U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#21

Post by mronge » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #17

This guidelines are just voluntary? What's the point? "'Our fear ... is that there will be no reduction in antibiotic use as companies will either ignore the plan altogether or simply switch from using antibiotics for routine growth promotion to using the same antibiotics for routine disease prevention,' said Steven Roach, senior analyst with advocacy group Keep Antibiotics Working."

My understanding with FDA guidelines is they are always "voluntary" only in name. Companies effectively have to comply or the FDA will crack down very hard on the company.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#22

Post by asciimo » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:25 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #8

awjr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic farmers have approved antibiotics they can use (as well as natural remedies). If a dairy cow is treated with antibiotics the holding time before she is allowed back into the milking process is usually double or triple the normal holding time for a non-organic cow (10-15 days vs 5 days). Sh is still milked but the milk is poured away.

Isn't there something more useful they could do with that milk than pour it away?

Unfortunately, cow milk is only useful as a human beverage.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#23

Post by bmj » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:31 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #16

nate_meurer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree :) However in the American meat industry, terminally ill animals are universally culled in short order.

Shit, this may not apply to the dairy industry however. I found this on an organic dairy website http://www.oberweis.com/web/milk.asp : "Organic certification requires that milk be discarded for 12 months after antibiotic use. This has the unfortunate side effect of making a sick cow such a financial burden to a farm that it must frequently be killed. When this happens, organic farmers generally milk the sick cow (an…

Does anyone have any statistics on how many dairy cows are killed per year because of this?

I suspect we are looking at a lesser-of-two-evils scenario: would you rather have a small number of cows culled each year because of sickness, or a large number of cows living in feedlots and pre-emptively given antibiotics because of squalid living conditions?

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#24

Post by guelo » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:31 PM UTC

mitchty wrote: post #15

cglace wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there something more useful they could do with that milk than pour it away?

When I was young we'd always spray the kittens with it. (I grew up on a dairy farm, fortunately we got rid of the cows when I was about 7) They loved the whole situation.

Why fortunately?

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#25

Post by huragok » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

asciimo wrote: post #22

cglace wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there something more useful they could do with that milk than pour it away?

Unfortunately, cow milk is only useful as a human beverage.

I see a new market for milk baths!

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#26

Post by awjr » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #8

awjr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic farmers have approved antibiotics they can use (as well as natural remedies). If a dairy cow is treated with antibiotics the holding time before she is allowed back into the milking process is usually double or triple the normal holding time for a non-organic cow (10-15 days vs 5 days). Sh is still milked but the milk is poured away.

Isn't there something more useful they could do with that milk than pour it away?

Yes it can be sold as Class B product (not organic) (usually to cheese manufacturers). It just can't be sold as organic.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#27

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #24

mitchty wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young we'd always spray the kittens with it. (I grew up on a dairy farm, fortunately we got rid of the cows when I was about 7) They loved the whole situation.

Why fortunately?

If mitchty is like all the former dairy farmers I know, it's because dairy farming is a lot of hard work, and it never ends. There are no weekends, and no holidays. I like raising beef cattle because many days you don't even have to look at them. (Not today though! Ice to break on the pond, for starters...)

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#28

Post by 6d0debc071 » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #5

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

The use of antibiotics in food stock should be banned completely. Saving a few cents per pound on meat isn't worth the damage to our antibiotic stock. Wanna give antibiotics to an animal, fine, but now it can't be used for food.

It is oddly cruel to see that logic applied in organic meats. An animal might become infected. It might die a very painful and slow death. But to keep organic certification, not antibiotic maybe used on the farm. Even for animal that will become food, I would think that kindness should be applied. If it is sick/infected, but still useful for meat, cure it and eat it. If not, just kill it. Don't let it suffer.

It's dead in the end either way. If you assume we're going to eat it.

Is it worth an extra animal's worth of meat for an extra animal's worth of anti-bacterial resistance, that's the core question here. If we're not using these antibiotics so widely to prevent the infection in the first place how does that scale?

It may be better, in the long run, just to say 'no antibiotics in animals' and kill those that become ill out of hand. Otherwise I can see this becoming an easy out for farmers - they could still keep the animals in atrocious conditions, knowing that they can use AB to cure them after they become ill - and if a large number of them become ill then we'll be in exactly the same pickle we are now.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#29

Post by pessimizer » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #19

arbitrage wrote: post #4

I hear that the FDA will also be releasing a recommendation to close the barn door after the cows get out. You just can't be too careful, you know.

Bad things were done before, so clearly they should never be remedied.

You can't unkill the dead, even if you have an honest change of heart. Long-term antibiotic effectiveness may be a dead thing.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#30

Post by elisha » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #5

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

The use of antibiotics in food stock should be banned completely. Saving a few cents per pound on meat isn't worth the damage to our antibiotic stock. Wanna give antibiotics to an animal, fine, but now it can't be used for food.

It is oddly cruel to see that logic applied in organic meats. An animal might become infected. It might die a very painful and slow death. But to keep organic certification, not antibiotic maybe used on the farm. Even for animal that will become food, I would think that kindness should be applied. If it is sick/infected, but still useful for meat, cure it and eat it. If not, just kill it. Don't let it suffer.

Another excellent reason to not eat meat.