By MIKE MCGRAW

In the Kansas City area alone, various animal health firms account for nearly 32 percent of the $19 billion global animal health market, which includes drugs for pets. And some of those firms spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress on regulatory issues.

Pharmaceutical companies also spend lavishly entertaining potential customers. Bayer AG, a German company whose Bayer Animal Health division is based here, sponsored “Cowboy’s Night at the Opry and Barn Dance” this year at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association convention in Nashville.

Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, based in St. Joseph, are among five animal health companies that are “gold level sponsors” in the cattlemen group’s Allied Industry Partners program. They contributed $500,000 to the group.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said there is nothing unusual about that kind of financial support. “Companies that support NCBA support many state and national organizations,” an official said.

The Star asked both Bayer and Boehringer for information and tours of their manufacturing facilities early this year. The newspaper also submitted questions about antibiotic resistance.

After several additional inquires, Bayer sent a short letter and a copy of an industry-sponsored book about the history of U.S. animal pharmaceutical firms.

Eventually, Bayer also sent a written statement indicating they “strongly support the responsible use of antibiotic medicines and the involvement of a veterinarian whenever antibiotics are administered to food producing animals.”

Boehringer also said it believes veterinarians also have an “imporant role to play in the wellbeing of herds.”

FDA makes its move

After years of pressure, the FDA in April finally took limited action on animal antibiotics. But instead of the mandatory limits long advocated by public health groups, the federal agency sought only voluntary reductions.

“We are pleased that FDA has resisted unscientific calls to completely ban the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials in cattle and other livestock species,” said Tom Talbot, chairman of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Cattle Health and Well-Being Committee.

Talbot said he remains concerned, however, that regulatory actions could eventually “set the precedent to take animal care and health decisions out of the hands of veterinarians.”

Specifically, the FDA asked cattle feeders to voluntarily stop using antibiotics to enhance growth or feed efficiency.

That “guidance” specifically refers to “medically important” antibiotics, especially those used to fight increasingly antibiotic-resistant foodborne pathogens found in meat.

Medical use of the drugs for sick animals would not be affected, except that the agency is urging greater veterinarian oversight on those “therapeutic” uses as well. The FDA won’t evaluate those efforts until later, when it “may” consider further action.

But one bovine veterinarian said he was “conflicted and cynical about (voluntary efforts)” in his comments on this year’s survey by the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. “I am afraid as long as these drug use issues are all voluntary, there will never be adequate compliance.”

The FDA has acknowledged, at least internally, that the voluntary effort has its limitations, according to internal agency records obtained by The Star. The documents noted that “FDA collects insufficient data on drug use…to measure the effectiveness of the strategy.”

Public health groups and environmentalists also are dubious. As a result, they took their battle to court last year, where a federal judge took more action in a few months than the FDA has in decades.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others sued the FDA in March 2011 to force it to go beyond a voluntary effort and actually ban the use of antibiotics as growth promoters.

Research has shown for years, their lawsuit noted, “that the use of antibiotics in livestock leads to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can be…transferred from animals to people through direct contact, environmental exposure, and the consumption and handling of contaminated meat and poultry products.”

Earlier the judge in the case ordered the FDA to withdraw approvals for penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed, unless drug manufacturers can prove they are safe.

In August, the court also ordered the FDA to “stop dillydallying” and hold regulatory hearings about the use of those drugs in livestock production.

The agency appealed those rulings.

Asleep at the switch

Critics contend Americans can’t depend on the government to ensure the meat on their plate is free of residues from antibiotics and other drugs because the monitoring system is hopelessly broken.

Even the USDA’s own audits agree.

“The national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues,” according to a 2010 USDA audit.

Federal agencies charged with monitoring harmful substances in meat have failed to set limits for pesticides and heavy metals such as copper and cadmium, some of which can be left behind by veterinary drugs, according to the USDA’s inspector general.

The audit found that has resulted in contaminated meat being distributed to the public.

Even when federal regulators set tolerances and find harmful residues, they don’t always prevent consumers from eating it.

Between July 2007 and March 2008, for example, the USDA found meat from four carcasses had higher-than-allowed residues of veterinary drugs, such as antibiotics and anti-parasite medicines. Even though the residues could cause stomach, nerve, or skin problems, the agency took no action.

Under federal law, recalls are voluntary on the part of meat packers. In order to pressure a plant to do so, the USDA has to prove that a single serving is likely to make someone sick.

“The audit was an impetus to improve a lot,” one top official of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, told The Star. In July this year, more than two years after the audit, the department announced reforms.

Officials said they shifted toward “a more public health-based sampling approach” that includes more screening for veterinary drugs, pesticides, and arsenic, a residue of some drugs. The agency, however, still is not testing for copper.

The inspector general’s office hasn’t scheduled a follow-up audit, but told The Star, “it is a topic that (the agency’s watchdog group) will consider…for additional review.”

The consequences of antibiotic overuse in humans and animals — and the residues they leave behind — are dire, warned Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization.

If something isn’t done soon, Chan said it could mean “the end of modern medicine as we know it…and things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”