Sign up now!
Don't show this again

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Poultry Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app


Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report


Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
follow us

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Poultry Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Sponsored By Zoetis


The editors of Poultry Health Today are acutely aware of the hardships facing the poultry industry as it responds to plant closures, labor shortages and other challenges resulting from the pandemic.

At the same time, we recognize that maintaining flock health and biosecurity are vital to the industry’s long-term security and sustainability. We therefore will continue to report on the latest news and information to help the poultry industry meet this goal. As always, we welcome your comments and editorial suggestions.

Please click here to contact the editor.

Author of California bill defends using antibiotics to prevent disease

California lawmakers passed SB-835 (Food animals: medically important antimicrobial drugs), which mirrors the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Guidance 213 (covered in Influence Feed edition “Real Voices“), reports the latest edition of Influence Feed.

Like the FDA’s recommendations in Guidance 213, this bill limits use of medically important antibiotics in livestock to treatment, control and prevention, outlawing their use as growth promotants.

Opponents of the bill within activist groups such as Sustainable Table criticized (PDF) the bill for being too weak.

Jonathan Kaplan of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) articulated critics’ argument for limiting antibiotic use to treatment only, and not prevention: “We need laws to stop the practice of giving animals that are not sick low doses of antibiotics in their feed day after day.”

However, the bill’s author, state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), argued in The Sacramento Bee in favor of using antibiotics for prevention.

“[Critics] argue that SB 835 should also make it illegal to use antibiotics in livestock for preventative purposes. However, preventative use can be judicious,” he wrote in the editorial.

Hill noted that antibiotics are often given to humans for preventative purposes prior to surgeries. “Just as humans are given prophylactic antibiotics when a doctor deems it necessary, there are situations in which a veterinarian may determine that livestock need prophylactic antibiotics,” the senator added.

“Veterinarians are sworn to protect ‘animal health and welfare’ and to use their training for ‘the prevention and relief of animal suffering.’ We cannot simply remove a tool that veterinarians use to uphold their oath,” Hill said.

Visit Influence Feed for more industry trends and insights from key opinion leaders.


Posted on August 28, 2014

tags: , ,

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.