As reported by the New York Times, the FDA is on the brink of sharply curtailing the prevailing practice of routine antibiotic administration to feed animals.
Since you probably don't have a large pig pen or cattle yard in your backyard, this might seem to be at several removes from anything you need to care about. But you should care.
Antibiotics fed to animals we eat are, in turn, to some degree eaten by us along with those animals. True, much of the drug has passed through the animal at the time of slaughter, but probably not that last dose or two. So, we, too, are nominally subject to routine antibiotic dosing. Comes along with the pickle and sesame seed bun, no extra charge.
But the far greater issue is this: microbes, aka bacteria, encounter those antibiotics in vast herds of medicated cattle and swine. The vulnerable bugs are killed; the strong survive. They survive by means of resistance factors, which are then passed on to their progeny.
The result, of course, is antimicrobial resistant bugs that laugh off such antibiotics as methicillin, and vancomycin, and just maybe ... everything else we've got.
And, unfortunately, that laughter is highly contagious. By means of such molecular devilry as plasmids, resistant bacteria can pass along traits not only to their offspring, but also to their neighbors -- and they to theirs. If this doesn't scare you, no evil thing will!
The basis for the looming FDA action is research indicating that antibiotic dosing of feed animals is probably a greater contributor to the global burden of antimicrobial-resistant germs than is the use of such drugs in hospitals; quite possibly, a far greater contributor. So the FDA action seems not only logical and warranted, but if anything, overdue.
But here's the rub: what is likely to happen to very large, very densely packed herds of feed animals raised without antibiotics? At best, infections and their toll and slower overall growth and development will almost certainly drive up the cost of meat. At worst, the conditions of industrial farming may create a giant petrie dish that propagates infections among feed animals, some of which may spread to us.
Seems a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario, but it isn't. That is if we do the thing that fixes the problem at the source. Eat less meat.
While I very much support a vegetarian or vegan diet, I don't see that as the only solution for a species that has been omnivorous for a very long time -- further back, perhaps, than it has been a species. But for the sake of our health, the health of our planet, the ethical treatment of fellow creatures and the preservation of any hope that our antibiotics will work as intended when needed most urgently-- we should eat less meat, more plants. Go all the way to veganism if inclined, or go only a few steps -- but go.
We have turned a vast quantity of meat on the hoof into an incubator for bugs we can't beat. Eliminating somewhat gratuitous use of antibiotics is a helpful start. But the best way to avoid such horrors as resistant, flesh-eating bacteria is to overcome our cultural resistance to the notion of life with fewer hamburgers, and eat a bit less flesh ourselves.
Dr. David L. Katz
www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
Wendy Gordon: Drug Resistant Infections: Why I Buy Organic Pork and Poultry
He still can't bring himself to say aloud (or write in a straight forward manner) that which is plainly obvious: we're omnivorous. When we were a different species, we weren't "we". Our species, we are omnivores, and we don't need to make excuses about it.
You know, more than around 10 factories that produce all our food?
This is a huge country, lots of open space, we could even range-feed all our beef.
I'll bet they don't have this problem in the EU. They make laws, pay more and eat real food.
Range feeding stopped because sheep farming and fences took over. That's what the range wars were about. There's plenty of land, just can't get between all of it.
I have been a Vegan for over 30 years and I consider myself very healthy. In all of those years I never took medication for any ailments, not even an aspirin and I feel as strong as an Ox.
No need to concern yourself about Steriods or Antibiotics coming from the Plant Kingdom, besides its the right thing to do when you consider that our lust for animal flesh has led to a cruel factory farming industry that compromises everyone's moral integrity.
Since Dr. Katz is not ignorant, I suspect that his comment was deliberately misleading. In any case, it brings into question the accuracy of any statement he may make later on. An example of that is his comment about flesh eating bacteria, which are human to human transmitted, not a food borne problem and have no relevance here other than to scare people.
Huffpost has a long history of dabbling in voodoo, crystal power type science, and this is just one of a long chain. I wish they would skip the sensationalism and apply the same standards to their science that they do to their political work.
Your central argument here is logically flawed. If we take your analysis of the development of drug-resistant organisms as a starting point (though I would argue with your construction), what you have offered here is not an argument against meat-eating, but rather an argument against large and crowded meat farms and also an argument against using antibiotics in meat animals. If we raised meat in small, sparse farms and used few or no antibiotics, we would have solved the problem you delineate. Or if we ate wild fish.
In short, your conclusion does not follow.
This whole narrative that bacterias are resistant to anti bacterial drugs is in itself a misleading premise.
Anti Bacterial drugs were created to let bacterias and viruses a chance to mutate and survive. So, they can sell a new improved version of itself. The problem with this narrative is there is already a treatment that will kill 100% of all viruses and bacterias. Its called Sodium Chlorite. It kills on contact by way of robbing the molecule of pathogens of their electrons, virtually exploding the infected cell immediately. There is no chance that these viruses can mutate because they are no longer alive. Industries have been using this for over eighty years with extreme success processing chicken before sending to the market place, cleaning and disinfecting hospitals, water treatment plants, bleaching rice and flour and hundreds of other uses like killing anthrax. The FDA is trying to shut down the distributors of sodium chlorite for personal use to protect the pharmaceutical companies but without any supporting data to substantiate their claims of it being dangerous. In fact in the FDA research archives they have supporting data that say sodium chlorite is safe for human consumption. But since there is no money in the sales of Sodium chlorite because you can not get a patent, no pharmaceutical wants to distribute. Google Jim Humble for the whole story.
Thank you for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Anti-bacterial drugs do nothing against viruses, a completely separate class of organism.
Anti-bacterial drugs were not first created by humans either, but rather, produced by fungus. Penicillin, the first antibiotic discovered, was not generated by humans, but rather discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928 as a product produced by the fungus Penicillium.
"There is no chance that these viruses can mutate because they are no longer alive. "
Unless of course they mutated prior to sodium chlorite treatment. Also, treatment of meat with sodium chlorite would only disinfect the surface of the meat, not kill anything living inside it. This would also not doing anything to affect animals who were suffering from systemic infections.
"This whole narrative that bacterias are resistant to anti bacterial drugs is in itself a misleading premise."
Surely you could provide some evidence that antibiotic resistance is not real...
Jim Humble's MMS
Newsletter
Alzheimer Patient Regains Memory
We haven't found many Alzheimer patients as they are often hidden away somewhere and always have relatives that know better.But in this lady's case her son had watched the medical doctors do absolutely nothing for years and he has seen MMS do something, so he was willing to try.
Within two weeks she was back to thinking clearly.(Who knows how clearly, but that is what she says as opposed to saying that she could not think at all.) In addition, much of her memory had returned. In fact, she is not only remembering what she ate but what spices were in the food! She is remembering details!!Of course, she is not totally cured yet, but she is back to living her life.All the indications are that she will be well in a few more weeks. Have you ever heard of a medical drug doing anything similar in such a short time? As I write this sentence (9/22/2010) this lady has finished her 3rd week and a telephone call to her this morning proves she is feeling even better with even better thinking and more memory returned.
What the doctor fails to mention is that most antibiotics aren't prescribed to hospital patients. This makes me wonder if he wants us to believe livestock plays a larger role in this very real problem than humans do. Not that I think adding a sub-therapeutic dose of antibiotics to livestock feed is a good thing (I don't), but the amount of antibiotics used in feedlots and hospitals is a drop in the bucket compared to what is prescribed in the offices of dentists, doctors and veterinarians.
Also: "The vulnerable bugs are killed; the strong survive."
That's not what "survival of the fittest" means. The "fittest" are those who can adapt to any given environment. Take pigeons and eagles, for example. Are eagles stronger than pigeons? Yes, if we're measuring brute strength, but in urban environments pigeons are the fittest.
Who are you quoting exactly? It's certainly not in the article.
>> The "fittest" are those who can adapt to any given environment.
Incorrect. You also don't understand what "adaptation" means in evolutionary terms. If you are a biology student, I'd be hitting the books a little harder if I was you. Just a little friendly advice.
With fish and shrimp, you don't get any efficiency or growth advantage with low levels, but you do get a feed cost increase. Hence, this practice isn't used in aquaculture.
This doesn't mean that eliminating antibiotics from the diet is not a good idea. It is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
My dad was a microbiologist and warned that, when all the antibiltic soap starting hitting the market, that bacteria would evolve and become immune to the soap, and we would need stronger and stronger drugs to combat their defenses. He said just use soap and water and that would be enough. We rarely we sick - we washed our hands.
Bottom line - political campaign money. Who cares about health when the lobbyists are in charge.