I think you are missing the point about the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The main concern is not that the antibiotics will remain in the meat and be consumed by humans but that the routine use of antibiotics will breed antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Research indicates that this is happening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202221120usnewsusnwr201202210221staphfeb22,0,635726.story
Indeed the Food and Drug Administration has announced plans to phase out routine use of antibiotics in farm animals, saying the practice produces dangerous drug-resistant bacteria that can infect humans.
I understand that there are some studies linking this to that, but the actual subject matter experts don't see enough conclusive evidence. I'm sure you'll see this as a colossal cop out, but it's very important to go with the scientific consensus and not the narrative set forth by media figures who were misled by activists who have a whole network of paid lobbyists whose jobs are predicated on the fact that these things are a menace. Farmers and meat industry lobbyists are money motivated as well, but the difference is that they get paid when animals are raised and sold for meat and not because antibiotics were/were not used. They would love to not have to pay for antibiotics, but that just isn't realistic. Micro-Organisms will always evolve quickly, regardless of whether or not we do anything to help or hinder that evolution simply due to the fact that they grow multiple generations in one day.
Having raise purebred Berkshire hogs and lived on a hog farm, I can tell you that nothing is sadder than the sight of an animal sick due to stress or infection... and the social behavior of hog herds is not very compassionate to the sick and weak among their ranks. Those sick animals will be singled out, and ultimately, killed.
The scientific consensus is that the over use of antibiotics is hastening the evolution of resistant bacteria.
I think it is the farming industry and drug companies that have the paid lobbyists. Antibiotics were routinely used as growth promoters for food animals not for treating sickness.
This practice was banned in Europe. Obviously there is a place for veterinary antibiotics but their routine use poses a significant danger. Their use allows farmers to keep animals in higher densities and so keep over all costs down.
There is plenty of evidence that resistant bacteria are being transferred to humans via the food chain - putting us at risk of more untreatable infections.Given the seriousness of the dangers I feel that a "voluntarily" limit the use of certain antibiotics in animal feed is not going to be enough to reduce the rise in resistance in the food animal reservoir.
As I said before the consensus among experts is that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters is inappropriate and poses a significant danger to public health. This has been the case for over forty years and that is why this practise has been stopped in Europe and Scandinavia, the only reason it persists in America is the lobbying by the livestock industry against the scientific consensus.
At last some action is being taken: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/antibiotics-for-livestock-will-require-prescription-fda-says.html?_r=1 I think though that the article is misleadingly optimistic, this is too little and too late. What is needed is a total and immediate ban on the non therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters.
Yes, it would could push up meat prices a bit but that would be an entirely acceptable price to pay considering the well known dangers of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
While there are studies that support that opinion, there IS NOT a scientific consensus on the matter. It takes much more than correlation studies to definitively prove something. This is why I suggested seeking out animal science academics on this matter.
Posts
Enjoyed reading your blog. Very informative.
ReplyDeleteI think you are missing the point about the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The main concern is not that the antibiotics will remain in the meat and be consumed by humans but that the routine use of antibiotics will breed antibiotic resistant bacteria.
ReplyDeleteResearch indicates that this is happening:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202221120usnewsusnwr201202210221staphfeb22,0,635726.story
http://mbioblog.asm.org/mbiosphere/2012/02/mrsa-in-livestock-acquired-drug-resistance-on-the-farm-now-infects-humans.html
http://news.discovery.com/animals/antibiotics-drug-resistant-bacteria-pigs-farming-120116.html
Indeed the Food and Drug Administration has announced plans to phase out routine use of antibiotics in farm animals, saying the practice produces dangerous drug-resistant bacteria that can infect humans.
I understand that there are some studies linking this to that, but the actual subject matter experts don't see enough conclusive evidence. I'm sure you'll see this as a colossal cop out, but it's very important to go with the scientific consensus and not the narrative set forth by media figures who were misled by activists who have a whole network of paid lobbyists whose jobs are predicated on the fact that these things are a menace. Farmers and meat industry lobbyists are money motivated as well, but the difference is that they get paid when animals are raised and sold for meat and not because antibiotics were/were not used. They would love to not have to pay for antibiotics, but that just isn't realistic. Micro-Organisms will always evolve quickly, regardless of whether or not we do anything to help or hinder that evolution simply due to the fact that they grow multiple generations in one day.
DeleteHaving raise purebred Berkshire hogs and lived on a hog farm, I can tell you that nothing is sadder than the sight of an animal sick due to stress or infection... and the social behavior of hog herds is not very compassionate to the sick and weak among their ranks. Those sick animals will be singled out, and ultimately, killed.
The scientific consensus is that the over use of antibiotics is hastening the evolution of resistant bacteria.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the farming industry and drug companies that have the paid lobbyists. Antibiotics were routinely used as growth promoters for food animals not for treating sickness.
This practice was banned in Europe. Obviously there is a place for veterinary antibiotics but their routine use poses a significant danger. Their use allows farmers to keep animals in higher densities and so keep over all costs down.
There is plenty of evidence that resistant bacteria are being transferred to humans via the food chain - putting us at risk of more untreatable infections.Given the seriousness of the dangers I feel that a "voluntarily" limit the use of certain antibiotics in animal feed is not going to be enough to reduce the rise in resistance in the food animal reservoir.
Contact several animal science and ag science profs at major universities and get their perspective - a.k.a. Subject Matter Experts.
DeleteAs I said before the consensus among experts is that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters is inappropriate and poses a significant danger to public health.
ReplyDeleteThis has been the case for over forty years and that is why this practise has been stopped in Europe and Scandinavia, the only reason it persists in America is the lobbying by the livestock industry against the scientific consensus.
At last some action is being taken: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/antibiotics-for-livestock-will-require-prescription-fda-says.html?_r=1
I think though that the article is misleadingly optimistic, this is too little and too late.
What is needed is a total and immediate ban on the non therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters.
Yes, it would could push up meat prices a bit but that would be an entirely acceptable price to pay considering the well known dangers of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
While there are studies that support that opinion, there IS NOT a scientific consensus on the matter. It takes much more than correlation studies to definitively prove something. This is why I suggested seeking out animal science academics on this matter.
Delete