Farm and Pharmaceutical Lobbies Push Back Against Antibiotics Legislation
A study
published Tuesday by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
highlighted the role of the farm and pharmaceutical industries in
blocking congressional efforts to reduce the use of antibiotics in meat
production.
And indeed, major agribusiness and
pharmaceutical interests have spent serious money on lobbying this year,
some of it on the controversial antibiotics issue.
The
practice of feeding cows antibiotics to fatten them prior to slaughter
has sparked concern among some lawmakers and many food safety advocates,
who point to recent studies suggesting such methods could have negative long-term effects on humans. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has introduced legislation
that would put a stop to the practice, but the bill is not likely to
gain much traction in the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives.
The
practice of feeding cows antibiotics to fatten them prior to slaughter
has sparked concern among some lawmakers and many food safety advocates,
who point to recent studies suggesting such methods could have negative long-term effects on humans. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has introduced legislation
that would put a stop to the practice, but the bill is not likely to
gain much traction in the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives.
The Hopkins report found that industry pushback on Capitol
Hill was the main reason for the lack of progress. Center for Responsive
Politics data, combined with the most recent lobbying filings, show
that The American Farm Bureau,
the large nonprofit representing the interests of the farm industry,
has spent more than $3.3 million on lobbying in the first three quarters
of 2013, partly to advocate for the use of antibiotics. According to
its lobbying disclosures, the Farm Bureau is battling "an effort both
through legislation and regulation to limit the use of animal
antibiotics based on emotion and no credible peer reviewed science."
Other food industry organizations have thrown their towels in the ring, too. Both the National Beef Packing Company, which spent $30,000, and the National Pork Producers Council, which spent just under $400,000, have lobbied directly on the legislation introduced by Slaughter.
Major pharmaceutical companies like Merck & Co and Eli Lilly & Co, both of which manufacture antibiotics used by meat producers, have also gotten involved. Merck, which earlier this year had to halt production on the drug Zilmax amid concerns that it was causing health problems in cattle, has spent nearly $6.8 million lobbying this year. Among its issues was the use of additives in beef products.
Eli Lilly & Co, producer of the drug Optaflexx, which is also used to fatten cows, has spent even more -- northward of $8 million -- lobbying so far this year.
Other food industry organizations have thrown their towels in the ring, too. Both the National Beef Packing Company, which spent $30,000, and the National Pork Producers Council, which spent just under $400,000, have lobbied directly on the legislation introduced by Slaughter.
Major pharmaceutical companies like Merck & Co and Eli Lilly & Co, both of which manufacture antibiotics used by meat producers, have also gotten involved. Merck, which earlier this year had to halt production on the drug Zilmax amid concerns that it was causing health problems in cattle, has spent nearly $6.8 million lobbying this year. Among its issues was the use of additives in beef products.
Eli Lilly & Co, producer of the drug Optaflexx, which is also used to fatten cows, has spent even more -- northward of $8 million -- lobbying so far this year.