I had two sets of visitors to the farm today and the question of the pricing of organic goods came up again. Second to the great canard, organics cannot feed the world, it is the most common observation about our produce. That usually stops after tasting the quality and engaging on the subjects below.
As Joel Salatin so eloquently argues conventional food is mispriced. We can use any conventionally produced fruit, meat or vegetable for the purposes of this discussion but in this case lets look at feedlot or grain fed beef.
Here are the items that are not in the price that you pay for your steak (remember it is only ourselves and Greenfields who finish our beef on pasture/grass).
1. The environmental damage from the feedlot.
2. The antibiotic resistance in the human being from eating antibiotic meat.
3. The environmental damage from raising the GMO grains fed to these animals.
4. The humaneness or rather lack of it in having an animal stand in its own excrement for at least 110 days.
5. Contributing to global warming.
Before discussing in a little more detail have a look at the photo below of a feedlot in this country.
Now compare that with this picture taken last week whilst we were training our cattle to high density graze the vineyard cover crops. 200 cattle in a total of 2 hectares daily, moved twice a day versus an animal having 10 square metres to stand in for 110 days.
1. The environmental damage from the feedlot.
The waste from the feedlot is uncompostable as the antibiotics kill the microbes that would be breaking down the compost.
2. The antibiotic resistance in the human being from eating antibiotic meat.
You can choose to read anywhere you want but this is becoming a major global health issue. Don’t expect our Department of Health or of Agriculture to take any notice of this.
3. The environmental damage from raising the GMO grains fed to these animals.
Your beef eats GMO grains. South Africa is the only country in Africa that allows GMO grains and that makes us the stupidist country in Africa. The only ones who benefit from GMO grains are the companies selling glyphosate. Here is a concise update and explanation of what the problems are with GMO’s. Words such as spontaneous abortion and resistant super weeds should get you to read this article.
4. The humaneness or lack of it in having an animal stand in its own excrement for at least 110 days.
Should there be a premium for beef eating what it is designed to eat and being moved to fresh pasture at least twice daily? Or does the treatment of animals not matter as a price factor? Is it being too green to worry about these things?
5. Contributing to global warming.
Grain fed beef contributes to global warming. Admittedly not as much here as in the Americas but think about the diesel spent on preparing, growing, planting and harvesting the maize and soya and the diesel spent getting it to the silo and then to the feedlot. Compare this to high density grazing where the pastures recover to be grazed every 6 weeks. 65% of the sugars produced by the plant are stored in complex carbon chains in the ground. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere by a growing plant.
30 responses
Willem,
Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That’s the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.
The study has been deemed “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors… tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
“Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study” wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsant…)
It reported, “Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.”
The Daily Mail reported, “Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM…)
It goes on to say: “The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.
The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.
Findings from the study
Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:
• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.
The Daily Mail is reporting on some of the reaction to the findings:
France’s Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture and known as a fierce opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisations of GM crops. ‘This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,’ he said in a statement. ‘National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.’ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM…)
Read the study abstract
The study is entitled, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.” Read the abstract here:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
That abstract include this text. Note: “hepatorenal toxicity” means toxic to the liver.
Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
Here are some quotes from the researchers:
“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.” – Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King’s College London.
“We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health.” – Dr Antoniou.
“This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial.” – Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust.
Spread the word: GMOs are toxic!
Dear Michael
Are you talking about hydroponics ? What nutrients are you going to give the plants ( nitrogen , phosphates , calcium etc ) ? Where are these nutrients going to come from ? How are you going to distribute the water and nutrients to the plants ? Your example is a shining light of science at work !
I did not go to youtube but where and when were these cattle fed chocolates ? In the USA ? Name the Feedlot please . By the way what negative impact would the feeding of chocolate ( bread or pasta ) have on the wellfare of the cattle or the safety of the beef produced?
Dear Tommie
What has happend to the average life span of a human being the past 50 years ? It has increased dramatically and one of the reasons is that healthy , wholesome food has never been more affordable and available .
I have grown up and lived my entire life within 200m of our feedlot and so are my young children to no detriment . What I have come to experience though is that a pre-school is an absolute haven for bacteria and the spread of disease . I do therefore declare that God never intended for children to go to pre school and that they are places where evil lurkes and mutates to destroy the very soul and fabric of our society !
I’m no farmer, but I would far rather eat an animal that eats what it evolved to eat, gets some exercise, doesn’t stand in its own excrement all day, and in all likelihood is a happier animal. Its common sense. The only reason consumers accept these farming practices is that they have not seen the life of the animal they are eating. They see only a piece of beef. Out of sight, out of mind.
Its also blatantly obvious that long term use of low dose antibiotics must result in resistant strains, with potential transmission to humans. Equally obvious is that diseases spread rapidly in densely populated areas, human or otherwise. Ask any ship captain. (Let alone densely populated areas covered in faeces.)
Bearing in mind that the USA is one of the most malnourished countries in the world (yes obese people are malnourished) I wouldn’t be so keen to replicate their food system.
I would rather see less urbanisation and more small scale organic type farming. From an economics perspective I see more jobs in farming coming from a non industrialised system and surely it is more sustainable long term.(not the farm, the system)
Andrew
What you say makes complete sense to all of us except those in the factory farming business.
Can you not read the comments on this blog by the confiners of animals to see that their heroes are the Americans.
Angus
WIKIPEDEA INFO ON FEEDLOT DISEASES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding
Diseases
E. coli
Escherichia coli, although considered to be part of the normal gut flora for many mammals (including humans), has many strains. Strain E. coli 0157:H7 is associated with human illness (and sometimes death) as a foodborne illness. A study by Cornell University[24] has determined that grass-fed animals have as much as 80% less of this strain of E. coli in their guts than their grain-fed counterparts, though this reduction can be achieved by switching an animal to grass only a few days prior to slaughter. Also, the amount of E. coli they do have is much less likely to survive our first-line defense against infection: stomach acid. This is because feeding grain to cattle makes their normally pH-neutral digestive tract abnormally acidic; over time, the pathogenic E. coli becomes acid-resistant.[25] If humans ingest this acid-resistant E. coli via grain-feed beef, a large number of them may survive past the stomach, causing an infection.[26] A study by the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln Nebraska (2000) has confirmed the Cornell research.[27][dubious – discuss]
BSE (So-called Mad Cow Disease)
Main article: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Meat and bone meal can be a risk factor for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), when healthy animals consume tainted tissues from infected animals. People concerned about Creutzfeld-Jacob disease (CJD), which is also a spongiform encephalopathy, may favor grass-fed cattle for this reason. In the United States, this risk is relatively low as feeding of protein sources from any ruminant to another ruminant has been banned since 1997.[28] The problem becomes more complicated as other feedstuffs containing animal by-products are still allowed to be fed to other non-ruminants (chickens, cats, dogs, horses, pigs, etc.). Therefore, at a feed mill mixing feed for pigs, for instance, there is still the possibility of cross-contamination of feed going to cattle.[citation needed] Since only a tiny amount of the contaminating prion begins the cascading brain disease, any amount of mixed feed could cause many animals to become infected.[citation needed] This was the only traceable link among the cattle with BSE in Canada that led to the recent US embargo of Canadian beef.[citation needed] No cases of BSE have been reported so far in Australia. This is largely due to Australia’s strict quarantine and bio-security rules that prohibit beef imports from countries known to be infected with BSE.
However, according to a report filed in the Australian, on February 25, 2010, those rules were suddenly relaxed and the process to submit beef products from known BSE-infected countries was allowed (pending an application process).[29] But less than a week later, Tony Burke, the Australian Minister For Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry swiftly overturned the decision and placed a ‘two year stop’ on all fresh and chilled beef products destined for Australia from BSE known countries of origin, thereby relaxing fears held by Australians that contaminated US beef would find its way onto Australian supermarket shelves after a long absence.[30][31]
Soybean meal is cheap and plentiful in the United States. As a result, the use of animal byproduct feeds was never common, as it was in Europe. However, U.S. regulations only partially prohibit the use of animal byproducts in feed. In 1997, regulations prohibited the feeding of mammalian byproducts to ruminants such as cows and goats. However, the byproducts of ruminants can still be legally fed to pets or other livestock such as pigs and poultry such as chickens. In addition, it is legal for ruminants to be fed byproducts from some of these animals.[32] A proposal[weasel words] to end the use of cow blood, restaurant scraps, and poultry litter (fecal matter, feathers) in January 2004 has yet to be implemented,[33] despite the efforts of some advocates of such a policy[who?], who cite the fact that cows are herbivores, and that blood and fecal matter could potentially carry BSE.
In February 2001, the USGAO reported that the FDA, which is responsible for regulating feed, had not adequately policed the various bans.[34] Compliance with the regulations was shown to be extremely poor before the discovery of the Washington cow, but industry representatives report that compliance is now 100%. Even so, critics[who?] call the partial prohibitions insufficient. Indeed, US meat producer Creekstone Farms alleges that the USDA is preventing BSE testing from being conducted.[35]
Campylobacter
Campylobacter, a bacterium that can cause another foodborne illness resulting in nausea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, headache and muscle pain was found by Australian researchers to be carried by 58% of cattle raised in feed lots versus only 2% of pasture raised and finished cattle.[36]
BLV
Bovine Leukemia virus is insect-borne and found in 20% of US cows, and 60% of US herds. Studies in Sweden and the Soviet Union have linked BLV outbreaks and increases in human leukemia. BLV and HTLV-1 share a common gene, HTLV-1 is the first human retrovirus ever shown to cause cancer.
Environmental concerns
In arid climates such as the Southwestern United States, livestock grazing has severely degraded riparian areas, the wetland environment adjacent to rivers or streams. People[who?] have long recognized that riparian zones and rivers are the lifeblood of the western landscape,[citation needed] being more productive and home to more plants and animals than any other type of habitat[citation needed]. Scientists refer to riparian zones as hotspots of biodiversity, a characterization that is particularly apparent in arid and semiarid environments[37] (like Nevada, where over 80% of the 300 represented terrestrial wildlife species are “directly dependent on riparian habitat”), where such zones may be the only tree-dominated ecosystems in the landscape[citation needed]. The presence of water, increased productivity, favorable microclimate, and periodic flood events combine to create a disproportionately higher biological diversity than that of the surrounding uplands.[38]
“According to the Arizona state park department, over 90% of the original riparian zones of Arizona and New Mexico are gone”. A 1988 report of the GAO was equally grim, estimating that 90% of the 5,300 miles of riparian habitat managed by the BLM in Colorado was in unsatisfactory condition, as was 80% of Idaho’s riparian zones, concluding that “poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands.”[39]
Grass fed beef hides the controversial and heavy use of human sewage sludge by ranchers in the beef industry.[40][41] Science has cited being more cautious and reevaluating the practice that was first legalized in 1992.[42] There are new emerging toxic pollutants that could contaminate beef that ultimately end up on USA dinner plates.[43]
Taste
The cow’s diet might affect the flavor of the resultant meat and milk. A 2003 Colorado State University study[44] found that 80% of consumers in the Denver-Colorado area preferred the taste of United States corn-fed beef to Australian grass-fed beef, and negligible difference in taste preference compared to Canadian barley-fed beef, though the cattle’s food was not the only difference in the beef tested, nor is Denver as representative sample of the world beef market, so the results are inconclusive.
Grass-fed beef is not standardized. Most is leaner than conventional feedlot beef, but some is equally marbled due to carefully managed grazing, excellent pastures, and improved genetics. Another technique for producing well-marbled grass-fed cattle is to keep the animals on pasture for two years or more. Most pasture-based ranchers dry-age the beef for 7–21 days, enhancing the flavor and tenderness of the meat.[citation needed]
Remarkably, in some circumstances, cows are fed wine or beer. It is believed that this improves the taste of the beef. This technique has been used both in Japan and France.[45]
http://archives.microbeworld.org/news/antibiotic/news_antibiotic_03.aspx
Antibiotic Resistance
Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals
No one knows for sure how much of the antibiotics used in this country are consumed by animals being raised for food, such as cattle, dairy cows, pigs, and poultry. One estimate places the number at 20 million pounds of antimicrobials each year.
What is known is that the use of large quantities of antibiotics in producing the nation’s food supply contributes to antibiotic resistance.
Bacteria can move between ecosystems, animals, and humans. Antibiotic resistant bacteria from the intestines of animals enter the food supply and can then be introduced into the human intestine when food is consumed.
There is some evidence that resistance genes carried by the bacteria in animals can be transferred to bacteria that are normally human-specific. For example, the use of the antibiotic avoparcin as a growth promoter in food animals has been linked to the subsequent appearance of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in human intestines.
Some antibiotic resistant Salmonella cases have been traced back to meat from animals fed antibiotics.
Epidemiological information indicates that food of animal origin is the source of the majority of foodborne bacterial infections caused by non-typhoid Salmonella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, and E. coli O157:H7.
Food animals are often given the same drugs used in humans. Antibacterials are also used in veterinary medicine, fish farming, and agriculture, and have been found in food, soil, and water. Many are available at feed and pet stores without a prescription.
Most of the antimicrobials given to food-producing animals each year are not used to treat sick animals.
Instead, antibiotics are routinely added to feed and water to prevent disease and to promote growth. This long-term, low-dose exposure to antibiotics is more likely to result in resistant bacteria than short-term antibiotic use to treat sick animals.
The practice of giving subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics to prevent disease and promote growth dates back to the 1950s, but even now the mechanisms are not well understood. The controversy over the practice dates back almost as far.
In the 1960s, scientists began raising concerns about the emergence of multiple drug-resistant strains of bacteria and the possibility of cross-resistance with therapeutic antibiotics used in humans.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials proposed restricting the use of penicillin and tetracycline (antibiotics commonly used in humans) in 1977, but were overruled by Congress, which requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct a study.
The NAS concluded that no restrictive actions should be taken on the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal feed. A 1999 report once again concluded that there was no immediate public health risk from antimicrobial use in food animals, but did acknowledge that “there is a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease, although the incidence is very low.”
In the meantime, Danish food animal producers voluntarily gave up use of antibiotics as growth promoters altogether in 1998. (Denmark had banned such use of specific antibiotics in the 1970s and 1990s.) Sweden banned the use of all antibiotics as growth promoters in 1986. In 1999, the European Union banned the use of four antibiotics as growth promoters.
Here in the U.S., the FDA proposed a ban on the use of fluorquinolones in poultry in late 2000. Fluorquinolones are important in the treatment of human infections because of their broad spectrum of activity against a range of infectious bacteria and their safety and ease of administration.
Many scientists are concerned about potential problems from the apparent relationship between the use of the agents in food-producing animals and the emergence of Salmonella serotypes with reduced susceptibility to fluorquinolones in humans. Since their introduction for use in poultry, there has also been a significant rise in fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni isolated in live poultry, poultry meat, and humans in the U.S., U.K. and Netherlands.
FDA has proposed a regulatory framework for antimicrobial drugs used in food-animal production, and is developing a guideline document for industry. The framework seeks to rank drugs by their importance to human medicine and to provide a risk-based framework for their use in animals. FDA’s Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance expressed “particular concern that certain drugs, of classes currently viewed as critical for human medicine, are already being used in food animals.”
The Task Force is part of a recent government-wide effort to combat antimicrobial resistance.
Legislation introduced into Congress in June 2002 would prohibit the nontherapeutic use in feed animals of eight specific antimicrobial drugs that could select for resistance to drugs used in human medicine.
The American Veterinary Medical Association recommends using narrow spectrum drugs when possible, limiting treatment to only sick or at-risk animals rather than dosing whole herds or flocks, and using drugs important to human health only after careful consideration. The association calls for further research to determine the risks of sub-therapeutic levels in animal feed to promote growth before prohibitions are imposed.
Who Keeps Track?
In the U.S., the Department of Agriculture collects information about resistant bacteria in animals as well as antibacterial drug residues in food. While the levels of antibacterials in food that might promote resistance in humans are not known, their use can contribute to the pool of resistant pathogens.
The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) monitors the occurrence of drug resistant microbes in both humans and animals. This coordinated network of public health laboratories and federal agencies collects samples of specific microbes found in people and animals and sends them for testing to determine if they are resistant to antibiotics. The results of these tests are compared with data from previous years to look for changes in resistance patterns. NARMS reports are published annually.
Surveillance for antibiotic resistance in agricultural settings is being expanded to all 50 states and a study is being launched of resistant pathogens found on retail foods. The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing current scientific data on the effect of antimicrobial pesticide products.
Effects of Antibiotic Bans on Growers and Consumers
The Danish Experience
Five years after Denmark banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in food animals, resistance rates of bacteria to these antibiotics fell significantly.
Following Denmark’s ban of the antibiotic avoparcin in food animals in 1995, the resistance rate for this and related antibiotics fell from 72.7% in 1995 to just over 5% in 2000.
One of the concerns raised by calls to reduce or prohibit antimicrobial use in food animals is that production costs will rise.
The Swedish Experience
A University of Iowa study of the effect of Sweden’s ban on antimicrobials for growth promoters in the hog industry found an estimated net increase of consumer costs of about $0.12 +/- 0.06/kg retail meat, half of which was due to the antibiotics ban and half to animal welfare legislation.
The U.S. Situation
Because of differences between farming and food production practices in Scandinavia and the U.S., it can’t be assumed that the exact same outcomes would be seen following a ban of antimicrobial use on American farms and feedlots.
The impact of such a ban needs to be studied to examine issues such as the incidence of disease in flocks without preventive antibiotics, the effect on food production and the general food supply, and how to address possible economic losses for farmers.
This examination of possible outcomes and ways to address them should include participation by farmers, food producers, scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, and public health officials. For example, if the proposed legislation becomes law, steps could be taken to help compensate farmers and food producers for losses associated with the transition away from antimicrobial use.
The University of Iowa report on potential effects on the hog industry estimated that a ban in the U.S. would cause production costs to initially rise by $6.04 per hog, tapering to an increase of $5.24 after 10 years. The decrease in net profit would be $0.79 per hog after 10 years because of higher prices charged to consumers. Retail pork prices would increase by $0.05 per pound.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/raisingresistance.pdf
Raising Resistance: Feeding Antibiotics to Healthy Food Animals Breeds Bacteria Dangerous to Human Health
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a major public health crisis, leading to infections that are difficult to treat and sometimes impossible to cure, require longer and more expensive hospital stays, and are more likely to be fatal. At the same time, the development of new antibiotics has slowed to a trickle. In some cases, there are now few or no antibiotics that work to treat drug-resistant bacterial infections. Meanwhile, scientific studies have shown that consumers are exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria on their meat and other food. While improper use of antibiotics in the health care sector is a problem, organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) recognize that the “overuse and misuse of antibiotics in food animals” is a major source of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Curbing inappropriate use of antibiotics is key to maintaining their effectiveness in humans and slowing the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.
last revised 10/11/2011
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/akar/court_tells_fda_dont_delay_on.html
Court Tells FDA: Don’t Delay on Protecting People Against Antibiotic Overuse in Factory Farms
Print this page
Avinash Kar
Posted August 8, 2012 in Health and the Environment
Tags:
antibioticresistance, antibiotics, CAFO, factoryfarm, FDA, food, health, livestock
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook_like |
|
In a decision earlier today, a federal court in New York ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot delay regulatory proceedings for penicillin and tetracyclines use in livestock – two kinds of antibiotics whose overuse in animals is reducing their effectiveness in treating sick people. This is good news!
Thumbnail image for feature_pighazard_adjusted.jpgThe court action 1) ensures that action is not delayed further until after the resolution of an appeal by FDA of the court’s original decision to mandate these proceedings and 2) imposes a deadline for the completion of the proceedings (thereby rejecting FDA’s arguments that a schedule was not needed). FDA will have approximately five years to complete proceedings.
A quick refresher on how we got here: In 1977, FDA found that the use of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed poses risks for human health because it leads to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistance reduces the efficacy of important medicines and can lead to longer illnesses, more hospitalizations, the use of drugs with greater side-effects, and even death when treatments fail. As the Director General of the World Health Organization has warned, bacteria are becoming so resistant to common antibiotics that it could mean “the end of modern medicine as we know it,” and “[t]hings as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”
We sued FDA to force FDA to address this threat, and back in March, the court ruled that FDA must withdraw approvals for the use of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed unless drug manufacturers prove in regulatory hearings that such uses are safe for human health.
In imposing a schedule for FDA action today, the court pointed to FDA’s “unreasonable” 35-year delay in “perform[ing] its statutorily-prescribed duty to initiate, let alone complete, withdrawal proceedings” for penicillin and tetracyclines. In other words, it’s been long enough already.
FDA needs to move forward as rapidly as possible with the regulatory proceedings to address this pressing health threat and to rectify its decades-long neglect of this issue.
It’s time to quit stalling and get going.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/akar/public_outpouring_calling_on_f.html
80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States are used on livestock.
Over two hundred thousand Americans have written to the FDA to demand a better solution for antibiotic misuse in livestock. They were responding to the toothless new guidelines—mere recommendations that industry is free to ignore and full of loopholes at that—that FDA released as its preferred approach to addressing the rising public health threat of antibiotic resistance associated with the dangerous misuse of antibiotics in livestock.
Here are some key stats from what we know about the letters submitted so far:
Almost 220,000 citizens
44 hospitals
Over 350 doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals in the Health Care Without Harm network and over 500 health professionals in the Healthy Food Action network
6 progressive businesses already working to provide their customers with livestock products raised without antibiotics (Applegate, Bon Appétit Management Company, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Niman Ranch Pork Company, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm)
270 chefs from across the United States
At least 58 organizations, spanning medical, health, business, consumer, farming, environmental, veterinarian, and food-focused groups
The letters call on the FDA to do better. They tell the FDA that mandatory requirements are necessary to stop the misuse of antibiotics on animals that are not sick and to eliminate the loopholes in the FDA’s proposed recommendations so that they might potentially serve as a useful addition to mandatory regulations. (Click here to see the letter NRDC sent in addition to the coalition letter we signed.)
Here’s a reminder of why this issue is so important. 80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States are used on livestock, the vast majority on animals that are not sick, to make them grow fatter faster and to compensate for unsanitary and crowded conditions. This overuse of antibiotics in livestock is a leading contributor to the rise of dangerous “superbugs”—bacteria that develop resistance to the commonly prescribed antibiotics we rely on when we get infections. More and more, doctors are struggling to treat these types of infections, and many become fatal. When antibiotics don’t work as well as they used to, illnesses can last longer, can lead to more hospitalizations, can require the use of stronger antibiotics with greater side effects, and can even result in death when a bacteria that is causing the infection is resistant to all antibiotics that can be used to kill it.
Recent reports link antibiotic resistant bacteria found in chicken to painful urinary tract infections affecting 8 million women in the U.S. that are resistant to a cure (see this ABC News report). The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 99,000 people died of hospital-acquired infections in 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the vast majority of those infections were caused by antibiotic-resistant “superbugs.” The Institute of Medicine warns that “the specter of untreatable infections – a regression to the pre-antibiotic era – is looming just around the corner” if antibiotic resistance is not addressed. (For more about the issue of antibiotic use in livestock, see my past blogs: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/akar/.)
The outpouring of feedback to the FDA from citizens and from groups focused on our health, food, and environment, shows that consumers are becoming more aware of this threat to their health and are ready for serious action to protect the public interest. It’s also a clarion call for the FDA to stop dragging its feet and to move decisively to curtail the unnecessary use of antibiotics in livestock.
The ball is in the FDA’s court. It needs to start prioritizing public health and stop protecting the profits of the industries that are putting our medicines and health at risk.
Note: I want to be sure to acknowledge that the letters submitted to FDA reflect the great work of a broad coalition of groups, including: Farm Aid, Food and Water Watch, Food Democracy Now, Consumers Union, True Food Now, the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Pew Charitable Trusts, Health Care Without Harm, CREDOMobile, Union of Concerned Scientists, Family Farmed, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Chefs Collaborative, and, of course, NRDC.
*This blog was updated on Friday, July 13, with the note above and on Monday, July 16, with the information about the letters from healthcare professionals in the Healthy Food Action network.