; and (C) therefore, 80 percent of antibacterial drugs disseminated in the United States in 2010 were sold for use on food animals, rather than being used for human health. (12) The FDA Annual Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed in 2012 for Use in Food-Producing Animals showed that the use of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals increased 16 percent from 2009 to 2012. (13) (A) In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration modified the drug approval process for antibiotics to recognize the development of resistant bacteria as an important aspect of safety, but most antibiotics currently used in animal production systems for nontherapeutic purposes were approved before the Food and Drug Administration began considering resistance during the drug-approval process. (B) The Food and Drug Administration has not established a schedule for reviewing those existing approvals. (14) A stated goal of FDA Guidance documents 209 and 213 is a reduction in the overall consumption of antibiotics. The FDA policy continues to allow the use of antibiotics for routine disease prevention without requiring evidence of the presence of a specific disease or requiring the mitigation of conditions which elevate disease risk. (15) There is inadequate distinction between usage for disease prevention and production purposes, such as growth promotion, on FDA approved drug labels. A 2014 analysis of the approved animal drugs affected by Guidance 213 by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that numerous approved drug labels contained overlapping indications for growth-promotion and disease prevention. (16) The European Union (EU) banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006, a full decade before the FDA’s voluntary approach will go into effect. (17) Since the EU ban, antibiotic usage has decreased without affecting livestock production. (18) In 2010, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration testified that the Danish ban of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food-animal production resulted in