FDA turning resistant to the public interest

There exists a class of super antibiotics never approved for use in animals, and for good reason: They are critically needed for treating certain serious life-threatening infections in humans, and any risk of weakening their ability to fight them -- of making bacteria more resistant to drugs through overexposure -- is one most doctors and scientists will not take. But now, despite dire warnings from health groups including the American Medical Association, and even though its own advisory board is against it, the Food and Drug Administration is poised to approve the use of one of those drugs to treat a common respiratory disease in cattle. Use of the drug, cefquinome, in animals also could undermine the effectiveness of a similar drug, cefepime.
''There is reasonable certainty of no harm to public health,'' the product development director of cef-quinome's manufacturer, InterVet, assured the FDA last fall. While "reasonable certainty" is good enough for the people who stand to profit from the drug, it is disturbingly unreasonable for those concerned about individuals paying with their health. A similar scenario unfolded in the mid-'90s when the FDA approved the use of Baytril (produced by Bayer) and SaraFlox (Abbott Laboratories) in poultry. Subsequently, people treated with this antibiotic for a diarrheal disease found the germ began developing resistance to the drug, which also is prescribed for a bacterium that causes anthrax. SaraFlox was pulled from the market after the FDA sought a ban, but not until 2005, after much antagonism, was Baytril withdrawn. By that time, its resistance in humans had increased dramatically.
That InterVet has not withdrawn the drug, the advisory group's opposition notwithstanding, tells us the company has the FDA's assurance it will be approved. What makes the agency's willingness to give the green light to cefquinome even more objectionable is the availability on the market of other medicines that effectively treat the respiratory ailment in cattle. Why not use what is available rather than speed the emergence of microbes resistant to antibiotics that are looked upon as a last resort in humans? And how is it that the FDA is not planning to impose limits on the drug's application to minimize bad consequences?
With the medical and scientific communities angrily calling for the FDA not to approve cefquinome in cattle and pressure against its use in cattle building in Congress, there is a chance the agency will back down and do the right thing. If it thinks the poison pet food scare, which it is currently focused on, is a health crisis, wait until people who could have been saved by an unnecessarily weakened antibiotic start dying.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/358607,CST-EDT-edits26a.article