Antibiotics and the food chain; a different problem, the same problem...
Today there was a lunch talk sponsored by one of the student organizations that was a two-sided presentation on the use of antibiotics in raising livestock. One of the presenters was a woman who worked as a veterinarian with the National Pork Board, and the other was a guy with an MFA who was doing research on antibiotic use in animals. It was basically one pro, one con.
I've already heard a lot on the "con" side of using antibiotics in animals. I have a lot of friends who are dedicated to the cause (taking measures from vegetarianism to buying only organic meat, etc). This summer, I read (about half of, and then school started) a great book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that taught me a lot about the use of chemicals in corn, and antibiotics in feed, etc.
I was slightly surprised that we even had someone speaking on the more "pro" side, though it became quickly apparent that was the case. Some things that complicated my current information was that antibiotics ARE often used in "organic meat" (just not "growth hormones," which are differently classified), and this interesting feeling from the "vet" point of view that they (just like us human doctor counterparts) are out there trying to treat their patients as well as they can, to keep them healthy. That includes vaccination, and, yes, prophylactic and disease treating use of APPROVED antibiotics. I also found out that there are VERY strict guidelines for how much and when and WHICH antibiotics can be used in animals (those that are most effective in humans are particularly tightly controlled). On the other hand, the tracking system of antibiotics used in these facilities are much LESS tracked then human antibiotic use, something that seems hugely problematic to me.
The vet passed out pamphlets about the new "Take Care" guidelines, which is basically a "responsible use" program for pork farmers. It's language includes "take appropriate steps to decrease the need for the application of antibiotics", says their use should be "limited to ill or at-risk animals, treating the fewest animals indicated" (though, I will say that when you have 5000 pigs in one place, aren't they ALL at risk? can you imagine what would happen to people's infectious disease rates if we did that?) and emphasizes veterinary input in the use and dispension so its obviously a step in the right direction.
The con side was mostly the kinds of things I'd heard before, and the kinds of things that made me interested enough to go to this talk anyway: rising levels of antibiotics in our water, in our meat, in our children, in our environment, leading to yet another route of antibiotic resistant and new, more virulent, and less treatable pathogenic bacteria. I'll point you to a source he pointed us to if you'd like to see more "evidence based" information; www.ucsusa.org. Also, "Omnivore's Dilemma"? Great book. Highly recommend, even if I've only read half of it. I'll be finishing it...right after our pharm final over 800+ drugs. Including, of course, antibiotics.
I've already heard a lot on the "con" side of using antibiotics in animals. I have a lot of friends who are dedicated to the cause (taking measures from vegetarianism to buying only organic meat, etc). This summer, I read (about half of, and then school started) a great book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that taught me a lot about the use of chemicals in corn, and antibiotics in feed, etc.
I was slightly surprised that we even had someone speaking on the more "pro" side, though it became quickly apparent that was the case. Some things that complicated my current information was that antibiotics ARE often used in "organic meat" (just not "growth hormones," which are differently classified), and this interesting feeling from the "vet" point of view that they (just like us human doctor counterparts) are out there trying to treat their patients as well as they can, to keep them healthy. That includes vaccination, and, yes, prophylactic and disease treating use of APPROVED antibiotics. I also found out that there are VERY strict guidelines for how much and when and WHICH antibiotics can be used in animals (those that are most effective in humans are particularly tightly controlled). On the other hand, the tracking system of antibiotics used in these facilities are much LESS tracked then human antibiotic use, something that seems hugely problematic to me.
The vet passed out pamphlets about the new "Take Care" guidelines, which is basically a "responsible use" program for pork farmers. It's language includes "take appropriate steps to decrease the need for the application of antibiotics", says their use should be "limited to ill or at-risk animals, treating the fewest animals indicated" (though, I will say that when you have 5000 pigs in one place, aren't they ALL at risk? can you imagine what would happen to people's infectious disease rates if we did that?) and emphasizes veterinary input in the use and dispension so its obviously a step in the right direction.
The con side was mostly the kinds of things I'd heard before, and the kinds of things that made me interested enough to go to this talk anyway: rising levels of antibiotics in our water, in our meat, in our children, in our environment, leading to yet another route of antibiotic resistant and new, more virulent, and less treatable pathogenic bacteria. I'll point you to a source he pointed us to if you'd like to see more "evidence based" information; www.ucsusa.org. Also, "Omnivore's Dilemma"? Great book. Highly recommend, even if I've only read half of it. I'll be finishing it...right after our pharm final over 800+ drugs. Including, of course, antibiotics.