It’s tough for me to get to work in DC without seeing posters on the subway with pink rosy pigs, asking “Who’s hogging our antibiotics?”

The Pew Charitable Trusts has initiated a campaign to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock. As the ads point out, routine use of antibiotics in farm animals can foster the development of antibiotic-resistance bacteria than can infect humans.

For years, microbiologists have raised their thin, meager voices against this practice. But now they seemed to be joined by some other voices that might carry wider impact. For instance, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof weighed in this March against rourtine use of antibiotics in agriculture. Last week Principal deputy FDA commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, testified before congress on the issue, saying:

"Purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use" says Sharfstein.

The problem is that many animals, raised in cramped quarters, receive antibiotics in their feed much of their lives. Cows that eat corn, instead of grass, are more susceptible to infection. Even the the family farm I took my kid to last month, the friendly one with the pettable happy cows, fed their chickens bags of “Medicated” feed.

Bills to restrict the practice have been kicking around the US Congress for years now, but agriculture interests have kept them from going anywhere. It’s conceivable this year’s version might have a better chance.

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Direct to consumer advertising of drugs has been a target of FDA and pharmaceutical company critics. After the debacle of Vioxx, in which the heavily advertised drug was pulled from the market, many called for stricter regulation of such advertisements, or an outright ban. There's been some tightening of drug advertising oversight by the FDA: for instance, the agency recently told General Mills to stop claiming that Cheerios is "clinically proven to reduce cholesterol."

But advocates for reform may have been missing an easy target: Pharmaceutical companies receive tax deductions for such advertisements. This week, congressman Charles Rangel proposed dropping this deduction, which could raise as much as $37 billion over 10 years--money he says could be put towards overhauling health care. The big four television networks oppose this idea, noting that advertising employs millions of people in the United States.

What do you think? Is this a worthy tax deduction, or is Rangel right to call for its elimination?

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)