Slashdot Mirror
Objections Over Antibiotic Approved for Use in Cattle
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington post reports that the FDA is expected to approve the marketing of the new antibiotic called Cefquinome for use in cattle. This is over objections of the American medical association, the FDA advisory board and the World Health Organization. Cefquinome is from a class of highly potent 'last line of defense' antibiotics for several serious human infections. It is feared that large scale use in cattle will allow bacteria to develop a resistance to these drugs. This news follows complaints from the FDA that it is no longer getting the funds needed to do the research required for the desired level of food safety."
This goes beyond idiocy... This is blatant pandering to the cattle lobby at the expense of our health. Everyone of us who might one day get MRSA, or flesh-eating disease...
Any increased use of these drugs, especially on bacteria present in the food supply, is asking for disaster. When a federal agency start making bad decisions for corporate lobbyists that will cost real lives, it's time for heads to roll.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Now that the Dems are back in the saddle, is it really "Bush's fault"?
It's cute that you think there's a significant difference between the two parties.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Disgusting. They should understand very well that human health is #1, and animal drugs is #10, period.
Any "guidance" serves nothing but to make up excuses that tries to justify animal drugs over human health, for pure "economic" reasons (i.e. greed).
You're missing the point.
It's not a fear that this antibiotic will have a negative effect on humans. The problem is that, by overusing this drug, it will lose its potency. Many antibiotics have already been rendered useless thanks to careless overuse, and this one has been deliberately set aside as a last resort. If cattle farmers are allowed to use this drug it will no longer be useful for treating human infections.
The FDA is in every single way destroying a cure for life-threatening diseases in order to fellate a bunch of worthless scum-sucking factory farmers. You should be outraged, not just avoiding meat.
Antibiotics should be banned for agricultural uses. It's putting all of us at risk so that a few can make a bigger profit.
The cake is a pie
some invincible strain of ecoli
E. coli is not, and has never been the problem - gram negative bacilli are fairly easy to deal with - we have loads of antibiotic families for them. The BIG problem is the various form of Staphylococci - gram positive cocci - with their built in enzymes that inactivate antibiotics plus all their other enzymes that are just perfect for digesting tissue.
If I had to choose between a gram negative and gram positive infection, I'd choose the gram negative. Shoot me full of an aminoglucoside or a fluoroquinolone and I'll probably be ok. But gram positives... oops.
This stuff is a _BIG_ deal. Vets have been using Vancomycin on chicken farms for YEARS. The more antibiotic we put into the environment, the more we encourage resistant strains. There is no doubt that those strains eventually transmit their resistance genes to human pathogens.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm a farmer/cattle rancher and i actuality get to respond to something on slashdot. I'm so happy. I can say that this really worries me because about 10 years ago we got a new drug Micotil for treating cattle. it would kill anything cattle got (people too if you inadvertently stabbed yourself) now doses for cattle have doubled or even tripled the treatment times need to be increased and the effectiveness, (in my view from my experience ie completely non scientific) is about 1/3 of what it was when Micotil first came out. Maby instead of looking for better antibiotics for the cattle we should be looking at why there are getting sick to begin with, because virtually all cattle that go through the Industrial livestock system get sick.
The Big Thing that's gonna take humans down a notch won't be nuclear attack. It won't be global warming. It'll be a simple bacteria, maybe a version of something common like strep or staph that doctors just can't kill because of simple resistance. I can't wait.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's ironic that in light of the recent analysis of the use of the term "evolution" covered here on slashdot that the summary would suggest that the bacteria will "develop a resistance to these drugs." Resistance to the drugs will will evolve, if we're to use the proper term for the process.
As the original article in that earlier discussion noted, if we'd use the appropriate term when discussing these issues, it's more likely that people will realize that understanding evolution is essential to understand this and a variety of other public health issues, such as emerging diseases, cancer, etc. And maybe, just maybe, science classes would be a touch more likely to teach science without winding up in the court system.
______ This mind intentionally left blank.
In the UK we dont immunise animals that are going to end up down the food chain to prevent antibodies from passing down the food chain. And ofcorse to prevent resistant strains of the desieses from forming.
This is why at the last foot and mouth outbreak we (UK) killed off all the infected stock. France etc treated their animals.
Anywhere I see "industrial" I see unsustainable practices for maximal profits being done.
Doesn't matter WHERE I see it. It just is.
Pack a bunch of dumb animals into a tight space, something that isn't natural- you're going to get problems.
The industry's answer, drug them animals up to offset the problem. Which isn't really an answer.
As the Poultry industry seems to be figuring out- raising chickens and harvesting eggs more akin to the way
one would do in the old days on a farm is actually better than the other way, costs only a little more to
do, and produces much more desirable results (The eggs are more nutritious, as is the chicken meat- and they
taste oh, so much better...) for only slightly more retail cost. The same goes for bread, etc. We've improved
our ways of doing things such that doing things sustainably is more valuable than doing them for the lowest
costs- and for each and every "cost saving" thing, we damage our health, etc.
High Fructose Corn Syrup - while it's cheaper than cane sugar and other sweeteners, HFCS makes type II diabetics
out of people. And we've adulterated the food supply with the damn stuff.
Nutrasweet - I won't even begin to start on THAT stuff.
Antibiotics given to animals indescriminately - antibiotic resistant bacteria that cause problems worse than the
the expense of food would be if you'd back off a little on production.
When will the food industry wise up? When will someone cashier the FDA as it currently is because
it doesn't do ANYTHING of what it's supposed to do. It doesn't allow good drugs to be. It doesn't
allow good food to happen. It doesn't prevent bad drugs from getting on the market. It doesn't
prevent bad food production practices and additives from getting on the market. But it is the final
arbiter on things for this country.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's cute that you think there's a significant difference between the two parties.
It's cuter that people get modded up for repeating this nonsense whenever there's a political discussion. The differences aren't as remarkable as larger party differences in other countries, but to say there's no "significant difference" is absurd, unless you don't consider things such as rights to abortion, rights to marry who you want and freedom from religion important.
(Yes, I realize there are democrats against the above things. But the party's platforms spell out clear differences).
What's in that milk?
"The sale of Posilac is illegal in virtually every developed country with the exception of the United States. Recent studies have shown that lab rats absorbed IGF-1 during the digestive process, which subsequently caused cysts and other cancerous growths to form in the test animals flesh. Despite numerous official requests for the FDA to revoke the approval for Monsanto's product, no such action has been taken thus far."
Don't try and tell people though.
As for FDA, I can't even begin to tell you how badly it's managed. Thankfully they thought about a perfect side dish to our Dolly steaks. Maybe we shouldn't wonder why health care costs are skyrocketing and people are getting fatter...
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
BSE ("mad cow" disease) is thought to be caused by prions, not bacteria, last I knew. In other words, this antibiotic has nothing to do with it.
That said, this is positively horrible that we're wasting a potent, last-line-of-defense antibiotic on cows. Why can't they use the antibiotics to which there's already a lot of resistance, anyhow, instead of wasting this one? I mean, you can just shoot a sick cow and dispose of it. I sincerely hope they're not suggesting we do that with sick people.
When that many doctor's organizations are opposing this, it makes you wonder how the hell they can be expected to approve it. Well, okay, I admit to not wondering that much. In the end, I have to think that it all has everything to do with little slips of paper with green ink on them and not very much to do with medicine.
E. coli is not, and has never been the problem - gram negative bacilli are fairly easy to deal with - we have loads of antibiotic families for them
If I had to choose between a gram negative and gram positive infection, I'd choose the gram negative.
I'm a physician and my friend who is an infectious disease doc happened to be next to me when I read your comment. We both aggreed, this comment is just plain wrong. I'm not sure where to start. Its wrong on many levels mostly because its just too simplistic. My time is limited unfortunatly, so I'm going to be brief. Gram negative infections are common and they can be serious, especially if they make there way into the blood. There are a number of highly resistant gram negative bacteria that are incredably difficult to treat as they are pan-resistant in some cases to every antibiotic avaiable so combinations have to be used for any effectiveness. It is not uncommon to do synergy studies for gram negative bacteria so that we can find combinations of antibiotics that will work because one will not. I personally have never heard of (nor has my friend) needing synergy studies in a gram positives bacteria - please correct me if we are wrong. Every gram positive I've treated or heard of has been at least susceptible to one antibiotic, either vanc or linezolid, usually both. Of course, gram positive infections can be very serious, but so are gram negative infections. I'm not sure at all where you are coming from in your statement. I apologize for the brevity...I wish I had more time.
Every gram of antibiotics administered is one more gram released into the environment where it will create resistant microbes. The microbes do not care if the antibiotic was administered in tiny doses to a 2-year-old with an ear infection or in massive doses to a 600 pound cow as a feed supplement to make it grow faster and bigger. EVERY antibiotic given to cattle in massive doses has quickly lost its effectiveness in the human population to the point that resistant microbes are now very common. The cow excretes most of the antibiotics into the environment where they create new resistant microbe populations that then migrate worldwide. The public health people hector doctors to avoid giving antibiotic prescriptions unless absolutely necessary and then the FDA does something like this. This is criminally negligent and irresponsible and some people at the FDA need to be brought to trial and thrown into prison.
September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."
January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
[...]
July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products.
[...]
September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm a physician and my friend who is an infectious disease doc happened to be next to me when I read your comment.
;)
I'm a GP - so I won't argue with an infectologist. I'm also in the 3rd world. We barely have access to vanco in our (poor) public healthcare system - much less linezolid and the other new anti-staph drugs. If you have access to linezolid - great, I agree with you.
For us if we run into MRSA that patient is pretty much screwed, whereas with a gram negative - despite having to use two or more drugs like genta/clinda, we can usually do something for the patient. I'm by no means an infectologist however
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
With 30% dead, lots of regular jobs are going undone, and regular things aren't being bought.
The music store only has employees for a few days of the week. They have to shut down on the other days. Nobody wants to be out buying music anyway though. The rent doesn't get paid. The store closes. The landlord now has an empty storefront. That hurts business for his other tenents. Also, he still has to pay his taxes. The Burger King can't staff their place. Do they just close up shop?
Businesses find themselves needing to shrink and consolidate, fast. That is majorly disruptive. Facilities must be closed. Employees may need to move; some will refuse.
Everything becomes inefficient as businesses collapse. Shortages come and go, interspersed with surplusses that get wasted.
Whole towns need to be abandoned. When a small place loses the only food store, the people have to move elsewhere.
The police are in disarray, just like every other organization. The now-idle masses are starving, bored, irrational, and willing to take great risks because death appears likely anyway. The New Orleans looting was nothing, really. Imagine something like that accross the whole world. There will be no help coming from outside.
Eventually, the farms aren't tended. The cattle aren't fed. Transportation is unreliable. Fuel may be mostly unavailable. Real food shortages set in.
Way more than 30% die. Maybe 99% or more. Very few of us have a backyard garden that can completely feed the family.
People fall back on idiotic superstitions, as they have done since the very first humans.
Welcome to the Dark Ages II. (this time, Protestant and Islamic)