WASHINGTON, D.C. — For decades, the issue of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been discussed and now the federal government is trying to do something to slow the rate of resistance.

“The Antimicrobial Stewardship: Policy, Education and Economics” summit organized by the Farm Foundation brought together representatives for different sides of the issue, from veterinarians to farmers to economists. While not all speakers agreed on what needs to be done, most agreed there is global danger to human health.

“We’re facing a real crisis. We’re facing bacteria that are resistant to all antibiotics we have available,” said Steve Solomon, M.D., with Global Public Health Consulting.

He said resistance has been discussed since the 1970s, and has only gotten worse in recent years. Because new antibiotics used to be introduced all the time, no one did much to try to stop the resistance, but now new antibiotics are rare.

Solomon said the resistance spreads from humans to animals, and back. It also spreads across different types of bacteria. This means anytime an antibiotic is used, it can decrease the efficiency the next time it is used, even if it is in a different person or animal.

Robert Easter, University of Illinois professor emeritus of Animal Sciences, said medical culture needs to change, with patients, farmers, pet owners and doctors. “We need to make curriculum changes,” he said.

Doctors need to stop prescribing antibiotics for viruses – where they do no good. And patients need to stop expecting an antibiotic every time they get ill, regardless of severity.

“I think there are a number of ways we can address animal health that we haven’t (explored).” Easter said when it comes to antibiotics, the world needs to focus on one health – not focusing just on animals, people or the environment, but all three.

Larry Granger, with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said use of antibiotics needs to decrease and the right antibiotics need to be given, but there is not enough data at this time to determine the best ways to reduce use and what antibiotics to provide.

He said if a farmer waits to call a veterinarian until the animal is sick, then it’s probably too late. The veterinarian needs to be involved in determining the animal’s health planning, from feed to living conditions.

Stacy Sneeringer, with the USDA Economic Research Service, has been working to determine how removing antibiotics would affect producers.

She uses information from producers who have already removed antibiotics compared to producers who have not removed medication from sources like feed.

She said the number of animals to fall ill or die without preventative antibiotic use is in single-digit percentages because there is a focus on keeping disease off farms in the first place.

More young animals do die. More housing might be needed, because more space means less stressed and healthier animals. Weight fluctuation will increase without use of antibiotics as well, Sneeringer said.

However, the market for the meat is likely to increase, as some foreign markets do not buy U.S. meat because of the antibiotics – and local consumers may be more willing to buy the products, too, she said.

According to her data, removing antibiotics will impact American farmers and ranchers less than 2 percent across the board. “It will hit small producers harder,” she admitted. Small-scale producers have a smaller profit margin than larger ones.

Aidan Hollis with the University of Calgary would like to see a user fee added to antibiotic use instead of removing it, because then farmers have more control to decide what antibiotics are needed and worth the extra money, and what is not.

“The farmer is in the best position to decide what’s effective,” he said.

More information can be found online www.FarmFoundation.org