Dear Basak, as a matter of fact not all antibiotics should ever be used as growth promotants. There are drugs that work and are safe at the same time, but they are just a few antibiotics that will attend current regulations and will represent no risk to humans.
Examples are BMD, Virginiamycin, Zinc bacitracin and a few others which have been granted with the so-called Maximum Residue Limit (MRL), by demanding authorities such as Japanese Authority of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, the European Medicine Agency EMA, the FDA, the APVMA from Australia and so on.
Even European Countries that implemented the bannings since the year 1986 have granted MRLs to some drugs, and this is a recognition that these drugs are safe. So why a Country should ban a drug that was recognised as a safe one by themselves?
One reason is the lack of knowledge of most consumers about animal production, which influences politicians. We should not forget that polititians care about their own Country only.
The other reason is the sincere intention of many researchers and decision makers to assure that antibiotics remain effective when required to treat humans.
But there is another very, I repeat, very important reason: Europe, the region where bannings started, does not want more milk, eggs or more meat because they can no longer keep paying subsidies like they did before, for the local producers.
Also, they can´t compete with the costs and quality of exporting animal protein competitors such as Australia, Brazil, USA, Argentina and so on.
Their consumers also don´t care to pay 500% more for animal protein when compared to the costs of other not-so-rich Countries.
Using approved growth promotants represents lower production costs, less carbon emission, less waste in the environment and mainly lower cost for the food that people need to feed their families.
To make short a long story, the purpose of banning such products, that is, to use less antibiotics in animals, has not been successful, instead it has been --and still is-- a gross failure.
Just take a look on the site https://www.danmap.org/ the Danish program that surveys antibiotic usage in humans and animals.
You will see that back in the year 1998, the last year when they allowed antibiotic growth promotants, the Country used 57.300 kg of terapeutic antibiotics (the very same ones used by humans) to treat animals. As time passed, the banning of growth promotants, which also have the ability to prevent animal diseases, increased in such an extent that in the year 2005 this use raised to 125.500 kg and in the year 2010 it had already reached 162.650 kg.
Insted of using drugs with MRL as growth promotants, now they cannot avoid using tetracyclines, penicilins, sulphas and other antibiotics that are important for humans for treating sick animals.
It is obvious that there are options other than Bacitracin, Virginiamycin and BMD. But these options are to be used due to their efficacy and not because approved antibiotic growth promotants are unsafe.
Each Country should implement measures that will be a bennefit for the local people but before anything, one should ask what will be the outcome if the same measures that failed in the rich European Union are taken by other
Best regards, Cesar.