U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#2The 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.
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#3"'Because antimicrobial drug use in both humans and animals can contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to use these drugs only when medically necessary,' the FDA said in a release." This is long overdue. The FDA action is consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations in the United States and with agricultural regulations in the European Union. We have discussed the science behind this no-brainer recommendation several times here on Hacker News.[1]
Yes, veterinarians may need to treat animal diseases with antibiotics. Antibiotics are in several cases "natural" substances that evolved through natural selection, mycotoxins emitted by fungi, or bacterial toxins emitted by one clade of bacteria, with the effect of killing bacteria in a world full of bacteria. The bacteria susceptible to antibiotics, in turn, have long been under selection pressure to evolve resistance to antiobiotics, as some strains of bacteria did long ago in the wild. The use of antibiotics in human medicine has revolutionized several forms of medical treatment and added millions of years of healthy life to humankind's prospects, but use of antibiotics must go hand-in-hand with other forms of infection control to minimize selective sweeps of antibiotic resistance as a trait among most harmful strains of bacteria. It's a bad trade-off to use antibiotics without veterinary indications in general animal husbandry, so this regulatory step is a step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, the already established multiple-drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis are very worrisome,[2] and will have to be a focus of much research and urgent public-health campaigns.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6599040
[2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230344420...
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-23/news...
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Facing-the-Reality-of-Drug-R...
http://www.tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/RNTCP%20Response%20DR%20TB%2...
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#4I 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.
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#5The 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.
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#6The 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.
Think you're on the right track here. Antibiotics are used as a way of enabling livestock (hoof, beak or gill) to be bread in closer confines with high energy rich feed that, naturally, the livestock could not cope with.
Expect massive push back from the various farming industries affected by this. Money uber alles.
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#7The 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.
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.
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#9The 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.
I think that banning of antibiotic use in livestock generally focuses on the preemptive addition of antibiotics in feed. Antibiotic additives are associated with increased weight gain for the animals, as well as letting feed lots put more animals in denser quarters while keeping disease rates down. These direct economic drivers are why industry has fought the regulations for so long - despite the long-term detrimental societal health costs. It's pretty much a classic case of an economic externality needing regulation.
Edit: here's a reference link http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-...
Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production
#10The 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.
I wholeheartedly agree :) However in the American meat industry, terminally ill animals are universally culled in short order.