Pressure is building in Washington to restrict many of the antibiotics U.S. pork producers use on their farms.

One fourth of the House and nearly one fifth of the Senate have co-sponsored bills banning antibiotics used to prevent and control diseases in livestock, and backers are eager to bring the measures to the floor. One scenario is to offer the legislation as an amendment to a major food-safety bill due up for debate in the Senate soon.

Passing these bills would be a disaster for pork producers. An Iowa State University analysis found that banning antibiotics used to prevent and control diseases would increase production costs by up to $6 per pig. That will raise retail prices, depress demand, further shrink the pork industry, and cost desperately needed rural jobs. More importantly, since studies show healthy livestock yield safer food, limiting producers’ ability to administer drugs to keep their animals well will put the food supply at risk.

At the same time, there’s no proof that curtailing animal drugs will slow the growth of antibiotic resistance – the purported reason opponents of animal antibiotics want to ban them. Resistance develops from many factors, including use of household disinfectants such as antibacterial soap, and a more likely cause is over-prescription of antibiotics in humans. Consider that, pound for pound, people and their pets consume 10 times the antibiotics that food animals do, and the average child in the United States takes antibiotics for three of the first 24 months of his or her life.

The misinformation being spread on this issue is disturbing. In February, CBS News went so far as to link antibiotics used on hog farms with the deadly MRSA bacteria—even though the vast majority of serious MRSA illnesses are acquired in health-care facilities. CBS glossed over the different types of MRSA and equated farm workers carrying MRSA with sick farmers. Then it juxtaposed that with the estimated 70,000 MRSA deaths annually.

Not surprisingly, the public has a hard time understanding the use of antibiotics in feed for purposes not directly related to animal disease. That helps foster the perception that antibiotic use in livestock is out of control. In fact, pork producers use antibiotics strategically, when animals are sick, susceptible or exposed to illness. And less than 15 percent of animal antibiotics are administered to promote growth.

The premise of the Preservation of Antibiotics in Medical Treatment Act (H.R. 1549 and S. 619) is that controls on animal antibiotics are too lax. But that, too, is wrong. Controls on animal antibiotics are tougher than those for human antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration requires that any drug approved for use in livestock be shown to not harm human health or the environment. In addition, the pork industry has its own world-class education program on how to use antibiotics responsibly.

If there’s no proof animal antibiotics are a problem, how do advocates justify curtailing their use on farms? Simple. They rely on a questionable, nine-year-old study done by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that concluded a whopping 70 percent of all antibiotics used in this country are given to livestock for “non-therapeutic” purposes. The UCS estimate has been quoted repeatedly in news stories, editorials, and congressional testimony. Nonetheless, it is agenda-driven junk science at its worst.

To begin with, there is no way to accurately compare human and livestock antibiotic use, because data on human antibiotic use is not currently available. Also, UCS included in its calculations use estimates for animal drugs that were approved but never sold in this country. Two examples are oleandomycin and efrotomycin. They were estimated to be used in pigs at a rate of 66,000 pounds per year. The two drugs were licensed but never actually used on U.S. farms.

Most recently, advocates have cited the so-called “Danish example” as proof that H.R. 1549 and S. 619 will reduce antibiotic use without harming producers. In fact, after Denmark banned antibiotics used in pigs for growth promotion, pig deaths went up, therapeutic antibiotic use in pigs increased and pork production costs rose—all with no measurable positive effects on human health.

Pork producers have suffered crippling economic blows in recent years. The recession caused demand for pork to drop, and the media’s careless use of the term “swine flu” further roiled their markets. Congress shouldn’t compound these problems just as the farm economy starts to recover.

Hog farmers would be wise to tell their House and Senate members that producers and their consulting veterinarians —not Washington politicians—should decide when and how to use antibiotics on farms.