ANTIBIOTICS IN FARMING: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Scientists estimate that the American population experiences approximately 76 million foodborne illnesses each year; a statistic that would look much different if antibiotics were not present in the meat production industry today. Despite their life-saving qualities, antibiotics have raised new concerns relating to developing antibiotic resistance. Many believe that antibiotic resistance transfers to humans after consuming meat infected with an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Many countries have already taken measures to either reduce or altogether halt farm-use antibiotics. The United States’ citizens and other countries as well, continually pressure the United States to follow their lead, but banning antibiotics’ usage seems unreasonable, given the unproven link between human resistance and animal resistance, antibiotics’ usefulnesses, and the fact that the argument banning them lacks validity.
To begin, antibiotic resistance refers to bacteria that builds tolerance to a certain antibiotic treatment after being exposed too frequently or not fully. This leads to problems when people assume that humans receive the resistant bacteria once they consume the infected meat; leaving them defenseless against certain illnesses considered easily antibiotically treated, if they did not posses the resistant bacteria. Despite that the recent antibiotic increase in animals parallels the resistance increase in humans, Dr. Margaret Mellon states, “There is no evidence that antibiotic resistance is not a problem, but there is insufficient evidence as to how big the problem is,” and also, no conclusive evidence of a direct link between the two actually exists. Without this link, arguing antibiotics in farming as a problem for human health seems illogical.
Though lacking knowledge about a connection between animal resistance and human resistance, some countries have already taken measures against antibiotics; reducing and even banning antibiotics not medically used. The European Union and Canada have established a ban, following Denmark, who banned the use first. Denmark’s antibiotic control system turned out successful, but such methods in the United States would surely harbor less success. We lack a farming industry forum, such as the Danish Agriculture Food Council, that allows all farmers to communicate and connect. Without coordination means, an American ban implies future failure. Also, any issue necessitates public support; something nearly impossible here, with little public awareness and opposing agriculture and veterinary sectors.
Banning American non-therapeutic antibiotics generates another negative when people forget the advantages that the drugs provide for the meat industry. While antibiotic resistance itself remains a problem, its potential impact on human health may not outweigh the economic and health benefits that antibiotics yield. Obviously these antibiotics keep animals healthy and disease-free, but they also impact the business market for producers, consumers, and veterinarians. For one, feeding animals antibiotics daily can increase their weight gain from three to four percent. This increases meat production efficiency relating to both costs and production rates. For example, in 1999, hog producers saved an estimated $63 million employing low-level antibiotic treatments. Not only does it save the farmers money, but it reduces consumer costs and supports healthy competition and research among veterinarians. Without these antibiotics, consumers would face high prices while producers would face high costs; a lose-lose situation.
In addition to the forgotten benefits that antibiotics supply, the fact that scientists have disproven many ways suggested that antibiotics negatively impact humans serves as another flaw in the argument against them. While the argument continually examines the drug’s non-medical usage, it often fails to mention that farmers employ most antibiotics for treatment. Also, several facts and statistics furnished for the argument render just downright false. For instance, the FDA says farming practices use eighty percent of antibiotics sold, however people cannot accredit this fact, because the FDA doesn’t even monitor human medicinal antibiotics. Other important points include that some animal antibiotics do not even hold fit for human use and that a large discrepancy exists between the number of individual animals versus individual humans. If considered proportionally, humans exercise significantly more antibiotic treatment than animals.
Because the argument for banning non-therapeutic antibiotics falls short from the truth, the evidence behind an animal resistance and human resistance correlation lacks foundation, and antibiotics create several advantages, eliminating their use in the farming industry appears far from reasonable. While further research and monitoring may help to identify successful reduction methods, I do not believe that we have neither enough support nor knowledge to take any further steps today. Currently, viewing antibiotics in farming as a health hazard seems irrational, and antibiotics deserve a more positive reputation until actually proven guilty.
SOURCES
McEwen, Scott A. “Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Nature.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 34 (2002): 93-106. Google Scholar. Web. 14 September 2012.
"NPPC Responds To Slaughter's Accusations About Antibiotics." National Hog Farmer 56.6 (2011): 33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.
http://whyfiles.org/099food/4.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
XOXO Madison Williams
No comments:
Post a Comment