overuse of antibiotics. . . therapeutic use -- >> when you say working definition for both, the -- the, in terms of the economic costs, would you agree when we're, effectively, if you have a -- an

animal producer that is using antibiotics in a nontherapeutic way, there by, well documented of course, contributing to antibiotic resistant bacteria, that there would be a sizeable economic cost of that extra, that others would have to pay for. not the producer of the animal. somebody else would have to pay for treating people and -- secondary and tertiary antibiotics and another cost of treatment? >> i do believe it could be costly. >> maybe you could add to your own experience as a doctor and m.d., for somebody that has an antibiotic resistant infection, staff or strep or whatever it might be, what would then b >> what would then be a secondary and tertiary treatment for that individual? at approximately what might we be looking at from a cost

perspective? >> a typical event example in the case of a kid who might say presents with a strap or something and doesn't react to the first line medications. >> i think for something there staff, it would be one or 2000, that we relatively, and you might wind up treating him. i can't play off the top of my head, but you have a chance that if you don't catch it, it might not spread. one of the things is i rounded at the hospital and they presented to kid who came in

with staph infection. it was months and i was at resident. there's a cost in medicine. you are more likely to compromise it. >> right. and i'm sure that doctor cornell would be a hard place to put a price on the loss of his arm and extreme health impact in detrimental health impact for the rest of their life. but i think clearly we demonstrated that even in the best case scenario is what the outcome is positive, the secondary tertiary treatment can cost several times with the normal intervention would cost. i yield back. >> thank you mr. polis. >> sir, you work with, i mean

usda. is my understanding that fda, i personally know that every load of milk is delivered is tested within fda tests. is that not correct? there is a lot of nodding. >> i think that's correct. >> and i'm sorry i missed part of your testimony. so fda has approved test that they screen for an ally onyx. and so is your contention that

the test is inadequate, or are you fearful that somehow the milk would cause a children do have animatics that they shouldn't have? what's the problem here? fda is an improved test, every tanker load of milk is tested. point of 038 of the tanker load in america have a positive, and the cost is about $12000 per tanker load. i'm trying to figure out. >> when you think about the use of antibiotic and animal

therapy,. bacteria itself, humans, not bacteria cause illness in the human. with that would not apply to the milk. the second mechanism is not dangerous bacteria, but usual bacteria that there are's show resistant. that's the big concern that people have. probably also identified with milk. third is the amount of residue that is collected within humans. i have not been briefed on or testified about whether or not that was an issue. i think what i'm familiar with

is more of the first twin indirect route which is, dairy cows which may wind up if they have been treated with antibiotics and develop with anna meiotic. and that antibiotic bacteria goes through the food chain in the use of the. i'm familiar with what i believe it if i'm not mistaken, salmonella infection which i believe may be in dairy cows. so i hope i'm wrong about that. i think there is evidence that cows that have been treated a lot may have certain problems inexistent. >> as a legislative body, my wife is a family doctor, and she is very concerned about the use

of antibiotics in any medication that is therapeutically necessary. we certainly don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the health of patients. i want to make sure that we focus in on what is really going on. and we have to know what's happening, and i'm sorry again, i missed your opening statement, but you said you thought there might be, i really want you to tell us -- >> sir, i think, i'm not sure whether or not this example applies, but i'm not uncertain about the issue of whether, when you are to treat a cow for many

years, the risk that you have been talking about would apply directly, if there was in there. but i can't remember exactly that particular example. >> would the gentleman yield? maybe i can help a little here. we are talking about the use of antibiotics for poultry, in fact, 70% of all the antibiotics in the united states are given in animals that are not sick. are on record rise of antibiotic resistance of human beings. and as you mentioned, a tranny, which is common as dirt, it's involved in tran mrsa. that's what focus is here.

we have many kinds of anna meiotic which are used for human beings. >> and thank the general and for his testimony. i would yield. >> we thank you very much. welcome. we are delighted to have you here today and we look forward to working with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> next is doctor margaret mellon. phd, site interactor of food environment program of the union of concerned scientists. doctor lance b. price, phd, director, center for managing knowledge and human health and associate health investigator, division, the translatitranslation on jnana research institute. we will need another chair if you can pull one up. and doctor robert martin senior officer of human environment

grew. come forward, please. >> we welcome all of you here today. it's quite an honor to have you all here. why don't we begin with you, doctor mellon? >> thank you. my name is margaret -- >> would you pull the mike a little closer so you can be heard in the back. >> my name is margaret mellon and i'm here representing the union of concerned scientists. a nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and to save the world. i am also here on behalf of key by an anna biotic collation of environmental agricultural humane association dedicated to address the overuse of anna biotic use in agriculture. i am really grateful to have the

opportunity to appear here today to discuss an urgent public health and food safety crisis, the affected use of drugs and resistant to it before i begin i want to thank representative slaughter for her steadfast leadership on this issue. before i begin, that's not to go on. i have prepared a written testimony, but my message can be summarized it very briefly. the miracle drug 28 and 21st centuries are at risk, and the enormous use of antibiotics in production agriculture. we all know that the more we use antibiotics, the more bacteria to come resistant to them here but many do not know, however, is that we use huge quantities of antibiotics or something like 13 million pounds a year every

year. in the production of poultry and beef. importantly, these antibiotics are the very same or in the same chemical class as those we use in medicine, and that means that when those of penicillin, tetracycline, are used in doctor offices, they do not work. now, i want to be clear, overuse of antibiotics occurs in both in animal production. in both studies are responsible for the problems and need to take responsibility. but while the medical community, dr. sharfstein maker, have taken action on the issue on the production. we simply cannot continue to produce food animals.

we need to reduce that use and we can. because both of the drugs used by food producers are not used to treat sick animals, but to increase or for routine disease prevention. or both. those can be accomplished by other ways, including better management and its time we get about that process. as has been said, the resistant bacteria generated in food animals have lots of ways of moving to humans. most prominently, but not solely on food. after a result, the bacteria are connected to many kinds of disease. not just the foodborne illness like salmonella salmonella, an example. but also systemic lung infection, urinary tract infection, and most recently.

we have delayed on this mission for too long. key antibiotics working on the case for decades now. with little or no results for our efforts. but this story i think is the same for most of the food safety issues. for decades public health advocates have their vested interest. it is time to act on food safety and as it does it is perilous that we should not be ignored. in mrs. waters bill, the preservation of anna biotic would require fda to review the drug in those classes that are used in both human and animals. and if they cannot prove, get them off the market for purposes other than use of animals. the bill is supported by the american medical association and the nursing association, the

american academy of pediatrics, and many other medical organizations. getting anna biotic off the market would preserve the effort for drugs for both humans and animals. in the words of an editorial, new england journal of medicine it is time to stop. in fact, it is way past that i. thank you. >> thank you, doctor mellon. pull the mike of view would you, please? make sure it's on. >> chairwoman slaughter and distinguished members of committee. i am a microbiologist. i am here today to present testimony for the preservation of antibiotics of medical treatment act. antibiotics have saved countless

lives since they were introduced more than 50 years ago. antibiotics saved lives when they are administered in proper dose. however, it's a double-edged sword. when antibiotics are administered in low doses, in animal production, he rapidly select, concentrated feeding of anna biotic resistant bacteria. there are thousands of animals essentially back under unhygienic conditions and given routine antibiotics. when you treat an animal would antibiotics you select for resistant bacteria to grow, and the fecal and the bacteria are rapidly disseminated among the entire flock or heard via fecal content in is rampant and concentrate in animal feeding ground. fecal waste can contaminate animal carcasses during the slaughter process. now forges, you know, to underscore this point, as far as a couple of products.

i brought in raw poultry and raw chicken, which from my research and from government research, would indicate that these are potential biohazard. these are just products that you can buy at the grocery store. i don't know if you notice noticed, but if you buy these things, there's things that keep them from coming out. i think that's a potential biohazard and there is good evidence of that. my own research and research of norms indicates there is a good chance that these two products are contaminated with anna biotic. now, the most direct way to eliminate the anna biotic resistant bacteria on products such as these is to eliminate and biotic use in food animal production. so this includes any routine uses, whether for growth promotion, prevention, control,

or even therapy. and this is whether or not they are accepted by the american veterinarians association, not a public health issue. if they are used on a regular basis, and that's the problem. and that brings me to my next point. if an animal production system required routine antibiotic use, to keep animals from keeping sick, then that system is broken. second, so we do not try to prevent outbreaks of human disease using mass treatment of anna biotic except in extremely rare situations like the anthrax mailings in 2001, like the meningitis case we talked about. the prevention of infectious disease within human population is based on public health and hygiene and enter the debate things like underground sewers, things like vaccination, we would never do away with the public health interventions and rely soy on antibiotics to maintain human health. so why do we do this with animals? the military learned long ago that if bombs were placed too close together than the bombs

troops would fall ill. it is not to provide prophylactic antibiotics to all the troops. it was to have strategic placement of a bunks so you don't share bacteria. the food animal industry must be forced to modify their production method in order to eliminate all routine antibiotic input. successful models for large-scale antibiotic free and production already exists and are used to place millions of animals in the united states without the aid of antibiotics. given the human health risk exploder overuse of antibiotics is animal production in the existence of viable alternatives, we should ban all nontherapeutic and routine antibiotic uses an animal production in order to preserve the utility of these lifesaving drugs for treating sick people. in industry lobbyist might try to convince you not to regulate his antibiotic use in food and animal production by counting one of their favorite one-liners, the signs just aren't there. however, the scientists in a

public health research does not have any financial safe. i'm here today there is sufficient evidence to say that routine antibiotics in food animal production poses a substantial human health risk. infectious diseases do not respect political orders. they move freely and now rapidly around the world. the sooner we implement sound legislation to curb all unnecessary antibiotic use in the united states, the sooner we can begin reading the rest of the world to do the same so we can protect american citizens from anna biotic resistant bacteria both in the united states and abroad. the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment act of 2009 is a solid first effort towards having global years of anna biotic infection. i think the entire panel for the opportunity to speak today. thank you. >> thank you, manager. my name is bob martin. i'm senior officer.

pci was the executive director of the commission on industrial farm animal production. i very much appreciate the opportunity to appear here today on this important health issue, the site a part of our health care crisis. and i appreciate your introduction of preservation of anna biotic for treatment act as a. the pew commission was a two and a half year study commission funded by the pew journal trusted to as an independent commission funded by involving a cross-section of individuals. the commissioners had expertise in animal agriculture, production, animal agriculture, public health, medicine, veterinary medicine, ethnics and state and federal policy develops. we were to buy former kansas governor john carlin who would also been in the end one of our members was former secretary of agriculture dan glickman. we also have any audience today

who will be speaking later one of our commissioners, mr. fidel bowsher was a leader among our commissioners as well. the general charge of the commission was to develop consensus recommendations to solve the public health environment and the welfare and rural community problems caused by industrial farm animal production. as i said, we develop consensus recommendations using a fairly exhaustive process. we conducted 11 meetings around the country, spent 280 hours deliberating on the information. we receive. we received thousands of pages of information for an animal act industry and all interested parties. we had two public hearings, one in north carolina and one in arkansas where over 400 people attended the two meetings. we visited all types of industrial farm animal productions in north carolina, iowa, colorado, california and arkansas. we reviewed 170 peer-reviewed reports, and commissioned eight reports of our own.

we had a couple of general funnies. one finding was that the current system of food animal production in the united states is unsustainable. it represents an unacceptable level of risk to public health. unacceptable level to the entire. it's detrimental to the long term economic activity of the communities where they are housed. another general finding was that we found a do or influence at every turn by the industrial animal agony she whether its policy to comment on the federal or state level, policy enforcement on the federal or state level, or academic research at our meeting schools. we developed 24 considers consist of primary recommendations. global those recommendations concerned public health issues, final anna biotic use all of your our primary number one concern from a public health aspect was that he and of the nontherapeutic use of anna biotic port animal production.

the second definition or second recommendation goes along with the first recommendation is how we defined therapeutic and nontherapeutic. we define therapeutic use as being applied in the case of microbial, diagnosed microbial disease. all other use is nontherapeutic we did have a provision for prevention or prophylactic use that would be covered in the case of a disease outbreak in a flock of birds or a herd in anticipation of the disease that would be cause by shipping or other production practices. however, it was very important in our definition of prevention or prophylactic use that it be for a very, very limited amount of time. as the chairman indicated, the national academy of sciences said that antibiotic resistance cost $5 billion a year. that's up almost $18 a person for every person in the united states. , man, woman and child.

and recently in 2005, tufts university up to that estimate to $50 billion a year of cost to the health care system. in 1999, the national academy of sciences on 1998 studies saying that ending the nontherapeutic use in production would increase prices, food prices by five to $10 per consumer. so that's actually a savings of, you know, 12 to $7 per person if you go by the understudy. the pew commission believes there is more than enough signs to warn the banning. there have been scientific studies that link and a biotic use on the farm to resistant e. coli and salmonella infections. and would also think the danish experiment, experience is very important as the chairman said. they been growth promotion of

anna biotic use of anna biotic in 1998. the data has been analyzed for the last 10 years, and the study is being released in the journal of the american veterinarian nickle association by the authors of the study. and what they found is, number one, integrate the united states and rest of world we use more and about in food production in any of the country in the world. and that's on page 10 of my submitted statement. in denmark, looking specifically in denmark, the total amount of anna biotic being used now is less than the total amount of anna biotic used pre-ban. that's the chart on page 11 of my written statement. it also shows that the resistance, in humans has declined post-ban. the resistance in the animal population has declined post-ban. and while they did show an increase in mortality for a shortage of time among winners

in feeder pigs, once they start instituting better animal husbandry practices, claiborne, more ventilation for the bard, or space for the animals, better waste handling, then the mortality, mortality has decreased significantly in swine production. productivity has actually gone up post-ban. there are more pigs, more piglets per cell. so the worry that there is going to be you know a world food shortage that some people would like to promote if we ban in this country is not founded based on these experiments are again, i think you for this important piece of legislation. and for this hearing today. i was very impressed with all the knowledge that the members have about this very important issue.

>> i appreciate all three of you here today. sorry. is because of c-span we have to turn us on. i need to remind everybody when you're not talking, please turn off your mike. first off, again i want to thank you for the great work you have done. it has really stood up for good signs were good signs of bad science is pretty prevalent. and i can't say how much i appreciate that over the years. i have to say that in the last eight or nine years, my sense about the fda, which i always felt was the gold standard for the world, has fallen to the point where i really hold fta below regard i i was so pleased that we see some light at the end of the tunnel now with these people here now.

this is a serious problem that the public really wants. up in my part of the country, when they wanted, the mill, the uprising was so strong. free range animals, all of those things, that people were more concerned than i. i have ever noticed in my lifetime. that they wanted to make sure that what they had was safe. in addition. , i was pleased that you brought up the denmark study because i think that's a very important thing for us to deal. one of the questions that i wanted to ask for either three of you is the fda 2004 query. the company that makes penicillin for use in food animal, do they present any evidence, that you know of? this is the 2004 inquiry.

>> not that we know of. we know of a request since the companies by the fda for evidence of safety, but we don't know of any of the companies responded. >> that the fda had to go on? smack the fda said it hasn't acted on. >> well, we don't have any results from that, is that correct? no report at all? >> is amazing to me that despite pitas request from congress that risk assessment that apparently had been done by the fda have not been, had not been released either to congress or to the public. >> i think that's been an interesting example that had been prohibited. the fda prohibited in 2008 and

then federal registry determined extra label uses that would present risk to human health, and cdc agreed, but on november 28, 2008, the fda revoked the order, prohibiting the extra label use, said that they had too many comments on the order. are you all aware of that? >> i certainly am. >> those were supposed to be at taking care of. >> they did. they revoked the order, and the union of concerned scientists have requested that the agency reinstate the order. but so far we have not heard back from the fda. >> i think that's something the panel needs to take up with the fda. you talked about the transfer, resistance transfer. that's a little hard to grasp.

will you explain to us how that is transferred. we would appreciate it. >> antibiotic resistance bacteria is coded or elicited by either mutations in the dna or fragments of dna in the gene. and a lot of those genes are what we call mobile resistant elements, little pieces of dna that bacteria can hand back to us. not hands. but they can pass back and forth. it sort of like a lateral pass in football but in this case you make a copy of it before you handed out. or maybe you could think about spy secrets that allow you to escape arrest. you know, you make a copy of a secret and pass it off to one of your other spies and you now have the information that lets you escape that anna biotic. every time you are using antibiotics, you are selecting for all of those bacteria that are contained in the information. and so we met, maybe that passed

that information is rare, but when you apply that anna biotic than all those who don't have the information die off, or most of them die off and the ones that do have the information grow. and so the citizen becomes dominated by the organism that hold that information. does that help? >> it helps. do you think anonymous will play a role? >> that's a backwards way of approaching it. >> that's what we are trying to do. that's the whole course of this bill. now, the industry that these animatics on the database is called routine daily is good if we call it prevention but we use it every day, isn't that the same that we have a system that make those animals are prone to catching disease? >> i said it in my statement and i will repeat it right now. if you have to use repeated

antibiotics, routine and a biotic to keep animals from being sick or to make animals healthy again, you have a broken system. >> you know that this bill has done a lot of work that few which we thank you. certain terms were not therapeutic, therapeutic and prophylactic antibiotic. the commission is very important since this is clearly defined. how did you come to those conclusions? >> well, we had leaders in medicine and veterinary medicine, and i think through the period is what we found is that just what we heard today at the hearing from what the chairwoman has expressed, is an lest you very clear he defined the terms, the industry will use antibiotics on a routine basis and call it disease control or prevention. and so we decided to make a very

narrow definition of therapeutic use after, you know, several hours of discussion internally and consulting with other human health experts and veterinarians experts. and i would just like to reiterate what doctor price said. i mean, the system is broken. the lack of animal husbandry that they attach on a broken system, they are a crutch that allowed us to overcrowd animals and not treat the waste properly. and their are also, the commission found getting a little bit off the subject here, but there are links found in keeping the animals together that escalate the development of flu viruses. we had a real concern that because antibiotics of a lot of the animals were overcrowded because of the intense exposure of individuals, with the animals, that another flu virus would be generated similar to swine flu. >> and a gallon, didn't we?

i know that you work with lots of individual. did you work with the animal agriculture? >> we did. >> what were the results? >> in the report, we said it was a response to the commission by the animal ag industry was pretty broad. ranged from cooperation to open hostility. we did work with the animal acted all lines and they helped us get access to some facilities which is very hard to get in to see some of these industrial operations. we consulted a lot of academics that receive funding from the industry. in the end, i think that they were pretty upset because we have broadscale changes. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you, madam chair and think you all for being here today. i clearly respect your expertise and your experience in these matters. i'm really interested in the economic imperatives that

provide this legislation is needed. in the testimony that we received, it is good failure to take action could have dire economic consequences. we've heard that failure to act on this bill means there will continue to be spending over $4 billion a year of preventable hospital visits. we also heard that failure to act exposes our u.s. food industry to trade challenges. through april of this year the country's farmers export almost $937 million worth of meat. that is about 277,000 metric tons of meat in the first four months of 2009 a loan. this is a huge industry for our country at a critical time in history. we can't afford to leave our meat industry behind by market changes that fail to see or react to. doctor mellon, you devote a great deal of your testimony to the potential market

disadvantages that u.s. meat producers would face if we fail to enact chairwoman slaughter's legislation. i'm someone who does recognize the critical role that international trade place in our country, economy. i'm hoping that you will be able to elaborate on your analysis today. you used korea, thailand and new zealand as examples of countries that compete with usb and that could conceivably restrict beef imports that do not conform to their own quality standards. how would these countries take such action hurt american meat producers? >> any country that is already restricted the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in its own food animal production has what i would call a kind of card in its pocket that it can play anytime it chooses. and the card is as follows. under trade rules, a country is

allowed to restrict the import of products coming into the country where those products do not adhere to the -- to rules that the country is willing to impose on its self. so where a country has itself decided to restrict antibiotics use, it has the card to play to restrict the import of u.s. imports into that country because we do not adhere to those rules and so for long we don't. we don't know if they're going to play that card, but many, many of our competitors are looking for it, you, virtually any angle in what is a very competitive market, international marketplace. so that's the kind. they could establish rules, and those rules would not fall under a wto challenge as long as i

said. they are not allowing in products that don't adhere to rules that they are willing to impose on themselves. of your basically saying to use that as a way to not -- >> do not import rb. or any other product. >> any estimate what sort of economic impact this development would have on american beef producers? are we talking in millions or billions of dollars? >> i'm not -- i really wouldn't want to venture into that area. it's not my area of expertise. but i think it would, just because of the size of the international marketplace, is so large that it could be, could be important. i mean, i think the handwriting is on the wall. this is i think the american kind of meat industry is sort of like the auto industry. they just can't see that it's in their own advantage to start doing what needs to be done.

>> so are there, you feel there are other countries that are moving toward limiting antibiotic use so they can legally prevent trade barriers? >> no, i would say certainly, no, based on the expense, the country is restricting and a biotic use in protect the health of its own citizens. but i think that's more producers. in denmark i believe is the world's largest exporter of pork. this is no small industry there, that they understand that there will be trade advantages as well. they would rather be ahead of the game. >> thank you. can you go on with the denmark experience because my understanding, they had experienced very little economic dislocation. they must've had some dislocation. >> actually not. i was fortunate enough to be on

a conference call with the author of the study that will be published next month that there have been very little economic dislocation. but to answer the question about disruption in the marketplace, i think it would cost american meat industry billions of dollars if the challenge like that were issued. i think you only have to look at what happens when there's a bse scare, you know, that what happens to export. russia periodically banned imports of u.s. because of concerns about antibiotic residue on the export, and the entire european union has joined denmark in the ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. food animals in 2006, they did in eu wide ban so i think the potential for a trade challenge is pretty serious. but there's not been a lot of economic dislocation ace on the denmark study. it did find that i think more people have to be involved in

agriculture to produce the animals, but it wasn't, it wasn't this major, you know, disruption that domestic u.s. industry like you believe. >> okay. thank you very much. >> they do, madam chair, and thank you for your interesting and very in a transformative testimony as you heard earlier. i am a strong supporter of what we are here to talk about today and have little experience so i was very pleased to hear all of you reinforce that. thank you very much. i just would ask you a couple of things just to reinforce what you were already talking about. and thank you, miss know it to the economic impact of what we are hearing about here and how it is our had consequences in the health field and also the economic in our export. i thought it's important to enforce how significant this could be as we continue down this path.

i want to thank mr. price for reminding us again that if the system, the system requires constant of antibiotics is already unhealthy. as i mentioned before, my educational background and my life experience is around organic plant grazing like a simple progress to be. if we can't get from here to there doesn't make any sense to me. in fact, even having this hearing knowing what we know. it doesn't make any sense. i just want to actually ask my only question of mr. martin. thank you for the work that pew did. that was odyssey very helpful in bringing us to this point. you mention in passing the issue of undue influence and that you saw at several levels, as far as we're concerned we wouldn't be here today. if there was an undue influence in reinforcing bad decisions being made. could you just kind of set out a little bit, i'm interested in hearing what you said with a

little more link attached to it so we can really think about what the root problem is here and why we don't fix it. >> i think one of the main problem is the lack of public funding for research at land-grant schools. there's been widespread cutbacks, both state and federal level. that should be doing research, which if it's public dollars it will be for the common good. that cutback has been replaced by industry funded research, educate blame the industry for wanting to fund research that promote its business model or its product. but that is not always in the vein of public health or in the broader keeping broader public health and my. there's also a lot of influence by some of the species promotion of groups like the national pork producers council influencing state and federal policymakers and enforcement of existing regulations and laws. >> thank you. thanks again to all of you.

[inaudible] >> is it true that half of that 70% figure,. [inaudible] >> i can take that question. the 70% of -- i guess i should preface it by saying there are two broad classes of chemicals that we are talking about here. antibiotics and, antibiotics that are used in human medicine and anionic that are not. often, the entire class including both antibiotics that are used in human medicine and

those that are not are called antimicrobials. and a figure that was cited in the report that the union of concerned scientists actually published is that 70% of the antimicrobials used -- are used in humans they are used in animals in only three species and for non-therapeutic use. now, as we make land as i made clear in my testimony, only half of the 24 million pounds are drugs that we using human medicine are therefore of concern i think to the folks here. out, in fact, the 70% number stands, whether it's a percentage of all of the antimicrobials used or whether it's all of the north nearly

declined antibiotics. >> personal use by the animals, and some of those antimicrobials -- >> know, the 13 million pounds million that we came up with represents antibiotics that were fed to animals for non-therapeutic purposes. mostly in seats. occasionally in water. it does not include the use of antibiotics for dips and other purposes. and i would say across the board, regardless of the purpose for which antibiotics are used, we do not have adequate data to answer the question with a specificity and accuracy i would like to be able to answer them. >> in the farm bill this year, it was included that usda and

fda collect that data, track? >> the animal drug use, yes. [inaudible] >> there are no provisions that i'm aware of in the farm bill that would require the collection. [inaudible] >> there is some research that is authorized in the farm bill to kind of provide the background for the issue to figure out why antibiotics are used to trace their movement off the farm. that is in the farm bill. it is a program that, although authorized, there are no funds appropriated for it which we would very much like to see happening. it is a kind of data that we would very much like to have, but on top of that, we also would like to have what they

have in denmark, for example. they are able to tell you precisely the quantities of antibiotics used in their animal agriculture, and for what purposes, so they can really follow it overtime. >> i think that's very valid. i totally support, i think people have the knowledge, or exam, i am the chair so i believe we will be able to make progress. as you talk about denmark and mentioned several times a day, when they banned therapeutic use of anna biotic, it's my understanding that therapeutic use would drop dramatically. in fact, it went up 135%. >> it did go up some. primarily for the treatment of disease and in young pigs.

but it did not go up as much. as overall use came down. >> we have seen a number of times and agriculture that over years, there's a reason why some are treated and we are concerned that those diseases could cause in human population as well. so there is some reason to be concerned, not just of the disease that what they're getting at. so that goes to another question about how to prevent those diseases, but it's not just always that there is some gain and that's the point i want to make. thank you. mr. price, the way you handle that chicken, i set mine up in your first i'm. >> i've handled a lot of

chicken. >> i want to talk to you about that. they also produced chicken, and had toxic bacteria on free range chicken. would have had the same effects? would you cook it any different? >> i've done studies comparing products, poultry product from animals raised without antibiotics in conventionally raised product. i was looking for the second leading cause of bacteria in the united states just in salmonella. there was a significant difference and a substantial difference, probably, i need to go back to the numbers and i can get those exact numbers, about a tenfold difference between those organic and raised with anna biotic products compared to conventional race. so there was much more on the conventional product. >> was at a. you study?

if you can get it to me i would appreciate it. i have two different studies that have been done. >> was the chicken that you compared was it prior to process and after process? sometimes that takes care of some of those. >> these were from the grocery store just like this. >> i would like to have that study. >> i would be happy to share. >> manager, thank you. >> magis go back to, i think the danish use of the expect is very important and i just want to reiterate on page 11 of my written testimony. this is the actual chart that will be issued in the journal of american veterinarian association next month. it's by the doctor, the doctors study. it shows that this antibiotic

use, both there. and growth promoter, and this is the antibiotic posed ban. it does go up some but it has leveled off looks like starting at about 2004 to 2008. as you can see, it's a dramatic reduction in use when you combine non-therapeutic and therapeutic. i think you have to look at that combined figure to get an accurate idea. >> i think it was a temporary spike. there was an outbreak initially. >> i think you mentioned that. >> one more question. is that by weight? if you dilute it somehow, i mean, if you provide a strong concentration, is that, how are you measuring that? >> is measuring i think in your

packet, the doctors have atchley submitted testimony that probably better for them to address the need, but it shows milligrams use per kilograms of meat. >> thank you all very much. we appreciate you being here. your testimony has been invaluable. thank you so much. our next panel will be two members of congress, congresswoman schakowsky from illinois and congressman boswell from iowa. they will come forward, please. doctor price is going to take his chicken. michigan oust, we will begin with you. >> thank you madam chairwoman i

really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to your committee. some vulnerabilities are thrust upon us as a nation. and others like the ones we are discussing is really self-imposed. we all felt extremely vulnerable after 9/11, and we looked for all of the ways that we could protect ourselves and all the potential attacks that might come upon us. we talked about biologic weapons that might threaten our country. and windy h1n1 virus came out, i know it was a bacterial infection, but is this the big one and are we ready for that? is this going to, you know, be the plague of our generation. well, on this battlefield, it seems as if we are disarming ourselves. and we are not doing it for

good, solid health reasons. we are doing it in order to grow animals faster or, you know, but not to promote growth and not to promote health. we know, and you have heard all the science, that the food and drug administration has seven classes of antibiotics that are highly or critically important in human medicine. and they are used as the additives. i'm not going to go over those, which i think has been very adequately presented. but my friend for example is one of these people who has had breast cancer and has had trouble with her arms and is very susceptible to bacterial infection. spends a lot more time in the hospital for every admission when she gets such an infection. and here we are at this moment

looking for ways that we are going to be able to provide health care to all americans, and do it in an economical way. and again, you've heard some of those numbers. the estimated 114 million people infected with salmonella each year about one in five cases. is resistant to antibiotics. what does that mean? it means longer stays in the hospital, more medical care. of the 2.4 million annual campell back infections, about half are drug-resistant. many resistant to two or more antibiotics. we have to keep trying more and more, more and more things. blast . . selves down at a moment that we want to protect ourselves at a -- as a nation.

and we surly want to protect the health care of americans. the university of illinois researchers found in 2001 and in 2007 that routine and tetracycline use at farms was contaminating groundwater with tetracycline resistant bacteria, which would then cheri resistance with other bacteria through gene transfer. researchers concluded that, "brown water may be a potential source of antibiotic resistance in the food chain -- groundwater may be a potential source of antibiotic resistance in the food chain." 1 type of resistant bacteria, mrsa, has risen 57% in just four years. it seems to me that when a solution is at hand, and we have heard testimony about other countries that have done this without any dramatic affect all

to the industry, what we are talking about using these antibiotics not for therapeutic reasons in animals -- and we are not really discussing that right now -- that we ought to do the smart thing. as you may know, madam chair, my hope was to introduce this legislation, your legislation as part of the overall health reform that we are doing right now. we do have language in there now that would look at this issue and the importance of this issue. i did it as much, again, for the health of the country as an effort to save money on health care. and do it in a smart way. my hope is that this committee, and then the full house, will look at this as a stand-alone issue, pass through legislation

h.r. 1549 for all the reasons that i have mentioned and for all of the absolutely unassailable data behind us to back up its effectiveness and its importance. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. boswell? >> thank you, chairwoman and a committee to allow me to brief you today ensure my testimony. my good friend from chicago came here -- and i came here together and we do a lot of good things together. i do believe we do a lot for animals and not just for the animals, but to keep as i share my testimony. i spent most of my life involved in agriculture and i've seen firsthand the responsible use of antibiotics. i understand the issues that affect the livestock, dairy and poultry industries having spent most of my youth with and

livestock production and today i still have a hand in managing and cattle calf operation on my farm in southern iowa. once i retired from 20 years ago i may move back to return to farming. things changed so i sat down with my local veterinarian who actually manages our little cattle operation now and his senior partner and people from iowa state university to discuss the use of the antibiotics to treat sick animals and prevent future illness. from my experience with producers and veterinarians with awful use of antibiotics is not the exception, it is the rule. part of that was my young son who is going to have a 4h cafta, and it wanted him to learn and i thought maybe he would form some day. he is not but i want him to understand what he was doing and

i thought i would like to take care of the kids so i went to the fair and would probably end up buying it and send it to the locker and go from there so i want to be sure what i read my children was healthy. during the 110th congress it was my privilege to serve as the chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on livestock, prairie -- dairy and poultry and last year we held a hearing to review the advances in animal health with in the livestock industry. i have a report out like to submit. >> without objection a. >> thank you. we specifically looked at how antibiotics are used on america's livestock farms and our witnesses included veterinarians from usda's animal -- plant inspection services and the fda's center for better mary madison, of veterinary practitioners and academics from across the country. we believe that we heard from a good cross-section of the users of animal health products. doctors responsible for the use

of antibiotics and the experts that in the resistance trends and the use of antibiotics in animals. as of the subcommittee members listen to the witnesses it became clear that the american livestock, dairy and poultry producers have a responsibility to safeguard animal health and the public health. responsibilities they take very seriously. there are committed to using antibiotics responsibly and have developed responsible use guidelines for each of their respective industries. they did not develop these guidelines because congress told them to do so, they developed the guidelines because it was the right thing to do for their animals and their consumers. i think the perspective and what mrs. shared last year our import and today about h.r. 1549. i would like to take a few moments to take what we learned from the hearing and turn to when h.r. 1549 would do to livestock industry. as i anger stan, h.r. 1549 would remove seven clauses of antibiotics for the market

unless they can demonstrate they are safe and effective. well, i can tell you are when this is clearly outlined the rigorous approval process they must go through to gain approval already. all antibiotics used keep animals healthy have passed an in-depth fda process and have been shown to be saved and elective and have undergone review for their potential to cause increased antibiotic resistance. h.r. 1549 would require antibiotics sponsors to prove again what has already been proven during the judicial fda approval. this fda process is stringent, space, regulatory review and takes years and millions of dollars for acquiring another step on their minds of the fda's progress every view of human health individual and what drugs based on science and risk assessment. hmd 15 borgnine overlooks a legitimate veterinary reserve and the antibiotic to preserve

healthy animals in the food chain. there are a few new antibiotics anticipated for approval by fda so if i h.r. 1549 is enacted and promise remove from the marketplace, america's livestock producers will be left with few if any medicines to prevent and control animal disease. h.r. 1549 will result in a more sick animals and it is my fear and concern that it will leave us less safe food supply. in the mid-1990s european union made it decided to phase out these antibiotics and denmark as a part industry roughly equivalent to the size of the port in my state of iowa which is the largest per producing state in our country. and institute a voluntary plan in 1998 which became mandatory in 2000. many proponents are restricting the use of antibiotics as a

model that often pointed this instituted in denmark. citing major drop in the amount of antibiotics used in pork production in that country. well, come on, when you ban the use of a product it is self-evident that the u.s. would drop. and what the proponents never seem to discuss on the other a fax of a ban but would like to call your attention to the testimony received in my subcommittee for these attacks discuss in detail and some of our witnesses had been visited denmark and seen first that and that the downturn in swine health in that country. after the band became fully implemented in the pork producers sought immediate increase in the diarrhea and an increase in piglet mortality which does have long-lasting of exxon and the danish pig industry. the increase in piglet deaths and the overall impact on animal well-being might be acceptable if it resulted in agreement to public health but such improvements have not

materialized and while overall use of a antibiotics in denmark declined there has been a marked increase in a therapeutic use of antibiotics. those used to country and in control diseases. today the use of therapeutic antibiotics in danish bonds was used to prevent disease and promote growth to the continue to rise each year. as for cost of a 2009i was state university study estimated the raise the cost by it $6 per been in the wrist year after that provision. 10 years after the ban they would exceed 1 billion. a recent study by dr. scott heard a professor of i was a humorous and is better in very medicine and former u.s. to permit of agriculture deputy of undersecretary for food safety demonstrated that when things have been sick during their life will have a greater presence of food safety pathogens on their carcasses.

this is a series of the occasion that must be considered when looking at the cost and benefits of a antibiotic use in livestock. in our discussions on antibiotic use in animal production in may and need to be clear what the issue really is. h.r. 1549 is confusing the problem by antibiotic resistance in general with a vaulted blending of who antibiotic use in animals. most informed scientists and public health officials acknowledge that the problem of antibiotic resistance that in humans is overwhelming an issue related to a human drug use. the 2006 report from the ministry of food technologists and international scientific said in quotes, eliminating an abiding trust from food and animal production may have little positive affect on resistant bacteria that thrive human health. in fact, they may be detrimental her to public health. as our witness is outlined in my subcommittee antibiotic

resistant bacteria develop from many factors including human use of antibiotics and routine household use and disinfectant antibacterial soap. according to a paper published in 2001 in the journal of the american better nouri medical association, people and their pets on a profound bases used 10 times the amount of antibiotics used in food animal production. more than 95 percent of the antibiotics used for animals are devoted to treating them for disease conditions not as growth promoters as many seem to claim. protecting human health and providing safe food are paramount to america's livestock producers. that is why we test for antibiotics residue as part of our food safety program. at the fda established winstrol times or withholding tams which are times after drug treatment in milk and eggs not to be used for food enter which animals are not to be slaughtered. two-thirds of this bill has been

enacted to law and should be allowed to work before removing products from the market. the provisions require more and more speed nine research into solutions to antibiotic resistance as part of the farm bill in 2008. the animal drug user fee amendments of 2000 require fda took the lead antibiotics sales data from a summary of that data public. the provisions are designed to provide better information to researchers conducting risk assessments and should be allowed to yield information before products are removed from the market. congress has already taken action and wish to see results from our action before it blooms will start moving into bonds from the market. as their witness today discussed the topic that is important to livestock producers not just my district and my home state and yours as well. i sincerely hope that we consider what my subcommittee learn last. h.r. 1549 will have detrimentally affects not only on our first by also and public

health. and again i want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. i hope as a farmer and as a user of antibiotics i have offered some insight into livestock perspectives. in the united states we are very blessed to have the safest most plentiful and most affordable food supply in the world. as a policymaker domestic hard look at hard decisions affect human health and our ability to feed ourselves in the world. in as a further know, dr. orloff, the nobel peace prize winner and the world food prize winner, he told us that the world population is growing 90 million a year and we need a safe and affordable food and that is part of what we're all about. thank you for your consideration and i thank you very much. >> madam chairman, an act to correct my testimony it was the food safety belt that i wanted to add to your bed and there is language in there to look at

this issue. it could be in the overall health reform bill. >> mr. boswell, you and i have been good friends and i think the world living, but i can't agree with you on this. in the denmark study that you mentioned that has been refuted by the scientists and dr. mellon talked about to disagree data collection at the fda is supposed to do, it was money -- there wasn't a sense of money put in that bill to do that. our first witness was a new person at the fda who said this is the one most serious issues. he is a pediatrician and that there would be absolutely no question giving his children, three euro children antibiotics everyday. we're finding it in the water. as a microbiologist and has been really offensive to me and as i

mentioned a what happens with staphylococcus aureus and we have salmonella infection so badly you can eat less. the fda and i have made that clear earlier, let me give you an example. i'm going to read this to you. cephalosporins like many drugs used for purposes, as for label uses illegal unless a the fda and they did that in order published june 3rd and let's pay attention to days. on july 3rd coming to them as an aide to the federal register the fda said that as for label use is a risk to human health and should be prohibited and that was july. the cdc said that they agreed and supported the decision. in their letter came on november 7th, 2008.

a on november 28, the fda revoked the order prohibiting the extra labeled use of cephalosporins to treat animals and said they receive too many comments on the order. that is how the fda that affects human beings in this country. but i would think of living that would trouble me most because we know about food is produced in iowa and to export a great deal of it. are you concerned that the eu has banned the use of antibiotics in meet? and that that would be a great loss in the trade agriculture? >> i suppose it would but the point i think we're trying to make and i substantiated is at the use of therapeutic has gone up. >> therapeutic is fine, we don't want sick animals. the plant event -- of the preventative use of antibiotics, most animals are kept in some pretty awful conditions and that the disease spread so quickly among them between them that,

yes, go ahead and to enact you are a mad lady. >> i am mad, i can help that. >> i appreciate that, i learned that and we've had some good discussions and i know that to come from agriculture country so you sound like to come from kentucky. but the study of ohio found the salmonella is in a conventional figure was 90 percent of those studies tested positive. we're taking this very seriously and i don't want anybody to have unhealthy food and nobody here does. we know that. we are spending a lot and doing a lot to try to improve the health of animals.

one of the reasons i have the hearing last year was i among the producers. i do that from time to time and they are very serious about how to separate the animals, how to handle them and then go in and talk to the scientists said to the different things and be sure that they have the right atmosphere for a mere circulation and all those things. they make a continuous adjustment and i want to do it right. not one of us in production wants to have a sick animal. >> our major concern here is the seven antibiotics which many feel efficacious in human beings. we are finding that some many of them are no longer useful in humans, which is ms. schakowsky pointed out creates death. you can die from mrsa in 24

hours and staph aureus didn't kill anybody to my knowledge back in the days when i was in school, but in any case that is our question. are there any other questions of these witnesses? ms. matsui? >> thank you both for being here today. i appreciate both of you being strong advocates for your positions because i think both of you have a very valid positions. i am here because i think about the children. that is really what -- i have grandchildren, to end five years old. i may not have thought about when i was a little kid and what is so poor and to them. and i also tell you, mr. boswell, i was a farmer and i know how hard it takes to produce the food that may take for granted. >> i have grandchildren to end of does concern for mind as you are. >> i know you are and i know that i've understand how hard

farmers work in order to bring up the healthy food that we needed. you know, ms. schakowsky, how do see this legislation for helping improve children's lives in this country? >> well, you know, i have four grandchildren myself and i know that we all care about our kids and grandchildren but i think the nightmare scenario with is that something number that perhaps when we were young when have been routine dose of penicillin or some other antibiotic, suddenly is a big tent with and now we are struggling to find exactly what is and that is going to prevent this from becoming even a life-threatening situation. what started out as a bad knee scrape or something like that. and so i think that while

obviously a we want to treat a sick animal some the use of these antibiotics in farm animals and do i think in danger are held and there is evidence and to say that. and this is not speculation. we know the increase of morbidity because antiobiotic resistant. >> my home state in california we have been buffeted in recent years by outbreaks of salmonella and e. coli and our agriculture industry has suffered as a result particularly the spinach and tomato sectors and also know that fda had to recall 96,000 pounds of illinois p.m. and may because of concerns about the coli. how do you see legislation helping to eliminate this kind of carpet mark -- herbal market disruptions? >> as a member of the energy and

commerce committee over and over again and that was really the stimulus behind the food safety belt, we have had to confront the families that have lost loved ones, people who have been very sick because of a foodborne illness, and we are concerned that the non therapeutic use of antibiotics has been linked to the number of incidents of foodborne elias. and that it needs to be addressed. >> mr. boswell, i'm not a vegetarian. i do like beef and pork. >> i know that, i had dinner with you once. [laughter] >> and so i really want to make sure because i do like this, my children like this, and i want to enter chile also ensure the

economic stability of our nation's farmers to. and on of the concerns and that was brought to us as the chairman and talked about was what dr. mellon said in the, the trade factor, that factor that we may be disadvantaged because we are not moving ahead as the eu and probably countries like korea and thailand as far as setting up situations where they are not going to be using antibiotics situations so that they can and to lay say to us we are not going to have in your meat products that all. because you don't have the standards that we necessarily might have and our country. i feel certainly that that is something that we can't have happened and i think it is something we ought to be thinking about as far as an

agricultural industry, about some of those global problems that we might be disadvantaged that. >> i can assure you the pork producers and the beef producers and poultry are very conscious of that and they are continuing the science and watching very closely. they did want to give the market for that reason either and i don't think they will and i would like to say this, i remember the time when people were dying from smallpox and all those different things. we figured out how to do that. and we do the same thing with our animals and we have regulations in the system and so on. i think we are trying very hard to do that and do it right. that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement but we're willing to do that.

and the appreciation of what everything you say, i feel the same mike. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, thank you both of you for your testimony. i think we are now have some good questions and i would just reinforce one point that is important to me. thank you very much, mr. boswell, for your testimony about the work that was on your committee and everyone putting up their credentials, i wanted to know my family or scandinavian immigrants to iowa and my uncle and cousin are still on the family from their so we're deeply involved in the agriculture industry by moody's and took up organic farming is a look from a different perspective and i want to reinforce what ms. schakowsky said that i feel like all the testimony that we have heard in has reinforced this idea that this is something that we can change that we're bringing this on ourselves that our industry will survive that with better health practices and limited use

of antibiotics, therapeutic use of antibiotics are animals will do fine. it's my best -- in is been my experience in farming generally that is how things work and we can make this transition without causing the sun to consequences whether economic loss or rumors because the countries like denmark are changing their practices or incredible cost of hospitalization and loss of life to the intended consequences with antibiotics. i will say by one grandmother was a day and i don't think they're stupid, i think they know what they're doing and i think the reduction in the use of antibiotics there's been sick again, everything we've heard in our testimony today did not say that they use equal amount of therapeutic antibiotics. said they increased the amount of therapeutic antibiotics but that is a targeted use coming easy to remove from the animal before you ship it to market or ship their milk and product, is very different than talking about blanket use of the antibiotics in the feed. i think that is misuse of the data when people refer to it that way. thank you both.

>> thank you madam chairman and. there are no farmers in my family. [laughter] and i am not from iowa. my family since arrived from eastern european around 1900 and have been occasional suburban dwellers but we do eat meat most of us so we have a concern about these issues as well. >> we took it to death. [laughter] >> the question for mr. boswell -- >> i hate to surprise you but i also do. [laughter] >> good. the questions you have mentioned that you are worried livestock producers will be left with few if any medicines to prevent and control animal disease and i think there's a difference between the prevention and the control or treatment of animal diseases specifically your earlier mentioned in answer to a question smallpox. we have a number of vaccinations and inoculations for cattle and animals, these are prevention

and not antibiotics. their vaccinations and sometimes we can agents of the infection itself. sometimes there are alternatives but we do not for him and how use antibiotics which are specifically designed to kill bacteria and frequently more than just the bacteria they target, they kill other only bacteria. we do use antibiotics in humans for prevention and so my question is obviously with during kinds of metals humans are an animal and cows are animals, why would we have a different health data with regard to the use of antibiotics and while we want to use them as a preventive agent in some species but not in another species? were. >> my answer to that is we have gone to science, we have a research universities and we have learned from them that this is something that would give us held to a our animals and healthier food and humans. >> i want to be clear, so you do

this. we had earlier expert testimony that indicated that is a belief among and is assigned as represented the -- >> the experts are in charge of the situation and i think they have to be keira about jumping out and doing something that would be detrimental to our food supply. >> in your contention is that the use of antibiotics as a preventative treatment in animals has not contributed to this antibiotics resistant bacteria in humans? >> that is what science tells may. >> thank you. >> the point i was trying to make earlier was made well by mr. boswell perrin end in there really -- we need to use the best science and complete science. one thing that people always suggest is how far some are in

the business to try at the end of the day number and they don't spend any more than i have to. i have to tell you one of the most frugal folks i have never met or farmers and they don't like by nancy their projects. they do it for reasons and one of the things we don't have a is the sale of me to you're adulate in the production of these products. because they had significant challenges and got to make sure the content is such and i have a number of different challenges that they have to make a very strenuous regulatory to save deregulations we post on them. unwed and i will concur that there are differences between animal operation. to some of them are perfect and frankly some of them who are there and some of the places i've been. others are horrible and those of the ones that we need to work harder on and that is the kind

of work mr. boswell to on the agriculture midi. we had a hearing earlier last year on the question and i of the the salmonella and peanuts. i happen to be one of the individuals who got sick from those peanuts and i spent today is feeling pretty running on my couch but i could barely raise my head for a couple days of the then dragged myself there is a very serious thing. we take this very seriously. the other thing i will tell you is that farmers are some of the folks that are the most concerned about this because they don't want anything to attract their product and put a taint on their marketing ability and i will still say american foods are as safe or safer than anyplace else in the world consistently began testimony to that. in now, mr. boswell put his testimony that there is 10 times

the construction of antibiotics in humans and in pat's as there are in farm animals. >> per lb basis. >> i want to make sure this is the same compounds we were talking to the other gentleman about.com the quantity in and the strength of those pesticides. one and the other thing out like to point out is that in denmark we have not seen a decrease in the resistant bacteria this but i am told in humans, when we needed more cinnamon and research on this topic to find out what is really going on. let's prove to the science and dictate the policy. that is one thing that we have done in the farm belt.

i always forget to the akron m. non -- wabash thank you. i think that we really need to get to the bottom of this and we need to make sure that we do everything we need to to make sure that zapruder is safe and we are not getting out of control. so thank you again for doing this hearing and a grain of this issues and i like -- >> mr. cardoza come i agree with you again i think it is a fact that we have the safest and most plentiful least expensive food in the world and there is a reason for it. one is and everybody and we get

something for it and that is big here if you think about some place in the world where they can't get enough. let alone be healthy and safe. and so is a big thing. we have to be very careful about it and we're willing to do this. right now poor producers are losing much rainwater, cattle producers are losing money, it dairy farmers have been losing money for over a. a bar and a very particular situation there and ny so we don't want to affect this save affordable food supply we have to take care of. i would ask the a madam chairman to work with mr. cardoza was on and your committee and our agriculture committee to continue to put effort into go back to our commodity groups and keep pushing but at least monitoring to make sure that they are doing what they set out

to do to start with their network and keeper of food safety. >> farmers are making money, just to put that out there. >> i mentioned earlier that in my congressional district corporate headquarters as well as organic theory which is private label organic terry and it has been unclear by the success and amazing growth rates of these companies. they have a brown -- digit growth in the last decade that consumers really get this and are willing, i count myself as one of them. and consumers are willing to pay a premium for milk in this case with that is free of antibiotics so i think in this case again as i think ernest panel also demonstrate consumers are already a little ahead of where our regulators are on this issue. >> thank you both so much for coming, we appreciate and thank you for giving us your time.

without objection, of course, of the chair will yield to an introduction. >> it is my great privilege today to introduce sweeping mr. steve allen hugh was in my congressional district in 1993. as a result of my residual to his heritage i have an aversion to port so i came to eating pork after i first met this man 67 years ago and he told me about how they were purchasing port from this amazing organic farms. i had to wait several years to get my fulfillment, and was about a year or two years ago with a now announced a they are selling naturally raise chickens baron i sent him a congratulatory e-mail when they made that announcement and a huge difference and i continue to be a regular customer of chipotle.

he and chuck coli are changing the world the way things and how it eats fast food. steve is a classically trained chef, has received considerable praise for his vision and leadership in chipotle added 2006 chipotle had a very successful public offering and has been featured in "the wall street journal" that the number of other publications. he holds a bachelor degree in art history from the university of colorado in boulder in my district and is a graduate of the culinary institute of america of. he truly is testimony to his vision as a business leader that he considers the fact that to paul light has the highest food costs as a percentage of revenue of any restaurant company as an asset and something they brag about to show that they have this vision that food costs can and perhaps be an inverse magic in their business and an asset to show that they have a valuable consumer value proposition. really is great testimony through tremendous vision which

has left us its legacy a company with over 900 restaurants around the country, annual revenues in excess of 1.3 billion and truly is a great honor to introduce to our committee my good friend, stephen. >> it is so nice to have you. please make your statement and is my great honor to introduce -- and my close to the name? i am certainly happy to have you here. he began his career as a dishwasher in 1960 with a education when and in 1987 and bone appetit management company was born for the first time. his dream of the company was committed to culinary expertise to become a reality and his customers notice the quick

growth of a small san francisco-based company. the also was present as to enter sans restaurant chain and had over 25 years experience and institutional trading was ready. of for something more. in 1999 he and his team who was again raised the bar for on-site food-service making any commitments the time to socially responsible food sourcing. today bone appetit spends over $55 billion annually on food from within 150-mile radius of each cathay using only sustainable seafood, sources turkey breast of chicken breast without antibiotics as a routine feed additive, features and natural beef burgers come of these industries using ekg free shell eggs. 2007 the company debuted its low carbon diet, the first program to make the connection between food and climate change. bon appetit is now $500 million

company with over 400 cafes and 28 states serving over 80 million meals a year. he was the recipient of the 1992 restaurant institutions idea warren. and in 1998 was presented with the nation's restaurant news: channel or for excellence. he was named bit 2008 innovator of the year the nation's restaurant news received the prestigious going green award, by the national resources defense council. that is really impressive. a board member of the compass group in north america, serves on the board of dynamic payment benches in san francisco, chairman of the uterus and san francisco hospitality management board, and serves on the president's advisory council of the university of portland. we're so happy to have the two of you and it's always a pleasure to read in one of your restaurants. with that i welcome you to the committee and which one of you would like to begin?

>> chairwoman slaughter and members of the committee, i am ceo of bone appetit management company, on side restaurant company as you for the service in a million meals each. over 500 locations with and i think we are now 32 states. as the company we are committed to two goals, a culinary expertise and social responsibility and on that been i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to voice my strong support for h.r. 1549, the preservation of into -- the medical team and i to. it is imperative that we as a country discontinue the use of antibiotics for non therapeutic purposes and animals. in addition to being harmful to the animals themselves this common practice of using antibiotics as feed additives has led two dramatically increased antibiotic resistance in humans and become serious public health problem.

now i feel so strongly about this issue that i have been the most meat that has been raised in this manner to be served in the restaurant's. and i banat entirely but there isn't enough supply for us to be making that committee at. our concern about this issue goes back seven years. in 2002i learned that an estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics use are fed to farm animals that are not sick in order to promote growth, prophylactic a treat diseases by questionable animal husbandry practices. as i learn more and realize how widespread these practices are in the meat production industry, bon appetit formed a partnership with environmental defense fund. it to look and how we can take the lead in discouraged antibiotic used in meat and poultry production. our partnership resulted in the creation of a far this reaching corporate policy on antibiotic used to date. we only buy chicken raised without non therapeutic retain

use of human antibiotics as feed additives. in 19 -- in 2005 we extended this policy to turkey breasts. we took this policy another step further and since march 2007 will only serve hamburgers from natural beef with no tram. while there is no strict legal definition of the word natural, our suppliers commit to using no antibiotics, no growth hormones, no animal byproducts and feed, and treating their animals humanely. our biggest challenge in implementing our antibiotics policy has always been sourcing the products. we have recruited both major poultry producers as well as small local producers and suppliers. we only purchase food from those provided written confirmation of their compliance. but there are not enough suppliers to meet our standards everywhere. we use the purchasing preference to introduce suppliers in many markets but we don't have the concentration of business in our

markets across the u.s. to buy enough chicken or turkey or beef to tip the scales as we have in some locations. and we can't find a national park supplier who will commit to taking care of us across the whole u.s.. many producers are afraid to change even with an economic incentive. they needed a push from this bill and that could be the leverage of change we need. from 2006 to 2008i served as a member of the two commission in production, i learned from farmers and industry representatives on the committee as well as those who testified before us. i came away from that experience enriched and much better educated about animal husbandry. one of the many things that included the is that there's absolutely no good reason and certainly no good moral reason for feeding medically important human antibiotics to animals

that we eat, no reason at all, none. the bottom line is americans want a safe food. the food is nourishment and shouldn't be something that does us on. antibiotic resistance is harmful, these drugs are meant to treat humans and animals for really sick and need them, not as a feed additive so they will be effective when humans need them let's get our priorities straight, the time to ban antibiotics as a feed additive is long overdue. i strongly support this measure. thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman, and things to the members of the rules committee for allowing me to talk about this very important fact which we strongly support to. i'm steve, the honor and chairman and ceo of the chipotle. in a decade ago we began a quest for more sustainably raised ingredients.

and to make those ingredients available so that everybody who wanted to could have access to the sustainably raised its. traditionally is sustainably raised dues were available in high and brochures end and their expenses the as two restaurants in their cities but we wanted to make these kinds of foods available to everybody to eat better. since i started the first chipotle is six years ago, i wanted to show that just because chipotle is fast and convenient, doesn't mean it has to be a traditional or typical fast-food experience. with all the trappings of the past -- fast food restaurant. we wanted to cook fast food, food that was prepared in front of the customer in an open kitchen with complete transparency, and we want to serve in interactive formats so people could get exactly what they want not only for taste but

more nutrition. well, a decade ago i realized that fresh food is not enough anymore. that you really need to know where your food comes from and how it was raised and the effect on the environment, the effect on animal welfare and the effect on a ultimately the health of the person needing the good. and so there are a lot of ramifications and brash did not cut. i came to the conclusion because i had read an article about the way the ranch was raising pigs up in iowa. and so being curious i went up and visit some of the farms. and i asked the folks, the farmers in these in a pan of family farmers what was so special about the way they were raising the pigs? and looked great to me, they were either raised out in open pasture or in deeply imbedded barnes depending on the season and they were feeding them a protocol that is similar without

antibiotics, all vegetarian feed and definitely in a humane way. with room to roam around. and they informed me that the vast majority of poor grades in the united states, some 90 plus% is raised and factories, raising confinement operations. and so being very curious about this i went to see a lot of these factories, factory farms and at that moment i knew that i didn't want the kind of exploitation that i saw to be part of the reason chipotle was successful. so pork was the first thing to come under what we call food with integrity or are naturally raise program and we started using only part that meant this very strict protocol without antibiotics and the other things that i mentioned. since that time, since we're very successful introducing this, we also introduced over the years naturally raised chicken into a 100% of our chicken is raised without

antibiotics and we also have introduced naturally raised before. because of supply issues we are only able to supply about 60% of our news with naturally raised and we're working very diligently with farmers and ranchers to increase the supply also perry and chipotle is unique because of the economic model. we are successful because we found a way to serve more expensive and sustainably raised ingredients, but in a way that really does remain accessible and affordable for consumers. at the same time though we are able to produce attractive financial results to our shareholders and it's a really difficult balance to strike. most restaurant companies can only remain affordable abroad is attractive returns by lowering their fruit costs. and this downward pressure on

food cost has resulted in the industry driving down costs to the detriment of animal welfare and the environment and the overuse of antibiotics especially. so our journey to find better in previous for more sustainable forces has been and remains difficult, no question about it and promise has been slow lead times and costs the throughout but that said we're proud that we've been able to remain successful while serving food from these better sources rather than supporting the system that is often based on exploitation. we're still relatively is small piece of the puzzle low in a very small piece of the nation's overall food supply. and so while our quest might be made easier and other food companies chose to follow similar paths and suppliers change their practice accordingly, we know very well the issues and complexities that have kept them from doing some. pass in this preserving antibiotics for medical team and act as an important step in driving the kind of change and we have chosen to work for over

the last decade. but that too may have a others ignored. madam chairman and members of this committee, ours is a company that has a long track record at the remaining out of discussions involving politics in matters of public policy. but this is a cause we deeply believe in paris on behalf of chipotle, r900 restaurants, are 25,000 employees and when and our two 1/2 million a weekly customers, we thank you for introducing the preservation of a antibiotics for medical treatment act and hope it's given consideration it deserves. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] we appreciate so much less for our grandchildren

and there'll be no substitute for it. the tragedy of the overuse and now the resistance of antibiotics is one of the most important things we've done in this country. people who can recall have sent antibiotics -- it is a great expense and getting my master's degree at the time and remember that antibiotic use is in just what they're about and they were pretty excited and -- several people were dying in an online picture of so that is what my speech was. after that miraculously discovery which made a big difference in the health of people in the world was an

everyday occurrence. and on think anybody else in the country has done anything and at the time the thing that i love the most is it is truly accurate. the notion that science has been able to. we have really got to try to make it count here as well. i have to tell you that we had to have legislation to allow it to be used for research projects because they were not used and had to write legislation to be able to presented, you can see how far we have, at the same time how far we have gone.

particularly in the use of antibiotics. [inaudible] the fact that both of you are so successful to say to everybody in the country that is important that three look to your restaurants and that more and more insurance that -- we should never in this world have had a salmonella infections in spinach and there is no place in the world today. the more important fur thing. i am not a vegetarian. i should be. and i don't have that kind of

will power, but that a single thing is so apparent to made. and thank you so much. i can't thank you and up and we want to tell the whole world. >> they give us care of her holding these hearings in your years of expertise to inform all of us about how long could have been in did not and thank both of you really fascinating testimony for taking the risks in your own business to do the right thing. and by doing so being a good example for everyone in business uses the excuse, i couldn't possibly make money if i did that and both of you have shown not only are you keeping your customers healthier and happier, you have proven that that you

can be successful in business as well. the i just went to recount what we have said many times this seems like a problem that should be simple to sama economically, scientifically, we have heard said over and over again that we would be better off if we reduced the use of antibiotics. it is turning to hear both of you say that you are buying more if you could and i think all of us have sat in one way or another it is the organic farmers adjustor toward doing well and we heard our colleagues in ag committee talk about how many farmers are doing well in this particular economy so it is hard to understand what is standing in the way of good science, good economy and helping our farmers to be more successful than our consumers to be happier and our constituents to stay healthier. hopefully your businesses will continue to expand and grow and we'll find ways to get more businesses to provide a healthy products. thank you very much. >> you know, i wish that

mr. boswell was still here because i think that in a certain extent a concern some of the producing districts; mr. cardoza as well and perhaps to a lesser extent some of your districts. mine does not in any major economic way is that this was somehow hurt their ability to make money, but we find quite to the contrary that those of us to represent and i represent a consuming district, my consumers would be thrilled to pay a few pennies more for their food and wine that it comes -- and they voted with their dollars already and that is what has led to the tremendous success of your business as. we have live behind on the public health and government regulation front well behind the pioneers in the private sector which have fared a champion of these practices and proven beyond a doubt that not only is it good for consumers and public health is good for producers as well. i think that that is the message we need to drive home with our colleagues, the gentleman from

iowa and the gentleman from california and others who might be worried about the impact with producers to instead seize the opportunity. my question is in regard to one of your statements, you mentioned the downward pressure on food costs resulted in a detriment of animal welfare, the environment and the overuse of antibiotics. i like to add to that something of that my colleague and chairwoman of this slaughter said that and also the tracks from the taste of the product itself, the taste and nutritional value of the product itself. if you could comment about the outcome of animal welfare, the crowding, for muscular development and what everett is the issue as a call in air shaft etc. can get personal testimony to the taste profile and the difference between animals the wrist and a healthy weight and was raised with the antibiotics and hormones. >> absolutely, i think it is the reason that i went up to buy when the first place to find better tasting pork. and sometimes when i talk about our mission i forget that to

mention that, of course, we are a restaurant first and we have to provide a great tasting food in order to have a great business. so that is something that we absolutely do and so investing in better quality food and resulted in better taste which results in more business by customers and so on. but additionally i like to comment about costing this notion of this food costing more because, and i am not a scientist, but i have heard of the argument that it doesn't really cost more, that perhaps confinement raised poor job might be of use cents less per pound but to simply make that up in health issues and environmental and degradation and a loss of the independent family farmer and that effect on the los of some of our rural communities. and so the real cost of that pork chop is something