I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 2562 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to preserve the effective-
ness of medically important antibiotics used in the treatment of human 
and animal diseases. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MAY 24, 2005 
Mr. BROWN of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce 
A BILL 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
preserve the effectiveness of medically important anti-
biotics used in the treatment of human and animal dis-
eases. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 
2005’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of 
this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Findings. 
Sec. 3. Purpose. 
TITLE I—SAFETY OF CRITICAL ANTIMICROBIAL ANIMAL DRUGS 
Sec. 101. Proof of safety of critical antimicrobial animal drugs. 
TITLE II—USE OF CRITICAL ANTIMICROBIAL ANIMAL DRUGS IN 
AGRICULTURE 
Sec. 201. Collection of data on critical antimicrobial animal drugs. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds that— 
(1)(A) in January 2001, a Federal interagency 
task force released an action plan to address the 
continuing decline in effectiveness of antibiotics 
against common bacterial infections, referred to as 
antibiotic resistance; 
(B) the task force determined that antibiotic re-
sistance is a growing menace to all people and poses 
a serious threat to public health; and 
(C) the task force cautioned that if current 
trends continue, treatments for common infections 
will become increasingly limited and expensive, and, 
in some cases, nonexistent; 
(2) antibiotic resistance, resulting in a reduced 
number of effective antibiotics, may significantly im-
pair the ability of the United States to respond to 
terrorist attacks involving bacterial infections or a 
large influx of hospitalized patients;
(3)(A) any overuse or misuse of antibiotics con-
tributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, wheth-
er in human medicine or in agriculture; and 
(B) recognizing the public health threat caused 
by antibiotic resistance, Congress took several steps 
to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine 
through amendments to the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) made by section 102 of 
the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act 
(Public Law 106–505, title I; 114 Stat. 2315), but 
has not yet addressed antibiotic overuse in agri-
culture; 
(4) in a March 2003 report, the National Acad-
emy of Sciences stated that— 
(A) a decrease in antimicrobial use in 
human medicine alone will have little effect on 
the current situation; and 
(B) substantial efforts must be made to 
decrease inappropriate overuse in animals and 
agriculture; 
(5)(A) an estimated 70 percent of the anti-
biotics and other antimicrobial drugs used in the 
United States are fed to farm animals for nonthera-
peutic purposes, including— 
(B) growth promotion; and
(ii) compensation for crowded, unsanitary, 
and stressful farming and transportation condi-
tions; and 
(C) unlike human use of antibiotics, these non-
therapeutic uses in animals typically do not require 
a prescription; 
(6)(A) many scientific studies confirm that the 
nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural ani-
mals contributes to the development of antibiotic-re-
sistant bacterial infections in people; 
(B) the periodical entitled ‘‘Clinical Infectious 
Diseases’’ published a report in June 2002, based on 
a 2-year review by experts in human and veterinary 
medicine, public health, microbiology, biostatistics, 
and risk analysis, of more than 500 scientific studies 
on the human health impacts of antimicrobial use in 
agriculture; and 
(C) the report recommended that antimicrobial 
agents should no longer be used in agriculture in the 
absence of disease, but should be limited to therapy 
for diseased individual animals and prophylaxis 
when disease is documented in a herd or flock; 
(7) the United States Geological Survey re-
ported in March 2002 that—
(A) antibiotics were present in 48 percent 
of the streams tested nationwide; and 
(B) almost half of the tested streams were 
downstream from agricultural operations; 
(8) an April 1999 study by the General Ac-
counting Office concluded that resistant strains of 3 
microorganisms that cause food-borne illness or dis-
ease in humans—Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. 
coli—are linked to the use of antibiotics in animals; 
(9)(A) in January 2003, Consumer Reports 
published test results on poultry products bought in 
grocery stores nationwide showing disturbingly high 
levels of Campylobacter and Salmonella bacteria that 
were resistant to antibiotics used to treat food-borne 
illnesses; and 
(B) further studies showed similar results in 
other meat products; 
(10) in October 2001, the New England Jour-
nal of Medicine published an editorial urging a ban 
on nontherapeutic use of medically important anti-
biotics in animals; 
(11)(A) in 1999, the European Union banned 
the practice of feeding medically important anti-
biotics to animals other than for disease treatment 
or control, and prior to that, individual European