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 numerous 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.”

Scientific proof of the link between use of antibiotics in feed animals and antibiotic resistant infections in humans is widely accepted, however, including by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

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.

Updated, Oct. 29: This story has been modified to note that the link between antibiotic resistance in humans and the use of antibiotics in feed animals is accepted by the Centers for Disease Control.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]



