Then Tom continues education with a little education on the variety of antibiotics and how “crucial for treating serious human infections” (Philpott). Using a hotlink to a well-known credible organization like the “Food and Drug Administration” back up some of his statistics regarding over use of antibiotics in livestock operations. Tom continually notes
In 2011, the United States sold 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics for meat and poultry production use. but only 7.7 million pounds for human use. Antibiotics are used in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to kill bacteria that lives among the animals to keep them healthy until slaughter. They come with many side effects which end up harming the consumer, the animal's life becomes shortened because of the antibiotics speeding up the growth and the long term effects on the earth could end up costing us lots of money. Even though antibiotics keep the animal healthy, the usage in livestock should be banned because it causes a health threat to the consumer and creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
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
Since the 1940s, many arguments have been made about whether the use of antibiotics in livestock are harmful or beneficial. Another topic of discussion also includes whether these antibiotics present a negative impact to humans who consume meat, eggs, and milk from animals who are treated with antibiotics. Stephanie Veldman, who is the associate editor for Beef Magazine, wrote the article titled, The Antibiotics Argument, in October of 2005. She takes an approach towards explaining the significance of using antibiotics in livestock and how our food may be impacted by their use.
The main threat for the overuse of antibiotics are the creation of antibiotic resistant microbes, or more commonly called superbugs. Antibiotics are used to kill mass amounts of bacteria, but they cannot kill all of them. Some bacteria still survive, so they will reproduce and pass their genes down to their offspring. The offspring will now have their parents genes, which includes being resistant to a certain type of antibiotic. Tom Philpott, an award winning writer about food politics, explained, “And the worst part is that antibiotics use in factory farms is not mostly matter of keeping animals healthy.” Philpott is saying farmers mostly use antibiotics to promote faster growth and not to treat sickness. American Cyanamid, a pharmaceutical company, tested animals with vitamin B12 to see if they grew faster. The animals saw significant weight gain, and more experiments were tested. What American Cyanamid found was the antibiotic in vitamin B12 was actually causing the weight gain. This discovery led to mass amounts of antibiotics being used in animals. In 1950, before the discovery, there were 1.6 million chicken farms raising a total of about 560 million chickens. 28 years later, 3 billion chickens were being hatched in about 31,000 large farms (Philpott). The discovery led to mass expansion of farms, because animals were able to grow faster and bigger, so farms took advantage. Factory farms have been overusing
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
Antibiotic use in animals has recently captured the attention of various professionals as the blatant, adverse effects have become increasingly prevalent. Agricultural manufacturers carelessly inject livestock with antibiotics in order to maximize their weight gain by minimizing the amount of energy consumed in fighting illnesses. This broad use of antibiotics in food-producing animals has contributed to the emergence and distribution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, resulting in either mild or fatal illnesses. To put the severity of this issue in perspective, legislators must realize that 1 in 5 antibiotic-resistant infections are caused by bacteria from food and animals. Although antibiotic use in animals is not the sole culprit of the
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.
The health of consumers will not be endangered if we treat the animals humanely. Antibiotic resistance caused by factory
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.
Farm animals receive 30 times more antibiotics (mostly penicillins and tetracyclines) than people do. The drugs treat and prevent infections. But the main reason farmers like them is that they also make cows, hogs and chickens grow faster from each pound of feed. Resistant strains emerge just as they do in humans taking antibiotics--and remain in the animal's flesh even after it winds up in the meat case. (par. 8)
For decades farmers regularly used antibiotics to maximize the amount of animals in a confined space. Over time, the confined spaces allowed resistant bacteria to grow and evolve, contributing to the current antibiotic crisis . Two million Americans annually contract bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics, and experts warn of increases. In response to the growing crisis, many big food companies recently announced plans to use antibiotic free livestock. Chipotle is on the vanguard and an early adopter of using antibiotic free livestock. While, Chipotle found early success, it also serves as a cautionary example as other companies follow their lead. In 2015, Chipotle suspended its contract with a pork supplier for failing to meet animal welfare standards leading 40% of stores without pork. Chipotle’s strict policy on antibiotic use exacerbated this crisis, as many pig farmers are reluctant to adhere to their standards. Under Chipotle’s policy, if an animal is sick, given antibiotics, and recovers, Chipotle will not purchase that animal. Suppliers are then forced to sell the animal to a third party for less . Chipotle realized the need to rework their policy and now uses a supplier that allows for antibiotic use when an animal is ill. Reducing antibiotic use in livestock is vital both to a business strategy, and also to public
For many years factory farms have been using antibiotics to promote faster growth and prevent disease that could sicken livestock held in confinements (Dillon). Even though they are putting antibiotics into the livestock when they are healthy they, instead of getting sick from it, actually grow faster letting the farmer produce more livestock in the same amount of time then they could without giving them antibiotics thus making the meat for the consumer cheaper with the same qualities as before.
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