• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

FDA limit on antibiotic use in farm animals stirs doubt

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,483
Use of antibiotics to fatten cattle, hogs and chickens for human consumption will be phased out by 2017, as U.S. regulators seek to curb a rise in more deadly forms of foodborne pathogens.



The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said Wednesday that it was beginning to phase out the use of some antibiotics in animals raised for meat, a major policy shift that could have far-reaching implications for industrial farming and human health.

The change, which will take effect over the next three years, is the first serious attempt in decades by the federal government to curb the broad use of antibiotics in farm animals. Pressure for action has mounted as the effectiveness of drugs important for human health has declined, and deaths from bugs resistant to antibiotics have soared. Food producers said they will abide by the rules, but some public-health advocates voiced concerns that loopholes could render the policy toothless.

“This is the first significant step in dealing with this important public-health concern in 20 years,” said David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner who has been critical of the agency’s track record on antibiotics. “No one should underestimate how big a lift this has been in changing widespread and long-entrenched industry practices.”

Antibiotics, one of the wonder drugs of the 20th century, were initially used indiscriminately in people and animals, experts say. By the 1970s, public-health officials had become worried that overuse was leading to the development of infections resistant to treatment in humans. But for years, modest efforts by federal officials were thwarted by the powerful food industry and its lobbying power in Congress. The issue of antibiotic overuse in animals and drug resistance has since become one of the leading public-health concerns worldwide, with at least 2 million Americans falling sick every year and about 23,000 dying from antibiotic-resistant infections.

cont at
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022445203_animalantibioticsxml.html
 
All I can say is that antibiotics should be saved for humans, or animals sick with a bacterial infection.
Not as a "preventative" treatment.
This ruins it for everyone.

This is my "law": If you can't raise your meat without treating it with preventative antibiotics, don't do it.
Limit yourself to half (or a tenth) the number of pigs etc. in the same space, and raise them so that they can move around and build their own immune systems, and don't need preventative antibiotics.

I refuse to eat meat from animals that received preventative antibiotics, or were "farm-raised" = tortured.
I try not to eat animals most of the time, but sometimes I do, for various reasons (convenience, or I am simply in the mood to do so).
To me, it makes all the difference if the animal had a decent life before being killed.
But that issue is distinct from the antibiotics issue (though closely related).
Preventative antibiotic use = another reason to eat free-range animals, if you eat animals.
 
I am here with the coalition of bacteria and we are promoting resistance and I have to say that this idea goes against our goals. If you limit our exposure then it will take us that much longer to prevail.
 
Top