Federal Judge Orders F.D.A. to Restrict Use of Antibiotics in Livestock

Judge Theodore H. Katz of the Southern District of New York ordered the Obama administration to alert drug makers that the government may soon ban the common agricultural use of popular antibiotics in animals because it may lead to the proliferation of dangerous infections.

The order comes two months after the Obama administration announced restrictions on the uses of cephalosporins, a critical class of antibiotics that includes drugs like Cefzil and Keflex. They are commonly used to treat pneumonia, strep throat and skin and urinary tract infections. The F.D.A. is expected to issue new rules that would bar the use of penicillin and tetracycline, used in animal feed to further growth. A decade ago, the F.D.A. banned indiscriminate agricultural use of a powerful class of antibiotics, called fluoroquinolones, that includes the medicine Cipro.

Microbiologists and other medical researchers believe the use of these antibiotics in livestock leads to the growth of bacteria that are resistant to common antibiotic treatments.

A vast majority of antibiotics used in the United States goes to treat animals, not humans. Meanwhile, outbreaks of illnesses from antibiotic-resistant bacteria have grown in number and severity.

Environmental and health groups petitioned the F.D.A. in 1999 and 2005 to restart the process to ban the drugs from being overused on farms. In January, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed suit against the F.D.A. On Thursday, Judge Katz ruled that these groups had won their case without need for a trial.

“The rise of superbugs that we see now was predicted by F.D.A. in the ’70s,” said Jen Sorenson, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Thanks to the court’s order, drug manufacturers will finally have to do what F.D.A. should have made them do 35 years ago: prove that their drugs are safe for human health, or take them off the market.”

Judge Katz ordered the F.D.A. to alert drug manufacturers of its intention to end its approval for popular uses of penicillin and tetracycline to promote growth in animals.

If the companies have evidence that the drugs are safe for humans, the drugs can continue to be used as they are in agriculture.

Studies say natural gas may be worse for the environment…

In the on going debate over how the U.S. should solve it’s energy issues, natural gas is starting to look more and more like a front runner to ease our reliance on foreign oil and reduce global warming, but two new studies show that the process of obtaining natural gas may actually be worse for the environment.

One study led by Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, states that huge amounts of planet warming methane gas are escaping into the atmosphere when natural gas is collected. Professor Howarth said that “The old dogma of natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions gets stated over and over without qualification,” and “I don’t think this is the end of the story, I think this is just the beginning of the story, and before governments and the industry push ahead on gas development, at the very least we ought to do a better job of making measurements.” The natural gas industry on the other hand says that they’ve actually decreased the amount of escaping methane due to new technologies and upgraded pipe fittings. Howarth’s study also looks at findings by The Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA that showed that when mixed with certain aerosol particles methane’s greenhouse impact is strengthened.

The Obama administration has made natural gas a part of it’s overall energy strategy. White House spokesman, Clark Stevens said that the administration’s energy priorities were not about choosing one energy source, but about diversifying the nation’s energy usage. “This process will continue to be based on the best science available to ensure our energy sources, including our nation’s natural gas reserves, are developed safely and responsibly,” said Mr. Stevens.

Geoscientist David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute, is releasing a study in May that examines natural gas as a substitute for coal in electricity generation and oil in transportation. According to Mr. Hughes use of natural gas in both cases were practical impossibilities.

“I think it’s going to be very challenging, to put it mildly, to ramp up shale gas production by fourfold, which is the federal government’s projection for 2035,” Mr. Hughes said. “I’m not saying it can’t be done, but if it was done, the amount of drilling you’re looking at to make that happen is staggering.” Mr. Hughes also used some of the data from Mr. Howarth’s study to conclude that replacing coal with natural gas for base load electricity production will most likely make greenhouse gas emissions worse.

David Hawkins, the director of climate programs with the Natural Resources Defense Council says that that studies like Mr. Howarth’s are important, but relied on too slim a data set to be considered final. “This is a huge and growing industry, and we just don’t have the information we need to make sure that this resource is being developed as cleanly as it can be,” Mr. Hawkins said. He also said regulators could push drillers to capture more of the lost methane, but that it is often more economical for the industry to just let it escape.