By TIM ALEXANDER

Illinois Correspondent

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A piece of proposed legislation that would further limit the scope of antibiotic use in livestock is in the early stages of Senate deliberation in the Illinois General Assembly.

According to sponsor state Sen. Daniel Biss, a Democrat from Skokie who is retiring at the end of his current term, the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals is proven to fuel drug-resistant bacteria dangerous to humans.

He cites World Health Organization experts who have warned that the routine use of antibiotics in animals leads to drug-resistant bacteria that can have deadly consequences for humans. At the root of Biss’ bill (Senate Bill 3429) is a new interpretation of what “routine” means.

“What it is about is making sure we are only prescribing antibiotic drugs for animals only when absolutely necessary,” Biss told Farm World on Dec. 5, just days after the Senate Agriculture and Public Health committees heard testimony from those on both sides of the antibiotics debate. “This bill would uphold that standard.”

If passed, the bill would make Illinois the latest state to rewrite antibiotic laws independent of current standards imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Earlier in 2018, the California legislature approved a measure imposing some of the strictest state regulations governing animal antibiotic usage in the nation.

Biss’ bill would require a licensed veterinarian to prescribe antibiotics for animals only after visiting the farm where the animal is located, among other new standards. The legislation is duplicative of existing FDA regulations in many ways, according to Illinois agriculture leaders who attended and testified before the committees.

“The Illinois Farm Bureau opposes S.B. 3429 because the bill does nothing to improve public health and safety, adds a layer of unnecessary and duplicative regulations on Illinois livestock farmers and could lead to animal suffering,” stated Bill Bodine, director of state legislation for the IFB, in written testimony.

Testifying in person as part of an Illinois agriculture coalition were two veterinarians and Alan Adams, a cattle producer from Sandwich.

Jennifer Tirey, executive director of the Illinois Pork Producers Assoc., attended the late-November committee hearing. “The group testified that the bill is based on a number of misconceptions about antibiotic use on food-animal production and would unnecessarily duplicate many of the regulatory actions on antibiotics already taken by the FDA,” she said in an email.

“FDA issued Guidance for Industry 213 that took effect Jan. 1, 2017. It required drug manufacturers to withdraw from antibiotic labels claims for growth production or improved nutritional efficiency. The agency also established a Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) for medically important antibiotics delivered in feed and water, requiring that they be accompanied by a veterinary prescription or veterinary order.

“Our panel discussed these points and the fact that our farmers work hard to raise healthy and safe food for consumption. We would never jeopardize the safety of our food supply.”

Also regarding the bill, the Illinois Department of Agriculture stated: “IDOA feels that these proposed regulations are already covered under the FDA guidelines. Veterinarians throughout Illinois first and foremost care about the health and safety of the animals they care for.

“Veterinarians and livestock producers share in the responsibility for the judicious use of antibiotics. It is important that veterinarians make the diagnosis and prescribe the appropriate antibiotic for the condition when indicated. The establishment of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship is an important step in ensuring a proper treatment regimen is followed.”

Biss indicated he welcomes and values input from the Illinois agricultural community. “The best legislation will not come out of an adversarial process moving forward,” he said. “At the hearing there were people (testifying) from the agricultural world – actually, people on both sides of the issue – but I think we can have more conversations, to really make sure we do this thing right.”

When questioned about the timing of the bill and its necessity given the recent FDA-issued rules tightening the reins on animal antibiotic usage, he said such talk does not dissuade him from attempting to push his legislation to passage.

“I would strongly disagree that what the FDA has done is enough. Their rules are not as far-reaching as what the WHO (World Health Organization) recommends. I also have issues with the enforcement measures.”

As for components of his bill being redundant to FDA laws, Biss noted that should not disqualify the totality of his measure. “I would say that if you like what’s in the bill, vote for it, and if you don’t like the bill, argue against it,” he explained.

He hopes to hand off sponsorship of his bill to a colleague when his term expires in January. “I think the legislature is interested in continuing to move this bill forward.”