FDA and Ethanol Industry Ignore Regulations and Allow Antibiotics in Ethanol Production
Despite federal regulations to the contrary, unapproved antibiotics used in ethanol production are ending up in animal feed. As the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fails to enforce its own ruling on the matter, drug companies and ethanol producers are knowingly taking advantage, skirting the rules and driving up unnecessary antibiotic use, according to a new investigation from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).
Despite available alternatives, antibiotic use in ethanol production is widespread as a tool to manage bacterial outbreaks. According to FDA and university testing, those same antibiotics remain present in the nutrient-rich leftover corn mash from the ethanol production process, known as “distillers grains” (DGS), that is repurposed and sold as livestock feed to cattle, dairy, swine and poultry producers.
While there is no law prohibiting the sales of DGS containing antibiotic residues, the FDA has quietly ruled that antibiotics used in ethanol production are food additives, thus requiring FDA approval before they can be sold. Yet companies marketing these antibiotics continue to do so as the FDA chooses not to enforce its own rules.
“While there are no available alternatives to antibiotics for human health, there are alternatives for ethanol production,” said author Julia Olmstead, senior program associate with IATP. “The FDA needs to follow the law and prohibit antibiotics sales to ethanol producers.”
Many ethanol producers are already using readily available alternatives to antibiotics, and the regulations for protecting public health are already in place. An immediate ban on the use of antibiotics in ethanol production, halting antibiotic marketing to the ethanol industry by drug companies, and a voluntary transition to antibiotic alternatives by ethanol producers are among IATP’s top policy recommendations.
For more information, click here.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›