed or strongly agreed. “With
commodity-specific disease challenges, statements about the gap we have for
intervention also helps direct us toward a research program of ‘where are
disease problems in production that need help?’” said Singer. “We already knew what
the disease challenges were and how ineffective many of our control strategies
are. As many of us know, nothing works like an antibiotic.”
Singer reiterated market drive and fulfilling a
client/customer request as the main reasons for producers entering an RWA
program. “Market entry and sale price were also important,” he said. “If you
look at why conventional producers are not going RWA, concerns about negative
impacts to animal health and welfare are by far the most important choice they
made, and many of them said they were already in a responsible antibiotic use
program.”
A significant finding in the survey was a huge
discrepancy between what the respondents believe and the perception of
respondents about what the customer or retailer believes. “Respondents across
all the commodities believe that RWA worsens animal health and welfare, whereas
they think their customers believe health and welfare are significantly
improved,” said Singer. “That is a major communication gap that somehow we have
to close.”
