Do The Right Thing

Editor’s Note: This thought-provoking article on the challenges of prohibiting antibiotics in organic systems was written for our Sustainable Farming magazine by a long-time organic veterinarian and AGW-certified dairy farmer. We’ve long said that while we have deep respect for organic farmers (we are proud to certify many) and organic farming systems, this is one area where improvement in the USDA organic standard is desperately needed. We hope it inspires productive conversations.

 

“Whatever it takes, doc … just no antibiotics.”

I heard these words frequently from organic dairy farmers over the 20 years when I was immersed as a veterinary clinician and emergency responder in the USDA certified organic dairy sector.

Before veterinary school, I’d been a herdsman on a biodynamic, organic dairy farm and was already well acquainted with natural treatments, so this particular request was something I could generally work with. I could usually find an alternative and effective solution.

No antibiotics … ever

Those 20 years (1995-2015) encompassed a huge surge in the U.S. organic dairy sector, including full implementation of the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) Rule. The prohibition of using antibiotics in organic livestock was effectively ‘set in stone’ early on and seemingly untouchable, even though the Rule was hammered out in the public arena via semi-annual meetings of the USDA-appointed National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In NOSB archived meeting minutes, the FDA stated that drugs like antibiotics should be allowed in the organic sector just like with conventional farms. Yet segments of the organic sector viscerally reacted. Perception among some organic farmer groups was that organic consumers wouldn’t want antibiotics to be allowed because of perceived abuses by conventional livestock owners. Also, the organic sector was rightly trying to draw clear lines between themselves and the conventional sector for marketing. In the end, the farmer groups carried the day with the NOSB and the NOP enacted rule 7CFR205.238(c)(7):

• Prohibited practices. An organic livestock operation must not: Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail.
  Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and neither the animal nor its products shall be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.

Simply put: if you use prohibited substances like an antibiotic, the animal must leave, forever.

Left out of the discussions leading up to 7CFR 205.238(c)(7), however, were the professionals who daily link animal care, the relief of animal suffering, and the food supply: farm animal veterinarians.

Veterinarians: a duty of care

Veterinarians take the Veterinarian’s Oath upon graduation and, while not legally binding, it is in the back of any practitioner’s mind on a daily basis:

• Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge …

How do we, in real time, reconcile the NOP prohibition on antibiotics (use them but the animal must be permanently removed) with the best possible care of organic animals?

A bitter pill

The reality is that both certified-organic farmers and veterinarians are at times seriously hindered by 7CFR205.238(c)(7) in providing timely, effective care. The regulation sounds great on paper but in practice it’s a very difficult pill to swallow.

As a dairy practitioner, 7CFR205.238(c)(7) has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing in that I can honestly say the USDA certified-organic livestock sector is leading the way globally in reducing antibiotic use. A curse in that too many animals have suffered needlessly.

Of course, not all conditions require antibiotics. As a holistic practitioner, I have successfully treated countless cases of pink eye, mastitis, uterine infections, hoof rot, and even pneumonia using only botanicals, biologics and homeopathic remedies … when caught early enough. If left too long without effective treatment, however, any of these conditions can result in needing “rescue chemistry” (antibiotics). I have too many memories of certified-organic animals not receiving antibiotics when they should have.

A matter of life or death

But some bacterial conditions are immediately life-threatening and need an antibiotic without delay. Blackleg is perhaps the most clear-cut case to immediately use an antibiotic. With its gangrene, death will quickly occur without antibiotics. And yet even in those situations I sometimes have to convince the farmer that antibiotics really are needed (and that’s coming from ‘the organic vet’).

I’ve sometimes had to remind them that it’s better to have a live animal than a dead organic animal. Most agree, but not all. It depends on the farmer’s outlook on life in general, as well as their knowledge and ability with alternative treatments. Some have balked at using antibiotics simply due to the penalty of having to remove the animal permanently if treated with an antibiotic. I’ve been implored many times to use something, anything. A homeopathic remedy, IV colloidal silver, cold laser treatment, acupuncture, a chiropractic device—whatever it takes, doc … “just no antibiotics!”

Sometimes I need to remind farmers that, over the year, they will likely cull an animal for not breeding back, mastitis or lameness. And this particular animal that is looking us right in the eye will live but have to be culled, just like some others. In this case, because of antibiotic use.

It’s hopefully a rare instance that an animal needs an antibiotic at all. That, in part, depends on the local veterinarian’s ability to use tools outside the conventional tool box. Indeed, many efforts over the years have been made to reach out to the mainstream veterinary community. However, so many veterinarians are “wed” to using a conventional med that adopting natural treatments is a tall order.

Yet even for me, a veterinarian who practices much like veterinarians did before the advent of the antibiotic era, the NOP antibiotic prohibition is the single reason our farm (which is certified

by AGW as Animal Welfare Approved and as Grassfed) will never be certified organic by choice. My wife and I disagree in the strongest possible terms with anything that penalizes us for doing the right thing for an animal’s best welfare, such as using an antibiotic to save its life.

It’s not written in stone

Is the NOP prohibition on using antibiotics ethical? It’s questionable. What would the customers say if they knew what I know?

Can 7CFR205.238(c)(7) be changed to reflect a kinder, more humane reality? Difficult but far from impossible. Actually, all that needs to be done is look at the Canadian organic standards. They require a 30-day milk withholding period for organic dairy animals treated with antibiotics. A 30-day milk withhold is lengthy. But without the penalty of permanent removal from certified production, a farmer at least has the incentive to first try natural treatments and then use antibiotics only if truly needed—and that has to be a good thing.

 

 

Author: With nearly 30 years of experience, Dr. Hubert Karreman is a pioneer of organic and holistic veterinary medicine. He was appointed to the USDA National Organic Standards Board in 2005–2010 and has written three books on natural treatments for dairy cows.

 

Originally published in the Fall 2024 issue of AGW’s Sustainable Farming magazine.