In this brief, the reader will see the pros and cons in antibiotic livestock. They will see commonly misunderstandings about antibiotics and facts. Throughout the paper the reader will see what long term and short term problems and benefits in livestock. In this research paper it will be covering antibiotics resistance and also how antibiotics it has changed the face of medicine.
The author Tom Philpot starts the article off with a funny title but non-the less negative analogy of factory farms and anti-biotics. Although a negative title it does catch your attention because the term playing chicken means someone must die. So the title make you wonder what does farm factories have to do with antibiotics one of our most important miracle drugs used to combat infections.
In Aug 2012, a Toronto Maple Leaf Foods (“the Company”) plant was confirmed as being involved in the outbreak of the food-borne illness, caused by the bacterium Listeria. A day later, Maple Leaf upgraded a precautionary recall of 23 of its products in previous week to all 220 packaged meats from the plant at the Bartor’s Road, which has been shut down. The company has estimated the recall will directly cost it at least $20 million, with further costs expected due to lost sales and reputation damage. Since the outbreak of Listeria bacterium, 22 people died and there were 57 total confirmed cases of illness caused by Listeria 1. Although the Listeria outbreak was described by the Company’s CEO as “the
Industrial farms use antibiotics in animal feed and water to prevent disease in farm animals. Many farms use antibiotics before an infection has even occurred.
Antibiotics, composed of microorganisms such as streptomycin and penicillin, kill other infectious microorganisms in the human body. At one point, antibiotics were considered to have “basically wiped out infection in the United States”, but due to their overuse and evolutionary
A couple times a year local and national mass media put the spotlight on problems connected to antibiotic overuse. Some people consider those problems to be real and serious, and others think that the discussed topics are nothing more than new “fashionable” subjects to talk about, distracting people from “real” problems, such as climbing gas prices or war expenses. Meanwhile, antibiotic overuse continues as a common practice among US doctors and agribusinesses for the last 20 years. The practice of antibiotic overuse has put patient’s health at risk, contributed to antibiotic resistance and increased bacterial mutation to a new, stronger level; as well as it hitting the economy with new costly expenses in health care. It is time to stop
Antibiotics are inarguably one of the greatest advances in medical science of the past century. Although the first natural antibiotic Penicillin was not discovered until 1928 by Scottish biologist Alexander Flemming, evidence exists that certain plant and mold growths were used to treat infections in ancient Egypt, ancient India, and classical Greece (Forrest, 1982). In our modern world with the advent of synthetic chemistry synthetic antibiotics like Erithromycin and its derivative Azithromycin have been developed. Antibiotics have many uses including the treatment of bacterial and protozoan infection, in surgical operations and prophylactically to prevent the development of an infection. Through these applications, antibiotics have saved countless lives across the world and radically altered the field of medicine. Though a wonderful and potentially lifesaving tool, antibiotic use is not without its disadvantages. Mankind has perhaps been too lax in regulation and too liberal in application of antibiotics and growing antibiotic resistance is the price we must now pay. A recent study showed that perhaps 70% of bacterial infections acquired during hospital visits in the United States are resistant to at least one class of antibiotic (Leeb, 2004). Bacteria are not helpless and their genetic capabilities have allowed them to take advantage of society’s overuse of antibiotics, allowing them to develop
In recent years, Americans have been blaming antibiotics used in animals to be processed for food for many of the growing number of health problems in developed countries. Fast food restaurants are making movements to remove antibiotic treated meats from their menus. This movement is causing quite the stir in consumers and livestock producers alike. Do the antibiotics used in beef really contribute to antibiotic resistant diseases? Should antibiotics be outlawed in the use of farm animals? The eradication of antibiotic use in America’s beef industry is not feasible due to its usage in the treatment and control of deadly or discomforting diseases.
Do you want the animals you eat feed antibiotics and the food is not fresh or do you want food that is fresh and the animals are feed right?Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat. Ever since they discovered decades ago and has been found as a health risk to humans but there is a food chain that can help America. The local sustainable food chain is the best food source to feed America.
By weight, eighty percent of antibiotics are used in agriculture to “fatten animals” and “protect them from the conditions in which they are raised” (McKenna). Animals are given micro-doses of antibiotics, that is, a small amount of antibiotics to prevent diseases from occurring. This micro-dosage amount allows for mutation that Fleming described. The routine use of antibiotics in agriculture has led to “[sixty-five] percent of chicken breasts” and “[forty-four] percent of ground beef” to house bacteria “resistant to tetracycline”. Additionally, “[eleven] percent of pork chops carried bacteria resistant to five classes of drugs” (McKenna). These bacteria then spread from animals to the humans who eat them, causing humans to get infections which cannot be treated. The issue isn’t as simple as ceasing to give antibiotics to animals. Most animals raised for consumption live in an environment ripe for infections and diseases to spread. Instead of giving the animals more room to live, the majority of farmers opt to give the animals antibiotics. For cattle, This prevents diseases and death to the immature weaned calves and cattle which saves the rancher both time and money—passing on the savings to the consumers. In a free market society higher prices tend to not go well. However, if antibiotics became useless farmers would have to “[enlarge] barns, [cut] down on crowding, and [delay] weaning”, which ultimately would increase the costs of raising livestock
coli and Salmonella” (Veldman). This statement allows the reader to see the negative impact of antibiotics used in livestock. Gay Miller elaborates on the subject when speaking with Veldman, saying, “Of course, it raises concerns about resistance issues… but from my perspective the most important thing to reflect on with regard to antibiotic resistance is from a benefit/cost perspective.” Veldman continues to explain that the National Cattleman’s Beef Association Website also says, “…science has not found a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals and development of resistant bacteria that might compromise the efficacy of related antibiotics in human medicine.” These two statements by Veldman and Miller tell the reader that even though there is a chance that certain antibiotics used in livestock could be harmful to consumers, there is no scientific evidence to support
The word “antibiotic” in the livestock industry endures an extremely toasty topic. This word appears on Facebook posts, Twitter feeds, and in television news. Antibiotics receive an unfair assessment, when in reality, the word is just one large miscommunication between agriculturists like myself, and the public consumers. October 20th, 2015 was a
This is due in part by the previous statement to get higher yields out every animal raised. Cattle, chickens and pigs alike are all subject to certain fattening diets, modern breeding techniques and growth hormone treatments. These forced practices have very adverse, life altering and threatening affects that lead farmers to use antibiotics in order to keep diseases at bay. The Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals states, “doses are used when pathogens are known to be present in the environment or when animals encounter a high stress situation and are more susceptible to pathogens “, (1999, p. 28). It is important to point out that the use of growth hormones and antibiotics dramatically increases body mass, drastically shortens the lifespan of animals such as cattle and is being detected in food for human consumption.
As the soil becomes more and more polluted with these toxins, it becomes unsustainable. Therefore, land that would have remained fertile for centuries through the commonsense farming of our ancestors, is being ruined by farming controlled by big corporations whose sole interest is in immediate short term profit (Goodall 38). Industrialized livestock farming with thousands of animals crammed into small factory spaces is responsible for numerous bacterial and viral infections such as E.coli., Avian bird flu, Mad cow disease, Salmonella, and many more. Therefore, conventional farmers use antibiotics to keep these animals alive. This over use of antibiotics is causing the creation of new, resistant strains of deadly diseases that kill people and animals. Disease is actually caused by the bad practices, shortcuts, and antibiotic resistance. This has the opposite effect of what was intended and also costs farmers millions of dollars every year instead of saving money. Unfortunately, conventional agriculture experts recommend these monocultural farming practices in the name of quick, mass production.