FDA Sued To Stop Antibiotic Abuse On Factory Farms

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Medical groups from the American Medical Association to the American Society of Microbiology have appealed to the government and industry for years to restrict the practice of providing sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics for livestock, lest critical antibiotics become useless for human treatments. Now Tom Laskawy reports that a coalition of environmental groups has decided to sue the Federal Drug Administration to follow its own safety findings and withdraw approval for most non-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed to healthy livestock when it's not medically necessary. 'While this may cause eyerolls among some who look at this as "just another lawsuit," there's something very important going on with the courts and contested science right now,' writes Laskawy. 'As it happens, one of the main roles of a judge is as "finder of fact." In practice, this means that judges determine whether scientific evidence is compelling enough to force government action."'"

Comments

Federal Drug Administration?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one is that?

Re:Federal Drug Administration?

[snl2587]

It's the one that often sides with the US Dairy Association (USDA), and is a sub-agency of the US Department of Happy Human Specialists (HHS).

Re:Federal Drug Administration?

[Seumas]

It's one of the many government organizations staffed by executives from the companies that they regulate, so that they can facilitate the wishes of the corporations. For example, push through bovine growth hormone without due diligence and then have to reverse the decision years later, after it lead to far more contamination in the milk we drink as well as hideous "mutations" that can only be described as nightmarishly inhumane occurred in the cows themselves.

And, you know, then all the Monsanto evilness . . . since they have Monsanto executives in their mix. And the whole magic "now that we have people who are directly tied to the success of aspartame being approved sitting on the committee, we're going to go ahead and just approve aspartame" thing.

If the FDA ever does anything even remotely right, I can only assume it's done as a "okay, we're getting too much heat so lets at least do some token action to get people off our backs so we can continue being evil as shit".

Typical revolving door government, along the lines of "I"m Ken Lay and I run Enron and the president has just appointed me as security advisor and I'm going to advise that we deregulate energy to directly benefit my shady practices in fucking over California and manufacturing a non-existent energy crises so I can get rich".

Re:Federal Drug Administration?

[Hylandr]

Rant was Spot on either way you look at it. I prefer "Federal Department of Assrape". But that would be honesty in government and we can't have that either.

- Dan.

Re:Federal Drug Administration?

[slick7]

The Federal Dogs of Avarice do nothing more than rubber stamp their money bag handlers. Look at the commercials on TV that hawk drugs that play down the adverse side effects like blindness, heart attacks, blood clotting, your asshole falling out, oh yeah also that unimportant issue of a slight case of death.
If big pharma can't patent it, they make sure it's outlawed. That's why medical marijuana will never be federally legalized or that things like MMS will never be investigated let alone approved. As long as GREED remains in the forefront of de-population tactics, people are on their own when it comes to health care.

Now hamburgers will:

[stokessd]

Also fix that burning sensation when I pee...

Sheldon

Re:Now hamburgers will:

[davester666]

Try holding your cigarette in your other hand.

Re:Now hamburgers will:

[davester666]

I presume whomever modded this "+1 Informative" has switched smoking hands.

Re:Now hamburgers will:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometime funny deserves more.

Re:Now hamburgers will:

[Anonymous Coward]

He holds his butt with his other hand, so where does the cigarette go?

About fracking time

[overshoot]

Of course, I may be biased (says /me looking at a recent surgical scar and remembering the discussions with my surgeon of antibiotic-resistant postsurgical infections.)

Next, maybe some of our environmental guardians will do something about fracking ...

Re:About fracking time

[geminidomino]

Next, maybe some of our environmental guardians will do something about fracking

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have that particular crusade sewn up already...

Re:About fracking time

[mgblst]

Of course, people generally only care about stuff that relates to them, which is why these issue take so long to get sorted out.

Re:About fracking time

[TheLink]

But is it proven that the antibiotic resistant bacteria are due to antibiotic abuse/use in farms?

Couldn't it be due to antibiotic abuse/use in hospitals and homes?

I'm not for farmers abusing antibiotics in farms, but the main problem might be elsewhere. There are so many people who get prescribed antibiotics for colds/flu...

For colds they'd be better off taking a zinc supplement at the onset of the symptoms.

Finding of fact?

[pesho]

What part of the science is contested here? That the large scale use of antibiotics, particularly at low doses produces resistant strains?? This has been established for let's see... 50 years or so...

Re:Finding of fact?

[artor3]

People can be amazingly adept at "contesting" science they don't like. See: creationism, vaccines causing autism, climate change denial, or (a few decades ago) cigarettes being harmless.

Re:Finding of fact?

[icebike]

The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh, survives cooking, and consumption, to affect humans. Those contesting this don't necessarily look at all possible vectors, such as runoff from pastures and feed lots, and they tend to point out that there is little evidence of any resistant bugs developing in cattle herds to date.

Its largely an economic argument based on cattle losses, but its not at all clear just how rigorous the studies have been.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perhaps especially telling that the same PR firms hired by the cigarette firms to slow down the acceptance of their harm and spread "scientific" controversy and "scepticism" on the cancer link are now being hired by the oil industry.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mechanism is well understood, but you also need numbers to estimate the impact and the damage.

If the studies indicate that human lives are actually lost due to the use of antibiotics for these farms, that's a different and more impelling story than just some concerned researches warning about theoretical consequences.

Resistant bacteria are certainly a major concern in hospitals, but I have no clue if there's any real danger of superbugs from cows on a farm infecting humans in a hospital. Maybe the FDA knows.

Re:Finding of fact?

[similar_name]

The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh

That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms. Most should even be able to tell you why. The problem is how much of the antibiotic properties are retained in an environment where cattle (or other livestock), fed with antibiotic feed, poop and pee. In other words it doesn't matter if the strains in your meat are cooked if the 'environment' is constantly exposed to antibiotics then so are the bacteria that cause infection. Thus, when you get an infection from one of those bacteria, that's been waiting for a cut in your skin, it's already been exposed to the antibiotic. This is known to cause resistance.

The idea that there is any debate over properly cooked food being a vector for resistant bacteria is a straw man.

Re:Finding of fact?

[St.Creed]

We have 10 casualties in the last 3 days in Germany because of EHEC, a superbug resistant to most antibiotics. About 1000 people are sick, and a handfull in critical condition. Cause: cucumbers contaminated with the strain. Likely contaminated with dung from a farm using antiobiotics as growth enhancer.

Two weeks ago, in The Netherlands, research was published showing that 100% (yes, 100% - every single last sample) of tested chicken meat in supermarkets was contaminated with resistant bacteria. These bacteria are now being found on tomatoes and cucumbers as well - a main ingredient in salads and usually consumed raw (cleaned, but raw). Oh yeah - this was also happening with eco-tomatoes. Apparently contaminated by using the cow dung from a non-biological farm.

It sounds like a pun, but we're in deep shit already. And you know what? If my kid were to die from this, I'd kill every meatfarmer I could find before they could stop me. And the veterinarians as well: only recently they are introducing laws banning vets from also selling antiobiotics. I mean: wtf? These people are supposed to make cows better, right? Not sell as much antibiotics as possible to shore up their income and damn the consequences.

And did you know that it is now standard practice to isolate farmers that enter the hospital? They are so often carriers of resistant strains (and die more of that as well) that they are a healthrisk to everyone.

People are dying already. Only the ones who stand to lose money are denying this - and then only because they thing they won't be affected.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately(?) farms generally require human workers. Those human workers have families. Many may even have cars and some have flown on a plane or even been to L.A. or N.Y. See where I'm going. You're burnt (well-done) steak does not protect you. Resistant strains in hospitals are the direct result of the use of antibiotics in hospitals. OK, so hospitals constantly clean with bleach and other chemicals. When's the last time you saw a farm as clean as a hospital? Is that really the place you want the next resistant strain to show up? When's the last time you saw a farmer with a scrape? You're right though, no need to worry. It will just work itself out. Some percentage of the population will survive and yay! they will have more resistance to these super-bugs. The transition may suck a bit.

Re:Finding of fact?

[overshoot]

Oh yeah - this was also happening with eco-tomatoes. Apparently contaminated by using the cow dung from a non-biological farm.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Bacteria get around without trucks, after all. For just one example, there are these amazingly efficient biological product dispersion systems called "birds." Directly implicated in at least one widespread episode of salmonella contamination -- of peanut products, as I recall.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Zugok]

I have no clue if there's any real danger of superbugs from cows on a farm infecting humans in a hospital. Maybe the FDA knows.

Whether or not it knows, could you found out form an FOIA request? I am in New Zealand so I have no idea how easy it is to get information from and FOIA request. The New Zealand equivalent OIA request has strict timelines for any kind of response and strict guidelines for reasons for a rejecting the supply of information.

Re:Finding of fact?

[demonlapin]

Minor nitpick: EHEC is not inherently antibiotic-resistant. It's just a particularly nasty strain of E. coli. Many EHEC organisms are, however, antibiotic-resistant.

Re:Finding of fact?

[whoever57]

Whatever is or isn't contested by scientists and researchers, I can confidently say that farmers don't understand the issue: I heard a representative farmers being interviewed on NPR or PBS discussing the routine use of antibiotics for "growth promotin" (the farmer's words) -- he stated that the use of antibiotics in animal feed wasn't a problem because they only used low doses of antibiotics. He seemed to think that the issue was that the antibiotics might get into the food chain, rather than the problem of bugs developing resistance.

Re:Finding of fact?

[icebike]

The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh

That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms.

Well, had you read past the part you quoted, you would see that I addressed these issues. Its important to read the whole post.
And please remember, these are the opinions posted elsewhere that I am reporting, not my own.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have 10 casualties in the last 3 days in Germany because of EHEC, a superbug resistant to most antibiotics.

As far as I can tell, antibiotics are not used in the treatment of EHEC, and I can not find any good sources for the claim that the strain in the Germany outbreak is multi-resistant.

And did you know that it is now standard practice to isolate farmers that enter the hospital?

I did not know that, and I am having trouble locating any statements to that effect.

Re:Finding of fact?

[the eric conspiracy]

What makes you so sure that this resistant strain didn't pick up it's resistance from human antibiotic abuse?

Re:Finding of fact?

[similar_name]

I did but that first sentence (and fourth beer) altered my perception :) Fair enough that you appear to be saying the same thing.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms.

The problem is how much of the antibiotic properties are retained in an environment where cattle (or other livestock), fed with antibiotic feed, poop and pee.

Solution: Cook the poop and pee. Cow pies are flammable anyway.

Re:Finding of fact?

[jd]

Given that recent lawsuits against cigarette makers have been lost, there seem plenty of people willing to believe they're harmless, even today.

Re:Finding of fact?

[jd]

Can I use the usual customers in McDonalds' as proof that something brain-damaging gets into the food chain through these farms?

Re:Finding of fact?

[SilasMortimer]

People can be amazingly adept at "contesting" science they don't like. See: creationism, vaccines causing autism, climate change denial, or (a few decades ago) cigarettes being harmless.

(Emphasis mine.)

I can never understand when people say that. Sure, when people were looking to sue the tobacco companies, it made sensible strategy to claim that they never knew smoking was bad for them, but it's hard to understand why people believed that outside of the case. I mean, my mother was born in the 1930s and was told they were bad for her.

Re:Finding of fact?

[SilasMortimer]

That, or the courts aren't gullible enough to believe that the people suing didn't know the risks when they chose to smoke.

Re:Finding of fact?

[NNKK]

The cases are lost in the US for one of two reasons. Either because the smoker should have known the danger (it's been printed on every pack for decades), or because the issues presented have been foreclosed by a combination of past judgements (e.g. the massive every-attorney-general-in-the-country vs every-major-tobacco-company case) and federal legislation.

The cases are not being lost on the merits, but on gating issues.

Re:Finding of fact?

[hedwards]

Part of it has to do with antibiotics being largely obsolete for all but a few particularly noxious strains of bacteria. The whole business of things like MRSA tend to be greatly overstated by people with no actually understanding of the issues involved.

Phage therapy when I was doing my undergrad I walk almost daily past informational posters from projects that other students had made. The results have been pretty fucking amazing up until this point and there's absolutely no reason to assume that it isn't the solution. The only reason why it hasn't taken over is that the FDA approval process would have to be repeated for each and every strain that was going to be used, even though there's no scientific reason for doing so. The use of similar means on food has been approved in the US for several years now. Treatment

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly cooked food, yes. However, most people do not eat properly cooked food - for instance, rare and medium steaks do not count as properly cooked.

Re:Finding of fact?

[artor3]

Cigarette companies specifically advertised their brands as being the "healthy choice". They would claim to be endorsed by doctors and dentists the way toothpastes do now. They would claim that the filters made them safer, or that they used "mild" or "light" tobacco. They would get testimonials from famous athletes and opera singers, with the obvious subtext that these people are clearly healthy. Of course, the stars giving the testimonials often didn't actually smoke... but that's no different from most modern celebrity endorsements.

Here's some examples. My favorite is the Lucky Strikes claiming endorsement by 20,679 physicians -- no more, no less!

Re:Finding of fact?

[The Grim Reefer2]

Properly cooked food, yes. However, most people do not eat properly cooked food - for instance, rare and medium steaks do not count as properly cooked.

I guess that depends on how you define "properly" cooked. There's a difference between cooked and sterilized you know. Personally i like my steak rare to med.-rare. If you find that it's the most flavorful after 20 minutes in an autoclave, then by all means enjoy.

Re:Finding of fact?

[nbauman]

One argument is that the antibiotics farmers use to promote animal growth are different from the ones used for human disease.

The reason that doesn't hold up is that bacteria develop antibiotic resistance through "cassettes" of antibiotic resistance genes, which contain genes that provide resistance to many antibiotics, by many mechanisms, and are spread among different bacterial species.

So when bacteria develop resistance to one antibiotic, they also develop resistance to other antibiotics.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm not a bacteriologist.

Re:Finding of fact?

[tirefire]

climate change denial

I take issue with that, sir! I firmly believe the Earth's climate has never changed. Ever.

Re:Finding of fact?

[nbauman]

It was more fun back in the old days when cigarette companies used to go to court and argue

(1) Cigarettes didn't cause your cancer because cigarettes don't cause cancer

(2) Everybody knows cigarettes cause cancer so you're totally responsible for your own decision to smoke.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

What an asshole.

People are stupid for listening to a scientist for believing "vaccines causing autism"
People are stupid for not listening to scientists for believing "climate change denial"

I'm glad assholes like you are around to tell us which science to believe and which ones not to and call us idiots if we don't agree with your arbitrary rules. You MUST be a liberal.

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

I support fact finding, it might bring up a few important counterpoints that often get overlooked in popular media articles.
For example:
1. The drugs commonly used for animal feed additives are not the same ones used by people. Frequently they are different classes and often different generations of drugs. Basically, many of these are the drugs whose usefulness in treating humans was either burned through long ago (by human usage) or never established.
2. In European countries where laws similar to this proposal have already been carried out, veterinary antibiotics are only used after animals are sick. Overall, however, more animals become ill, more drugs end up being used at a population level, and more important classes of antibiotics are brought out to deal with the sick animals, raising the likelihood of resistance to drugs humans actually use. (Data are from, I believe, the Netherlands if you wish to look it up.)
3. Sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics as animal feed additives have never been shown to produce resistant human pathogens. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it raises the importance of relying on data rather than fears.
4. Poor compliance of patients and over-prescription of antimicrobials by physicians is frequently cited as the most important source of antibiotic-induced resistance in bacteria. If the aim is to reduce resistance, this is a big target. It doesn't negate the importance of investigating feed additives, but this issue is of questionable importance in overall resistance concerns.
5. Sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics have a proven effect on improving feed conversion, which basically means efficiency. It's an important economic consideration.

I would really appreciate a fact-based assessment of the risks and rewards of this practice. We know it saves money as a feed conversion booster, but if it is a serious risk for developing resistance to drugs used to treat people, we should stop. So far, the evidence I've seen has not supported the position. Arguments tend to stem from how "obvious" the expected results of low-level antibiotic exposure in animals ("it will cause resistance!") or the "fact" that exposing animals to antibiotics is bad because they are intrinsically bad ("chemicals! pesticides! antibiotics! hormones!"). If we are going to make a change that we know will cost money, we should have good data on what benefits we hope to gain or risks we aim to reduce. Calling for evidence-based decision-making is not a bad thing.

I'm all for improving the healthiness of meat and reducing the development of antibiotic resistance, but data are needed to support that this regulation will have the desired results.

Re:Finding of fact?

[AK Marc]

One and only one "scientist" who claimed "vaccines cause autism" in a study published in a peer reviewed journal, and it was determined that he deliberately lied for profit (and is being sued, possibly charged, and kicked out of professional organizations).

"Climate change" is a fact. It happens all the time. Whether it's going up or down and whether human actions are influencing it are under some debate.

You are declaring a contradiction that just doesn't exist. That stupid idiots like you are incapable of recognizing this doesn't indicate that there is actually some contradiction.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Mindcontrolled]

The strain currently causing trouble in Germany shows indeed multiple resistances. Interestingly, in the case of EHEC, this is somewhat moot, as antibiotic treatment is not even the best choice. The enterotoxin causing the the haemolytic-uraemic syndrome gets released when you kill the bacteria, so antibiotics can make the symptoms even worse, to the point that you can't use them.

Re:Finding of fact?

[shilly]

What a more stupid asshole. I hope you have someone to help you wipe, because you don't seem like you've got the brains to do a decent job for yourself.

Let's see...
A tiny minority of scientists proposed that "vaccines caused autism", in the teeth of scepticism from the vast bulk of their peer experts.
A tiny minority of scientists propose that climate change does not happen, in the teeth of scepticism from the vast bulk of their peer experts.

What could possibly be the common thread between these situations?

I'm glad assholes like you are around to present pointless stupid strawman arguments that have no bearing on the facts. You MUST be a fuckwit. Oh look! You are

Re:Finding of fact?

[shilly]

Not sure I understand how the money-makers get to avoid the risks. This isn't like cigarette smoking, the environmental contamination can affect even the priciest steak or tomato.

Re:Finding of fact?

[shilly]

Your counterpoints are not that strong:
1. Bacteria typically develop resistance not to a single antibiotic but to multiple antibiotics. See the post directly before yours.
2. If the only variable you alter is presence/absence of subtherapeutic antibiotics, I could believe that more animals may end up sick and that more important classes of antibiotics are used. However, this would be a pretty fuckwitted thing to do. In the real world, you would want to mitigate the risks associated with the removal of subtherapeutic antibiotics by rethinking things such as stock density levels. Lots of us would say that would be a good thing in and of itself, and that the very notion of using subtherapeutic antibiotics to maintain stock densities above what would otherwise be safe is utterly repulsive.
3. It's never been definitively shown not to, either. It would be difficult to demonstrate one way or another, given the chain of causality.
4. Orthogonal. And obviously, efforts are also made to address this issue.
5. Listed as a counterpoint, but not actually a counterpoint, just an economic explanation for why people behave in a venal and idiotic manner.

Re:Finding of fact?

[cavebison]

People are dying already.

I hope you don't mean the veterinarians.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Alex Belits]

No, because those people clearly were brain-damaged to begin with.

Who else would eat something THAT unhealthy?

Re:Finding of fact?

[Evtim]

You know, you hit a nerve here. Phage treatment is known and applied successfully in the former USSR for well over 50 years. There was this Horizon episode [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8887931967515748990#] that said it all.

WHY this treatment has been neglected by the so-called first world countries? Oh, you cannot patent a phage that evolves by itself. The horror! Nature provides the cure but, by the gods, we will never use it because it is FREE! This is the road to communism!!

The people behind this outrage should be removed from society for life!

Re:Finding of fact?

[harrytuttle777]

Gee, if I just don't smoke, and am really skinny, I guess I will be free of disease and like forever like Steve Jobs.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

But vets actually make cow better in the long run, when humans are extincts there won't be any to pull them from their pastures to butcher them.

Re:Finding of fact?

[dunkelfalke]

Actually 20 minutes in the autoclave makes meat very tender and it is quite tasty that way.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Nicolas MONNET]

> The drugs commonly used for animal feed additives are not the same ones used by people

That is simply bullshit; when they are not exactly the same, they are only slightly different, meaning that once a bacteria develops a resistance, it will resist the human-approved version.

> 4. Poor compliance of patients and over-prescription of antimicrobials by physicians is frequently cited as the most important source of antibiotic-induced resistance in bacteria. If the aim is to reduce resistance, this is a big target. It doesn't negate the importance of investigating feed additives, but this issue is of questionable importance in overall resistance concerns.

The main cause of death for young people is road accident. Let's concentrate on this and stop funding all research on AIDS or Cancer.

You're a moron, or a big troll.

Re:Finding of fact?

[IamTheRealMike]

I remember that episode. I got curious after watching it again, seeing as it's so old now. What happened to the people mentioned in the video?

Apparently the "Georgia Research Inc" company changed its name a couple of times and eventually collapsed. The reason was some kind of internal argument over patent rights, so I guess it's not true that phages cannot be patented. Some of them later created another company called Intralytix which is focussing on phages for farm animals instead of humans. Apparently the FDA regulations aren't geared up for phage therapy at all, and having it work on humans will require changes to the approval rules (because each phage is so specific and the approval time so huge).

I guess at some point phages will be used on humans, but it seems like we have to wait a long time for it to happen :(

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

1. The number one most common anti-microbial in cattle feed is monensin, an ionophore. This entire class of drugs is nearly exclusively used in animals as a coccidiostat (anti-protozoal). (Some antifungal use in humans, I believe.) The reason it's so useful as a feed additive is that it reduces parasitism by a class of organisms that affect the GI tract. GI tract works better and the animal isn't expending energy to fight the organism.
2. In the real world, as you say, reducing stock density puts producers out of business. You are saying we should just not use a tool that prevents disease and improves feed efficiency, then further reduce efficiency by reducing throughput. The viability of this option is questionable. It would be lovely, but it would have to be paid for, either subsidized directly by the government or by an increase cost to the consumer. Increasing the cost to the consumer may not even work, because people will find out very quickly how easy it is to reduce meat consumption if it becomes very expensive. I'm comfortable with reduced meat consumption, and comfortable with large sections of the industry going under to reduce stock density, but let's not pretend that this is an easy sell and an obvious solution. It's a grand-scale industry overhaul.
3. "It's never been shown not to". You realize how unhelpful that phrase is, right? All I would like is for there to be an evaluation of actual risk. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but a good estimate would be nice. Reasonable evidence of feed antibiotics significantly contributing to the resistance of a human pathogen - or even an economically significant veterinary pathogen - should be explored. After that, it's pretty much a cost/benefit thing.
4. While I admit that other causes of resistance does not mean this one should not be investigated, the scale of human antibiotic abuse is a valid reference point when trying to prioritize resources. It also should be considered for perspective.
5. Listed as a counterpoint because there is a valid economic benefit to the current practice, and changing the status quo should be based on evidence of risk or cost that outweighs benefit. Perhaps it's venal and idiotic to want cheap animal protein, but what are the benefits? I could digress into the benefits of early childhood nutrition on brain development and school performance, but I bet you're familiar with the talking points.

I just want there to be evidence brought forth and thoroughly evaluated. Antibiotics aren't necessarily evil, and abolishing the low-level prophylaxis has actual costs. The kinds of bugs that grow in animals that aren't feed-treated may pose a higher risk to human health, as they are often bacteria that can transmit to humans more easily, and they get treated after the infection is established, bumping up the likelihood of developing resistance.

  Personally, I don't eat much meat; I try to find humanely raised stuff when I do. I think improving the quality of life for animals in the agricultural industry should be a goal of responsible consumers. I agree that reducing stock density would both improve quality of life and reduce the rate of infectious disease, and I'm willing to pay more for the meat from those situations. All I want from this discussion is for people to rely more on data and actual, demonstrated risk rather than FUD.

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

Okay, the most common feed-additive drug is monensin. When was the last time you or anyone you know were treated for a bacterial infection by anything remotely similar? Not really a fair question, you probably have no clue, and it'd be anecdotal anyway. But look into it. See what human applications of similar drugs are. Many of the prophylactic feed additives were never important human antibiotics or are drugs who were abandoned for human use as better things came along (or as patient-induced resistance arose in the bacteria they had been treating).

So let's say we stop using these antibiotics. More animals get sick, they have established infections (already seen in countries that ban feed-abx). It takes massively higher doses to treat them, because the animal is sick and there's a serious infection happening. It also requires drugs that are more similar to human medications. Can you see that this may be an important source of resistance? How important, I don't know, but I would like that to be a question addressed before we go willy-nilly changing this system. I don't want to trade a potential source of resistance (antibiotics in feed) for an even bigger problem.

I want data-based evaluations of risk and benefit. How terribly moronic and trollish of me.

Re:Finding of fact?

[nbauman]

Somebody once calculated that if you could otherwise live forever, but you smoked cigarettes, you'd live for 80 years.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

successful troll is successful.

Re:Finding of fact?

[hawkinspeter]

Isn't the onus on farmers to provide numbers demonstrating the absolute safety of adding antibiotics? Surely they can't just randomly add chemicals and then say "show me the numbers demonstrating the harm or we'll carry on"?

Re:Finding of fact?

[digitalaudiorock]

Sure, when people were looking to sue the tobacco companies, it made sensible strategy to claim that they never knew smoking was bad for them, but it's hard to understand why people believed that outside of the case. I mean, my mother was born in the 1930s and was told they were bad for her.

I agree that anyone with much sense realized a long time ago that smoking is dangerous. My big gripe is the decades (up to very recently) the tobacco industry spent denying how incredibly additive nicotine is. While most everyone known the dangers of smoking, nobody starts that "occasional" grubbing of cigarettes at the bar with the intension of becoming a life long smoker.

I started having "occasional" cigarettes at age 18. After literally a few weeks I realized it was becoming a bit too regular of a thing and decided I should stop. I did...15 years later (25 years ago).

The fact is that cigarettes are as addictive as cocaine, and I'll bet there's still a large portion of the population that doesn't know that. As far as I'm concerned that bit of deception is something the whole fucking industry can rot in hell for.

Re:Finding of fact?

[error_logic]

Many farmers may not understand it, but be careful with generalizations here and everywhere.
^^ Generalization noted, risk accepted. :-)

I have first-hand knowledge of farmers who are definitely aware of this issue. Now, don't get me started on organic farmers who nominally disavow the use of antibiotics, only to secretly make use of them...

Re:Finding of fact?

[HornWumpus]

Correct. Only very rare steaks are properly cooked. The meat should be seared on the outside and heated to the body temperature of a cow on the inside.

Rare is overdone, medium is burnt, well might as well be cremated.

Re:Finding of fact?

[hey!]

Well, tobacco is a special case, because it's been a target of moralists for centuries. It reminds me of Lord Macaulay's *History of England* in which he remarks that Cromwell's religiously fanatical government condemned bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. [I highly recommend that book, by the way; it may not be the most up to date historical view of the English Civil War, but it remains the most entertaining.]

Consequently there have been those all along who have been eager to promote the idea that tobacco is bad for your health, long before there was a shred of scientific evidence for this. They promoted this view entirely on the basis that it would be awfully convenient to their moral agenda were it to be true. It so happens they were right about tobacco, but wrong about masturbation and marijuana.

The early 20th C saw the first clinical suspicion of a link between tobacco and lung cancer, with early scientific evidence emerging in the late 20s. It was in the mid 50s when the evidence became overwhelming, but it wasn't until the 70s that the public was largely won over. I think the cultural association of anti-tobacco propaganda with priggish, interfering moral busybodies actually delayed acceptance of the scientific evidence by decades. That objection of errant moral priggery still alive today, and not entirely without reason: meddling in private morality is as popular today as it's ever been any time in the last century.

Re:Finding of fact?

[harrytuttle777]

Obligatory Red Fox quote.

" Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing."

I blame put the blame squarely on God. He is the comedian that made us live such short lives. The way I figure it he made a bunch of defective products, that all keep dying. I am going to get a class action law suite together on the behalf of everyone who has ever died, and hold him accountable their deaths.

Then I am going to hold him accountable for the rape of the virgin Marry (she was only 14 at the time, and in no way could have given consent).

It is about time we started using the court system to hold our deities responsible.

-None of us are going to get out of this life alive, so we might as well just enjoy the ride and stop suing everyone.

-but then again i am a Faggot, (according to the experts on utube) so you shouldn't listen to me.

Re:Finding of fact?

[shilly]

OK, all of that sounds more than reasonable, except point 1, where the key factor is not "what is the most commonly used antibiotic" but "to what extent are antibiotics that are related to human antibiotics used".

Re:Finding of fact?

[The_Noid]

Birds may be reasonably effective in spreading viruses and bacteria from animals to animals, but I don't think they would spread bacteria from farm animals to crops in amount sufficient to infect large numbers of humans that eat the crops. Especially since the bacteria don't really grow all that well on crops.

Salmonella grows great in birds, so one cell is potentially enough to infect a whole stable of chickens. But E. Coli is a bacteria that mainly lives in intestines. Since cucumbers don't have intestines, E. Coli merely "survives" on them.

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

3. Sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics as animal feed additives have never been shown to produce resistant human pathogens. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it raises the importance of relying on data rather than fears.

That is wrong. How do you come to that strange idea?
Antibiotics are always given in high (enough) doses and over the complete frame until the illness is gone. Stopping early or using low doses only kills a part of the bacteriae and the survivers likely can become resistant.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

So let's say we stop using these antibiotics. More animals get sick, they have established infections (already seen in countries that ban feed-abx). It takes massively higher doses to treat them, because the animal is sick and there's a serious infection happening. It also requires drugs that are more similar to human medications. Can you see that this may be an important source of resistance?

No, the opposite is the fact. With high doses more or less all bacteria get killed and the surviving ones are very likely killed by the immune system. Also I don't see why you believe you would need more human like forms.
Bottom line the amount of antibiotic active agents is very dim. As far as I know we have far less than 10 working medicals. Lots of the antibiotics only work on a small range of bacteria. If you pick the wrong organism you only have one or two antibiotica currently available to kill it. So if it gets resistant, we are in trouble.
I don't get why you so fucking simplify the matter when it is in fact a very urgent/important issue.
Why do you think in europe giving antibiotica as food additions is prohibited? Because we are idiots?

angel'o'sphere

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

Possibly, but not necessarily. Bacteria get around without trucks, after all. For just one example, there are these amazingly efficient biological product dispersion systems called "birds." Directly implicated in at least one widespread episode of salmonella contamination -- of peanut products, as I recall.

Nevertheless in this case it is allready clear it was spread via dung (or to be precise: liquid manure).
Usually that is not a problem, as it should be deployed on the fields before the plans fruits are growing. But in this case some idiots spilled it over the fruits. I hope they find the origins of the contaminated fruits.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

Because that particulas strain lives in cows and not on humans.

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

Allow me to clarify: Sub-therapeutic (feed-additive dosage) is distinct from therapeutic but insufficient. Your description is accurate for the latter.

The doses used in feed additives are very low, as coccidiostatic agents rather than bacteriocidal. If you are trying to treat a disease, rather than prevent loss from parasitic damage, drugs are used at a much higher level, either at bacteriostatic or bacteriocidal concentrations (depending on the agents, organ system, method of action of the drug and many other factors). In cases where one is trying to treat an established infection, you are correct, using insufficient dose or duration puts heavy selection pressure on the infectious organism, greatly increasing the likelihood that a resistant mutant will survive and propagate.

Currently there isn't much, if any, data to support that the very low levels used in feed additives cause resistant pathogens. In theory, they COULD, which is why the matter needs to be investigated. However, at this time, it seems as if the low-level feed additives are too low to provide sufficient selection pressure to cause a resistant pathogen to develop.

The studies done on areas where feed additives have been banned have shown more sick animals and higher antibiotic dosages being used overall. Perhaps you can see how this situation is even more likely to generate the selection pressures that drive resistance.

For sure, the doses and drugs used in this practice need to be investigated for risk for pathogen resistance, but relying on data rather than assumptions is key.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, nice post. Thanks for the pragmatic point of view.

One point that perhaps should be made is that the TYPE of feed is what is causing much of this problem.
Corn is not something that cattle are supposed to eat, it causes lots of health problems that have to be fixed with drugs. Stopping the subsidizing of corn and letting trade imbalances regulate themselves would likely a) Fix this problem but b) cause turmoil and likely higher prices in the short and possibly longer term.

I just think there's more to the solution than "drugs or not drugs". We have a farm system that, in places, is woefully inefficient and full of pork.

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

No, the opposite is the fact. With high doses more or less all bacteria get killed and the surviving ones are very likely killed by the immune system. Also I don't see why you believe you would need more human like forms.

With higher doses, you hope all the bacteria die because fighting an established infection is much more difficult, and higher doses put much more selection pressure on the bacterial population. If you slightly underdose or don't treat for quite long enough, you are going to have a resistant population in an animal whose immune system is already weakened by disease. That is a risk that needs to be evaluated and compared to the risks associated with prophylactic/feed additive antibiotics.

Also I don't see why you believe you would need more human like forms.

I don't "believe" it. I know it. I'm a veterinarian. The most common feed additive drugs are not the same ones used to treat bacterial infections for the disease cattle most commonly get in meat operations: pneumonia and enteritis. Those diseases are going to be treated with "bigger guns", drugs that are more important to humans and are in completely different classes from the typical feed additives.
These are not the drugs you want to need to use. Using those "big gun" classes greatly increases the likelihood of resistance to the important antibiotics.

Why do you think in europe giving antibiotica as food additions is prohibited? Because we are idiots?

Of course not. I think resistance is a valid concern, but when decisions are made without data, especially by politicians and enthusiastic concerned people, well-intentioned and reasonable-sounding mistakes can happen.
Honestly, I'm grateful that someone tried it. The data coming out don't support that the ban is an improvement, but there is now information to base future decision-making on. Ideally, we'll see restrictions that ensure important drugs are not used irresponsibly (I would freak out if someone wanted to put quinolones in animal feed, for example), and animals are kept humanely with as little disease as we can manage.

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

and higher doses put much more selection pressure on the bacterial population.

Yes I saw you said below: you are a veterinarian.
Nevertheless that sentence above is complete bullshit.

No wonder that the world is falling appart if even "experts" don't know mere basics about their business.

... but when decisions are made without data, ...

What fucking bullshit is this again? The facts are known 50 - 70 years now. If you don't feel the need to dig hem up it is your problem. This is school knowledge since ages. Granted, most pupils have no fun in biology ...

angel'o'sphere

Re:Finding of fact?

[angel'o'sphere]

This makes sense (on an intellectual level) ... I guess I have to investigate as I'm interested in such stuff.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious how you think it's more likely that an expert in the field is uneducated about this than that you could be oversimplifying or not understanding a complicated situation. (I know, I know, it's very /. and ought to be less funny by now, but I guess I'm easily amused.)

Re:Finding of fact?

[kaliann]

I completely agree. Drugs classes that are important for fighting human (and even animal) bacterial infections should be under intense scrutiny, and most of them should NOT be used as feed additives. While this is usually the case already, pressure needs to be kept up to make sure that doesn't change in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. It's all about recognizing that not all antibiotics are equal, and the current feed use has benefits. Resistance is a hugely important issue, and that's why I like the idea of this question being answered with scientific data in as unemotional a setting as possible.

Re:Finding of fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok want facts and answers..

your points

1 buck passing in both posts. also you need a better understanding of how antibiotics really work for a given application. sure this may be a great application for cows, but they have a very different gi system than humans, so it takes different strokes...

2 real world. first sick animals should be quarantined, and removed safely if shown to be carrying any pathogen that could remotely be dangerous. this is an important economic decision, and the right one. NOT throwing pills at it until you have sold the animal. second, you jump right on wanting to maintain stock density, where it should be reduced. in the REAL world, we did NOT have farms that were more toxic than factories, and had free range animals, and business was just fine. outlaw certain practices and nobody goes out of business. if they cry about it costing too much etc, you can tell them nobody asked them to farm, someone else WILL take their place, and refer them to the long, smelly unemployment line...

3 never been shown not to = useless comment. i have to agree with you there, but absence of evidence is not evidence of of absence. you want 100% accurate? the system is as follows, you have bacteria a b c etc. they evolve naturally at rate x, and unnaturally at x + z, z being a stimulus, such as antimicrobial treatements ( not just antibiotics , this is a product of the very short lifespan and high numbers that bacterium can evolve at speeds much higher than anything else on earth-- you could say it is because of their STOCK DENSITY). the last factor is time or T. with enough time, these bacteria will have developed an immunity to everything via mutations. if this immunity is not needed it will be lost in the general population for another more favorable one. this is at x speed. accelerate this by introducing z, and you now have specific mutations happening, which means the speed of change relative to the stimulus is now easily many times faster. I can promise you that a scenario like this means it is ONLY a matter of time until the resistance of a human pathogen is altered. so its not a question of IF, but when. is that 100% enough for you? lookup theory of evolution, and master it's basic tenets, and this will become clear to you. not being arrogant here, you wanted facts, here they are, but not all are simple, and no amount of investigation will make them so.

4 passing the buck again. human antibiotic use is not the issue here. and you need more medical knowledge before you start talking about patient non-compliance. this is now medically seen as a failure of the drug, both in pre use testing, and real world use. it provides a much more accurate picture
of how effective a drug really is. the new range of antibiotics are starting to have more adverse effects on human gi systems, etc, so this is why more ppl stop taking them. this cycle will continue as even more virulent antibiotics are developed. which makes by itself a 100% valid reason to not use old ones on ANYTHING, so their use can be regained sooner.

5 yes it is an economic decision. and yes there are current benefits. but they are penny wise and pound foolish. once human safety is involved, economics should never be a factor in the decision, unless you want to put a dollar value on human life. bringing up childhood nutrition is a "think of the children" argument, and is weak at best. so meat should be cheap to allow parents to adequately feed their children AND buy their liquor and chocolate bon bons? seriously? any good parent will give up luxuries to properly feed, clothe, educate, etc their children. parents that do not are negligent, and this is another problem. while those who cannot afford to do so are yet an entirely different demographic, and giving them medically risky treated meat is definitely not a good idea or answer to the problem, as in every country there is a Malthusian tendency for outbreak of disease to be among the poorest first and most severe.

there fixed that for you

Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

While I completely agree, that regulations have to be a lot stronger about hormones, GM products and antibiotics, I would like to see this go a step further: ban factory farming as a practice. It is inhumane, produces an unhealthy product, outbreaks of infections, excessive pollution and unnecessary suffering. I suggest to watch "Food Inc, Meet your Meat, and Earthlings for the non-faint at heart, both of which talk about the subject from different viewpoints.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

I am against the use of antibiotics in the situation (we use them far too much for people even not just animals) But I have no problems at all with genetically modified foods. I consider opposition to them as crazy hippy bullshit and Id consider myself very liberal. Also factory farming is not inherently bad. Its just our government has not performed on its responsibility to properly regulate it.

Yes I have watched at least a few of these movies myself.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Seumas]

In more than one documentary, I've seen a scene where they monitor the health of the cows (who are essentially being poisoned by the cornfeed they're given non-stop to promote such fast growth that it's essentially killing the cows) by cutting a giant hole in the top of their body that goes directly into one of their stomaches and has a giant rubber plug. The guy pulls the plug out and reaches his entire arm into the cow and pulls out what's in it to see how sick the cows are from the feeding they're getting and how much antibiotics to give them to counter it. I have had nightmares of that scene for weeks afterward. It horrifies me kind of on the same level as the whole Silence of the Lambs scene where what's his name from Goodfellas has the top of his head cut off and a part of his brain fried and served to him.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[virgnarus]

Enjoy that 30 dollar bucket of KFC.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jonwil]

Factory farming (mostly enabled via the production of corn for animal feed at prices far below the actual cost to produce thanks to subsidies) is the reason why Americans can get a hamburger for just $1. Its also one of the biggest reasons why modern Americans are the fattest people in the history of humanity.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

Whoa, back up there. Inhumane conditions are bad, that much is clear, and I totally agree that antibiotics are often abused, but factory farm != inhumane conditions Factory farming typically refers to CAFOs, and that has nothing do do with how the animals are raised, but actually just the number. It gets a bad rap, but no small amount of them are just family farms (even some of the big ones) that do, indeed, treat their animals fairly well. It's like the spinach E. coli outbreak; one jackass lets his cattle get too close to the irrigation source and the entire spinach industry takes a hit over it. Yeah, there is animal cruelty, a lot of it, but I don't think it's the norm, so don't blame factory farms in general any more than you should attack free range farming because some organic idiots treat treat sick animals with homeopathy (no medicine could also be considered inhumane). Factory farms are mostly about efficiency, and that is no vice, nor in producing less output a virtue. Sorry, they're not. You want to pay more for something that uses more land, fine my me, but unless every so-called factory farm is abusing their animals (hint, they're not) I'll take efficient and cheap thank you. Before you paint everyone with that big brush, maybe you should learn something about agriculture beyond some bullshit movie with all the credibility of Loose Change. That you are concerned about hormones and GMOs indicates to me that such films are your primary source of information and you know very little about modern agriculture and agricultural technology.

Especially GMOs, jeez, can we as a society get over that one? It's just a way of improving a plant, it isn't Frankenstein or Jurassic Park or Splice or whatever fairy tale people are believing over science today, and contrary to the perpetual moaning of unscientific denialists like Greenpeace, they are actually a gain for the environment (Bt GMOs reduce pesticide use and Ht GMOs prevent fertilizer runoff, reduces soil erosion and promotes carbon sequestering via no/low-till ag) and not dangerous to humans. And we can talk about the politics of Monsanto all day long, but that is not relevant to the benefits GMOs provide.or mean GMOs are dangerous any more than Merck or Pfizer's unethical decisions mean that vaccines cause autism.

And watching Food Inc. to get different perspectives on agriculture is like listening to Michael Behe to get different viewpoints on evolution. Different points of view are good, but sometimes they're just wrong. That movie made some good points, but was mostly foodie nonsense and bogus FUD. What's amazing is that all those foodie idiots lapped that up, but when a real agriculturalist talks about real farming then they just go into dismiss it. I truly love that society in developed nations runs so smoothly that we don't need to produce our own food, that labor is nicely divided that people like people can go on about something they've never done or been involved with, but people really should know a bit more about where their food comes from, how it's produced, and why farmers do it that way so that they won't go into panic mode every time some bored art history major throws together a few film clips.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm a bucket of KFC is already near that price where I live.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[DurendalMac]

GM foods themselves may not be a bad thing, but companies like Monsanto creating them are pure fucking evil. It's not just the government failing to do their jobs, it's also the bastards creating it and making sure the potentially harmful effects get hidden under a bunch of bullshit whenever possible, among many, many other things. If GM was handled responsibly and the books not cooked then we might wind up with some better crops and better meat in the long run, but when a company like Monsanto lies about their product and fucks people over in horrid ways...well, it makes people pretty averse to GM food.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Ethanol-fueled]

It horrifies me kind of on the same level as the whole Silence of the Lambs scene where what's his name from Goodfellas has the top of his head cut off and a part of his brain fried and served to him.

That's from the sequel, Hannibal. The best part about the "brain scene" is how Hannibal prepares the brain for consumption. In classical cooking, brains are chilled overnight so that they don't fall apart into mush at dinnertime. Hannibal sliced off portions of Krendler's brain and poached them in lemon juice, kinda like shrimp in a ceviche, denaturing the proteins and stiffening the appetizer to make it fit for instant consumption. Here's a quote from that novel, which pertains to the father of the meatpacking antagonist, that is relevant to this discussion:

Molson Verger...adulterated the pigs' diet with hog hair meal, mealed chicken feathers and manure to an extent considered daring at the time. He was regarded as a reckless visionary in the 1940's when he first took away the pigs' fresh drinking water and had them drink ditch liquor, made of fermented animal waste, to hasten weight gain. The laughter stopped when his profits rolled in, and his competitors hurried to copy him.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[St.Creed]

If raising cattle on antiobiotics is standard practice in most European countries, you can bet it's standard in the USA as well - they're producing for the same global market.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

Thats a general patent law / large corporate corruptions / shitty FDA issue. The reason why Monsanto is in the position they are is that genetically modified foods are sometimes just that damn good. That they give the owner of the patent too much power. Once again. There is no problem with genetically modified foods.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[garcia]

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to hold it. However you're very wrong:

1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.

2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes. Those lawsuits are detrimental to the farmers and provide the creators of the GMO with unending amounts of cash because everyone has to use their products.

3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used. I don't care if you're hippy or not, pesticides are just as bad as the hormones and antibiotics we're finding.

---

But hey, if you want to eat tasteless product created solely because it ships well and it requires pesticides to be purchased in order to grow so be it. It's your choice and I support that. However, I'll stick to my non-GMOs knowing that I'm supporting what we've used successfully for 1000s of years prior.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

I am not much of a biologist, but things in nature are usually somewhat logical.

For me it is easy to see, that if you take a completely healthy to eat plant, start modifying it so it withstands all kinds of things it should not do, then start mass-feeding it to people without a long-term study leads to bad things and public opinion. Then there are the corporations who patent these and do not allow farmers to re-sell or re-use their seeds. Combine this maffia with the subsidization of unhealthy products (corn) that mainly go to animal farms and you just created a really unhealthy competition that produces really messed up products.

I also remember a scandal about GM corn that caused kidney damage ... google it and see if anything turns up.

By the way, I owe to add, that I am strongly biased against animal farming, being a vegetarian for 20 years, a vegan for 4 and on a 99% raw diet since January.... so yes, some things I say about animal farming might be hippie BS, but I became vegan after a lot of reading/watching and research during which I failed to prove that I needed animal protein and that milk/egg farming is not a cruel practice I should feel bad about. Thought it would be fair to add to my opinion...

 

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

I saw a cow on a farm a while ago with that rubber plug during my trail ride (dirt bike, not horse, and in Costa Rica up in the hills ). According to a colleague of mine they are used for medical reasons and other monitoring. He added that it does not hurt the cow, but I do not see how you could cut a window on an animal without that causing pain.....

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[DurendalMac]

There is no problem with the IDEA of genetically modified foods, but the reality of it may not be so innocuous. For example, Japan has been pretty damned opposed to GM foods. Monsanto tried to market GM soybeans in Japan, but Japanese law made Monsanto publish far more material that was accessible to the public than most other countries. As a result, some poking found that Monsanto seriously cooked the results. They claimed a certain protein in their GM soybeans that was NOT present in regular soybeans would break down into harmless compounds when cooked. Sure...when you cooked the beans far hotter and far longer than anyone ever would. The protein itself may be harmless, but they pointed out that there was serious potential for allergic reactions to it in people who would have no problems with regular soybeans. There is a shitload of controversy over Monsanto, and it isn't just due to their filthy business practices. They push this stuff out to market before it has been tested. I think we can agree that if someone wants to make GM foods, they'd damned well better test the living piss out of it before it comes to market and be accurate and honest with the public in regard to the results of that testing.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[DurendalMac]

And on another note, I think that if you want GM foods, go right ahead, but I also think that people should be able to pick and choose whether they have GM foods or not. Consumer choice and all that. Let the public decide. The problem is that assholes like Monsanto have tried pretty damned hard to keep that information away from consumers.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Kenja]

Better a 30$ bucket of chicken then hemorrhagic ecoli from a 99 cent burger.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and it tastes like shit, compared to the natural thing.
If you haven't ever eaten something else, you might think it's normal.
But seriously. It's spongy, tasteless, gray, weak meat, with lots of hidden fat, collagen and water.
Of the "normal" ground meat you buy in the supermarket, that is *pure meat* with nothing added, there are still about 20% water and 20% collagen. That's not even counting the fat. I kid you not.

You don't even need to watch any movies or anything.
Just once eat meat from a animal that lived in a species-appropriate way. After that, you rather eat a small piece of that for the same money, than a huge piece of that factory crap.

Same thing for vegetables and all other food btw.

AND for your own life. Species-appropriate. Food, sleep, etc.
Results in a lot of pure happiness, and you wouldn't even know where it came from.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

The ironic thing is that there are tons of non-corporate GMOs out there, but only one (the Rainbow papaya created by the University of Hawaii and Cornell) made it to market. Why? Because the anti-GMO people protested and protested and demanded that regulation be so strict that only multi-million dollar companies can take the time and money to just through the FDA/USDA/EPA's hoops. As a result, horticultural crops (fruits, vegetables, nuts, and herbs & spices) simply don't have the backing to make it to market (and it isn't like people weren't already cutting hort funding to begin with anyway, shortsighted bastards). Then these same people have the huevos to complain about Monsanto and monopoly (which of course ignores Syngentia, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, and Pioneer Hi-Bred) and monoculture! Beyond that, there has been so much fearmongering by anti-GMO assholes like Greenpeace that for a lot of crops there's so much fear of consumer rejection (ooh, I don't want DNA in my food!) that it's mostly agronomic crops like corn, soybean, canola, cotton, sugarbeet, and alfalfa, that are almost always processed and not seen in their original form, that are genetically modified, probably so that people won't really notice it much. And note that these are all huge chunks of the farming industry. Only one thing that isn't such a huge crop is currently GMO: virus resistant summer squash.

About Monsanto, see, I have this theory. Anti-GMO people (not saying you're anti-GMO, just in general) love to rag on Monsanto as much as possible, that way, if any pro-GMO people like myself correct them, we're seen as defending the big evil company, and are therefore shills. With that having been said, I really don't think the companies creating GMOs are all that evil. They're not benevolent, far from it, they're out to make money, end of story, just like car, banking, retail, pharma, tech, and entertainment companies. But, for all the flaws of companies like, say, Merck, Disney, or Wal-Mart, I'd hesitate to call them entirely evil, because they do do some good. Think of it like how you'd think of Merck and vaccines; sure, Merck may be assholes, but their products still keep measles from coming back. Believe it or not, farmers actually like them. They like their products, they've seen the decrease in pesticide and soil erosion GMOs have brought, and they want to keep using them In countries like the Philipines, India, and South Africa, where they don't always have pesticides, things like Bt cotton and corn are liked so much by some farmers that in India they actually have had problems with farmers stealing seed from scientific test plots. And while it is true that Monsanto is not nearly as open with their data as they should be, they have never hid any dangers under the rug, mostly because there are no known dangers. If there was truly a health problem with a particular transgenic crop, odds are it wouldn't take too long for someone to run a protein blot and find something. And then there's the issue with them suing over pollen drift, that's a bit iffy too (although it must be said that those they do sue they find them because they're buying their herbicide in large quantities, so those guys do indeed know full well what they're doing). I hate having to defend Monsanto sometimes, because anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the science behind GMOs gets called a paid shill anyway, but that's the truth.

People probably are uncomfortable with GMOs, how they were rushed to market back when they first came out, and Monsanto and all that, but do keep in mind that these same people almost inevitably protest every other GMO. Golden Rice, HoneySweet plum, Enviropig, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, and every unamed university made GMO of all kinds that I don't care to list. Most anti-GMO people are simply denialists, no different than any other unscientific denialist group. If you're truly against Monsanto, not an entire branch of science, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but you are a minority.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Ok, that all sounds nice in theory, but I don't exactly see people keeling over from soybean allergies.

I'm all for a reasonable level of proper regulation, but I wouldn't really consider that to be Japan. In any case, Japan doesn't really regulate more than anybody else - they just tend to do everything in a particular way so that all your money spent gaining certification in any other first-world nation gets you nowhere in Japan. Most companies then just work with a local Japanese company to navigate the red tape, and since that is all the local authorities care about that usually works out well.

Monsanto's problem is just that they didn't buy 49% or whatever of some Japanese company like everybody else does and issued the product under their name.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

I have no issues with truth in advertising, as long as they don't go nuts with it the way they have with "organic" - whatever that means.

I have similar objections to the USDA prohibiting farmers for doing 100% screening and labeling their meat as salmonella free. Apparently that would make other farms look bad and since all the meat is safe it isn't necessary so why should consumers have that choice?

The USDA is a very good example of regulatory capture. And, I tend to be somebody who is normally moderately pro-industry.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

I wonder what you mean on "foodie"? Does that refer to persons who realized, that it is really-really important what you eat, and that a lot of sicknesses are the simple outcome of the preference of taste over whatever your body really needs? Deep fried over veggies, coke over good water. Good water. Then I am a foodie.

GMO: I do not think we should get over with this. I want to see a label on everything GMO so I can make a choice of buying or not. That is all.

These farms are not for efficiency. They are for increased profit. If you really wanted quantity and quality nutrients to feed a lot of people, you would not farm corn to feed it to livestock, causing an incredible environmental damage. You would grow rice, beans, and you would hydroponic-vertical farm fresh vegetables.

I do not consider animals as things we should trade and use for food, clothing, entertainment etc.
I understand, that this is too hippie for most, so just try to imagine this:

I put you in a box, 2m x 1m, 160cm tall. I put a few thousand more of you in a windowless stinking long tube. I feed you hormones, antibiotics, drugs, I remove your teeth and pull your nails off, so you do not hurt your mates or yourself. I keep you there, sitting in your own shit until you are fat enough to be killed. If your mate dies, you would have to be with the body for some time (days, weeks), because this it is normal for animals to die of all kinds of causes, to mention one: accelerated growth: nor the heart or other organs, nor the muscles keep up with this. Being in a dark tube does not help with producing calcium, so shortly you won't be able to walk, just sit in the dark in the shit. If you are a female cow, you are in for a treat : you can live in similar box, with painful stuff sucking your tits. Hormones and induced pregnancy will keep you there until you cannot pop more babies or produce milk. At which point you are killed.

How can people say, that animal farming is not inhumane. It is absurd for me to see people not seeing this!

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... Just so everybody knows:

Those holes in cows stomachs are usually only in research settings (and generally at universities) and not regular operations on farms. What they're looking at is how well they are digesting the foliage we're feeding them, and if we should give them more or less.

On dairy farms, which is what I'm familiar with, we spend a lot of time and money to make sure our cows are as healthy as possible. In fact, we do this not only for their well being, but because every incentive we have is to keep them healthy, comfortable, and happy. The better a cow feels, the more milk she produces, and the more milk we have to sell. She will also produce better quality milk, which we may be able to sell at a higher price. We carefully control their feed rations, measuring every ingredient that goes in to a batch of feed. Each cow can eat well over 100 pounds of feed per day, which at our farm, is mainly a combination of alfalfa silage (moist chopped hay), corn silage (the whole plant chopped up), dry hay (for fiber), ground corn (energy), cotton seeds (for protein, which ends up in your milk), and supplements (vitamins and minerals). The fibrous hay and silages make up the majority of the weight we feed and almost all of the volume.

For comfort, we have free stalls filled with sand (kind of like a sand box) that they lay and sleep in during the night and between milkings. When it's dry enough, we have open pasture they're allowed to lay and graze in. Although, they don't even eat much grass any more due to high tech diet they're being fed. When it's hot, we have many, many fans to cool them off with. When it's really hot, we have water sprinklers to get them wet while the fans blow on them; just imagine getting out the the shower and standing in front of a big fan and you may start to shiver.

As for antibiotics, we use them. But, you see, we don't like using them, at all. When a cow is sick, we may have to treat them with antibiotics and other medicine. It costs time and money to treat a cow, AND we can't sell the milk because it ends up in the cows milk. It's the law that no milk can be sold with antibiotics, so we're living with a double-wammy of sorts every time we're forced to use antibiotics.

I have little affiliation with meat production, so I won't comment on that. But people have lost touch with where their food comes from, and they get scared. They should care; it's just that it's a lot easier to scare a population than to educate them, and that has probably been true since the beginning of civilization. So, I'm not saying that mis-use of antibiotics isn't happening by farmers (particularly with meat production), or that things shouldn't be done about it. In todays specialized economy, farming is business just as every thing else. As such, there are a few cheaters, frauds, and generally people being selfish.

My dad and uncle work between about 12 to 16 hours every day of the year to make good food for people and a good living for themselves, but then people turn around and accuse them of mistreating their animals and not working to create wholesome milk. As such, I just wanted to try to give them a little credit and describe what they do and a bit about how a dairy farm works.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem though is that big agri has been pushing to pass laws to prohibit makers of foods from advertising that their food is non-GMO or not produced with hormones. They're not at all interested in transparency.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

I go to the organic market every Saturday morning, buy 4 boxes of fruits and vegetables and eat them raw. All week, every day. I eat at a restaurant once in 3 months (and suffer like crap, or just drink a tea) . I only eat flour tortillas and rice-wraps that are not raw, I do not buy packaged food other than that.

I am for labeling 100%. I want to be able to make the choice to accept GMO or not. I would like a vegetarian/vegan and a GMO label on everything, strongly controlled by reliable agencies.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Not necessarily. Let's assume that what you say is true. $30 for chicken is probably 6x the normal price. So, what would happen if food costs were 6x across the board?

Some US Census data:
Population estimate for 2009 is 307M
Per capita income $21.5k in 1999
Total household income = $6.6T

Recent survey showed about 10% of that is spent on food = $660B. Impact to economy of 6x higher prices is about $3T.

I doubt the US spends $3T annually on cases of hemorrhagic e. coli.

Now, of course that chicken won't really be $30, but the impact to the economy of even a modest food price increase is enormous. So, safety at any cost is a foolish policy. When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

I haven't touched meat in 20 years, so I cannot comment on that one.

However it kind of troubles me to see, that my organic veggies generally taste a lot better, but they go bad waaaaay faster. Greens start to look tired after 2 hours outside, while the non-organic one looks fresh (tastes like nothing though) after a day outside.

Meet your meet actually makes a cooking in which a french chef cooks with factory and non-factory produce (meat, poultry, eggs). As a vegan I disagree with any kind of killing, the difference in meet quality was shocking just by the visuals.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Where sort of already sort of fucked in the case of monocultures. If a giant corn destroying virus swept the US, the US would have profound food security issues. But yes GMO's make it all drastically worse by reducing the genetic diversity in corn crops, thus lowering the ability of corn to evolve a fight-back strategy.

You can also probably add to your list the effect of terminator seeds on traditional farming communities , particularly in india.When farmers can't seed save they lose their independence.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[c0lo]

And while it is true that Monsanto is not nearly as open with their data as they should be, they have never hid any dangers under the rug, mostly because there are no known dangers.

Huh? The rBGH related WTVT/Monsanto affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation"?

More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?

I know the example is not in the GMO topic, but anyway..., can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

I am in favor of labeling however I think you will be shocked to find most food produced in the US now has GMO content so it is pretty much moot at this point in time

As far as efficiency, how the heck do you think you get increased profit? It is by increasing efficiency. Economics 101. I can see you have never grasped basic principles of economics.

As far as not using animals as a resource, good luck with that. Every society on this planet does this. Even other animals do it. You are adhering to a concept that has no chance of being adopted.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

But I have no problems at all with genetically modified foods.

Yes, because altering the underlying code-base that distinguishes one animal from another could never have profound complications after the fact. It'd be one thing if we fully, 100%, understand the genetic structure of the plants, and animals we genetically modify, but in this day and age, profits come before well before safety, testing, and research. This leads to the inevitable problems that patents introduce, since secondary events to the public as a result of GM products, are subject to personal/private/corporate liability, not the party introducing it. In point, nature is a stronger force than what we can control genetically in anything we modify. We are not masters of biology as a living force. Introducing unknown radicals into the human gene structure without proper understanding, is not an acceptable risk as a consequence of profits and industry building.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Monoculture has and will be a problem with or without GMO foods. It really has no bearing on it.

For a good example, chrck out the potato famine.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.

That one doesn't even make sense. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. Biodiversity is what you grow. What you're saying is like saying conventional breeding creates monoculture because there are more potatoes than oca, more apples than jujubes, more mangoes than lychees, more wheat than tef, more lettuce than chaya, more numeg than rosita de cacao, ect ect ect. There are hundreds of crops that people like you don't know or care about. Genetic engineering didn't banish them, they were out of the picture when it got here. Same way with interspecies biodiversity. People have been eroding that for a long time, just look at non-GMO crops like tomatoes. Whan was the last time you went to the store and saw an Ananas Noire, White Tomesol, Kellogg's Breakfast, Carbon, Green Moldovian, or Huge Yellow Oxhart tomato? You didn't, and they're not even genetically modified. In fact, I'd wager to gues you don't even know what biodiversity is, know nothing of the huge number of biodiverse crops out there. and that's just some talking point you heard. And quite frankly, as a huge proponent of biodiversity myself, I'd appreciate if people like you would shut the hell up and stop making the rest of us look like scientifically illiterate morons. Those things I listed above? That's the COMMON stuff. If you had to look them up, and lets face it, you did, you don't have much business talking about it.

2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes. Those lawsuits are detrimental to the farmers and provide the creators of the GMO with unending amounts of cash because everyone has to use their products.

Congratulations, you've discovered the Plant Patent. Welcome to 1930. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, I know of nothing stopping anyone from patenting a naturally occurring mutant gene, and furthermore, that's business, not science, so has no relevance to the merits of GMOs. That's like saying that the possibility of being sued for downloading something is relevant to the artistic merit of a work of music, film, or literature.

3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used. I don't care if you're hippy or not, pesticides are just as bad as the hormones and antibiotics we're finding.

Wow, when did that happen. Funny, all the time I've studied GMOs, the lectures I've gone to, I've never heard about that one. Sounds like a combination of bullshit and you not knowing what you're talking about. First, you're confusing herbicide and pesticide (well, insecticide), which means your opinions on agriculture are as valid as a the medical opinion of guy who uses liver and kidneys interchangeably. There are GMO crops that produce their own pesticides, and these have actually REDUCE the use of pesticides. This is a fact supported by pretty much every agriculturist on the planet, if you disagree with it, you are wrong, and no, some link to Greenpeace is not a valid rebuttal. There are also those that resist herbicides, meaning you can kill weeds without tilling. Look up no-till agriculture. It's a good thing. And what are you going on about when you talk of getting them to germinate? GMOs germinate just fine. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that farmers don't save seed? Yeah, that's hybrid seed for you. Look up Punnett Square and heterosis and try to figure that one out for yourself. Joking. Farmers don't save that seed

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

For me it is easy to see, that if you take a completely healthy to eat plant, start modifying it so it withstands all kinds of things it should not do,

You are a complete wacko. What you just wrote covers all forms of agriculture as practiced over the past 5000 years. Implementing your ideas would leave the world with a food supply capable of supporting less than a few million.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your argument is that you're not talking about GMO in general, you're talking about one specific type, albeit by far the most common type, of GMOs which is to genetically modify plants to be pesticide resistant and the business practices of primarily one company - Monsanto. On this type of genetic modification I agree totally with your sentiments, but that does not make GMO as a technology inherently bad.

There are plenty of potentially very beneficial uses of GMO. I was reading the other day about potentially being able to genetically modify wheat to fix its own nitrogen in the ground like legumes are able to. If they were able to pull off that feat then it would be an amazing benefit to society and the environment in reducing our reliance on fertilizers and I would happily eat that wheat. There are other potential benefits in improving the nutritional qualities of food and while I would be a little more cautious about that, that too is a potentially very good use.

The problem with labeling foods as GMO is that it isn't useful for the consumer. What I really want to know as the consumer is not that it was genetically modified, but for what purpose it was genetically modified (e.g. pesticide resistance) and whether Monsanto owns patents on the GM genes. Just labeling it as GMO doesn't tell me the information I want to know and unfairly stigmatizes all GMO food.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

That's fine, so long as you personally pay for that on every package of food sold in the US. I have no interest in seeing my food bill go up even $0.01 per year to fund that sort of wacko agenda.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[QuasiSteve]

I can't help but think you're biased. You may have your reasons, but the arguments you put forth may stem from said bias and doesn't really address GP.

i.e.

1. No, GMOs do not create monocultures. Is it possible that a single genetically modified supercucumber sweeps the world because every farmer wants to grow it as it's cheap and resistant and whatnot? Yes, that's a possibility. On the other hand, there might be 20 new supercucumbers genetically engineered. Not all farmers might accept a singular supercucumber (for a variety of reasons). In the event that a singular supercucumber does sweep the world and some supercucumberfungus destroys the world's supply of cucumbers, we might have been sane enough to keep a few 'ordinary' cucumber strains left for just such a scenario.
Regardless of the above scenarios, it's not GM in itself that produces them.

2. You've got me there. Patents on food (and medicine, imho.. probably software too, but I digress) are stupid. But who is to say that if you spent your life combining cucumbers until you get a supercucumber, you can't patent that? In fact - you can; http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP20666.html . So this is not limited to GMO.

You make a second remark here that rather harks back to the first. Here you suggest that e.g. a cucumber that is a derivative of the supercucumber falls under their patents and so forth and so on. If derivatives are made, how does that gel with the whole monoculture argument? Doesn't a monoculture by definition require there to be only a single strain?
Now, yes, I understand that the diversity in the strains is dependent on the number of generations and actual combinatorial and mutation rates and so forth and so on meaning that the second generation is just about as likely to succumb to the supercucumberfungus as as the first generation - but what about 10 generations down? If 'contamination' occurs naturally, then how is a monoculture ever to be established, globally?

3. If they're built to require -more- pesticide, then don't claim the GMO process in and of itself. Blame the engineer who decided that was a brilliant thing to do. Maybe they hold stock in pesticide producing companies or something; otherwise, producing a supercucumber that is not only resistant to regular cucumberfungus but also doesn't require quite so much pesticide as commoncucumber, sounds like a good idea and more likely to take off among farmers (pesticides and all the regulations that come with them aren't cheap).

And finally the bit where I suspect your bias... "tasteless product". I'm not sure if you meant 'morally offensive' when you said 'tasteless', or literally "not being very flavorful". If the former, carry on. If the latter.. well, tastes differ between crops, seasons, years, and persons of course.. but I wouldn't really try the whole "tasteless product" thing, given that - just for example - research has shown that you can genetically modify a tomato to taste better than the run-of-the-mill standard tomato, in part because said standard tomato has been bred to be bigger, have better shelf life, take less nutrition from the soil, etc. (not so successful in terms of 'taste', there).
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n8/abs/nbt1312.html

Note that the researcher does point out that home-grown tomatoes, or those at the farmer's market, may also taste better. This says nothing of the mass-production tomato in your local grocer's/supermarket/thing, though... regardless of whether the label states GM or not, which was your argument.

I'm not too keen on eating GM stuff myself (mostly due to point 2), but then I do still eat beef and oh boy is that a rotten industry (cornfeed, antibiotics as per the article, etc.). I suppose I could switch to soy-based meat replacement products.. but then I'd just be supporting the deforestation of Brazil's rainforests. Time to grow my own food and stick to chikun? :)

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?

They'd be breast-fed as nature intended?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

Huh? The rBGH related WTVT/Monsanto affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation"?

I confess, I'm in horticulture, not meat production, so that is a bit outside my area, but I don't see how that is any different than business as usual for companies. Which doesn't excuse it of course, but it isn't entirely unexpected, and it isn't grounds to ignore what people who study it say about it's safety, namely that it is.

More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?

It isn't crazy at all actually. I don't know how if it works the same in hormone treated meat (again, I'm a plant person), but I know with genetically modified crops they are rejected by many countries for a very good (sorta) reason that really has nothing to do with safety: trade protectionism. A lot of countries, particularly in Europe, don't want to open their farms up to global market forces because they'd be out competed. Here in the US for instance we are really good at producing corn, and could totally kill Europe's native corn industry. Now, WTO laws forbid protectionism, but if you forbid import of something under the guise of regulatory issues, like say a ban on genetic engineering, they you're free to keep your market protected. I was unaware of US beef exports being banned as a result of rBGH (I thought if anything it was related to BSE), but if that is indeed the case I would not be surprised. Food gets pretty political.

I know the example is not in the GMO topic, but anyway..., can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?

No. Don't trust Monsanto. Trust everyone else. Among plant biologists, the consensus on GMOs on pretty darned favorable. Not trusting companies is not only understandable, it's pretty smart I'd say. But doubting them so much that you reject mountains of independent science, well, not so much. And don't forget that Monsanto doesn't own genetic engineering. If you really dig into it, you'll find that pretty much every university in the world, from the US to Brazil to Italy to Iran to Nigeria to China to New Zealand is doing genetic engineering. Don't trust Monsanto, trust them.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Non-tariff barrier. Grandparent has probably never even visited Japan, much less understands the regulatory framework.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read up about Roundup Ready Monsanto products before you open your fucking mouth again. YOU are the clueless one here.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for Fuck sake get a brain

1. Monocultures havebeen around a lot longer than GMO
2.So what if they are patentened - Name a farmer who has been sued for accidently adding "hybrid" plants. Any farmer. I only know of one farmerr being sued (Not a large sample admitedly) and that was obviously delibirate. Served tjhe prick right. He wanted the gains without the cost!
3. GMO do not require pesticides tto germinate. That is a Total absolute lie

If you don't like food that is shipped - Fine grow your own - no one is or wants to stop you. Just shut the fuck up you lier!

Oh yeah, GMO's cover a lot more than food

I know I know. Atempting to argue with a food zealot is as bad as arguing with a religous fundementalist -- I just can't stand liers

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

A simple tl;dr would have sufficed. Here's what you do. Hold the button that says Ctrl, the press the button with the F. Then type in the word 'herbicide' in the little box that pops up. It will actually take you right to the part of my post where I talked about that! kthxbai

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, I'm not talking GMOs in general. However there are only really a handful of GMOs worth noting and thus by supporting the use of GMOs you're supporting those very bad GMOs.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

I'd be really interested in knowing just what that protein was or any additional details if you've got them. The only two proteins inserted into Monsanto's soybeans (presently, there would be an additional pair if they get the omega-3 soybeans approved) are the Cry proteins and EPSP synthase proteins, and I don't think I've ever heard anything about either of those being proven linked to any sort of problem (at least not commonly used Cry proteins anyway). Although, given that this was the same country to reject the Rainbow papaya produced by the University of Hawaii, perhaps the most benign GMO on the market today, it could very well be due to something similar to the European GMO situation, where GMOs are banned in theory because of safety questions, but in reality as a way to get around WTO protectionism laws. Given that Japan, like many other developed nations, loves it's ag subsidies, I would not be surprised in the least if that were the case.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Access to reliable information about the products you're purchasing is a "wacko agenda"? Seriously? I thought capitalism was supposed to work based on consumers having access to information in order to make informed purchasing decisions. Are you just a fan of ignorance, or are you actively trying to sabotage our economic system?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[camionbleu]

That's fine, so long as you personally pay for that on every package of food sold in the US. I have no interest in seeing my food bill go up even $0.01 per year to fund that sort of wacko agenda.

There's nothing wacko about labeling foods. Would you like to see your food bill go DOWN by $0.01 per year by having the existing labeling of ingredients removed?

Labeling is a good thing. It lets us all make informed choices based on our personal preferences.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Assuming you don't live in Ethiopia or Cambodia or some other -ia where that's obviously a legitimate concern, what do you mean by "good water"? I have clean drinking water on tap for pennies a gallon, I consider that some pretty good fuckin water. Am I missing out?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

It is when you are going down to details that 99.9% of the population cant make any kind of informed decision on. Im not 100% sure that fits this situation but that is the argument the poster is making.

He probably would argue that its about as informative as listing the break downs of every atomic isotope within a food product. Informative... but useless information.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jd]

If the bucket averages out at $3 but the medical bills afterwards average out at $30 (because of superbugs, toxicity from avian meds, or whatever), then $30 per bucket with no medical bills afterwards is a save. It doesn't mean that this is the case, what it does mean is that there are cases when $30 for a KFC bucket really IS a win for the consumer, no matter what it feels like at the register.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

Not possible. Testing everything to the extent you like is not possible. If we were to do what you would like we would spent nearly 100% of our time testing every last product for the next 100years just to get out 1 years worth of product.......

Realistically.. You are the testing. If you eat or use something than you die than than they have a product which failed. Development of this world is proceeding too fast for complete testing of most if not any product.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

I have no problems at all with genetically modified foods. I consider opposition to them as crazy hippy bullshit and Id consider myself very liberal.

You're either ignorant or an idiot. I'm thinking probably idiot, but let's assume ignorance for the sake of argument.

It is not "hippies" who have an issue with genetically modified produce (what is a hippie in this day and age anyway?). The argument as put to me by a molecular biologist is as follows. Take a plant, such as wheat, splice in a gene for it to express a new chemical that acts as a pesticide (warning! Massive simplification). Patent and profit. Instead of growing wheat and applying pesticide, the pesticide is now a part of the plant. Of course if you're going to create a new pesticide, there is a mass of pesky regulation requiring stringent testing etc etc. Not so for our new gentically modified plant! The regulation lags the science. See, this is not the same as species cultivation, in this case we are splicing in completely foreign genes to produce completely impossible (from nature), results. And if we're going to do this, we need to do a good deal of testing to make sure it's safe. Even more than normal, because we don't just spray the chemical on the top, it's an integral part of the plant. Because there is very little to no regulation, less testing is done. Worse, cross-contamination means that if these guys screw up in a big way, it's going to be nigh impossible to ever get it out of our crops. So yeah, treading carefully would be smart. Of course, big companies don't need to be smart, they can just use the profits to buy their way out of trouble.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Galactic Dominator]

GMO food presents health risks. I'm not decided on the short-term effect of GMO use/consumption, but there have been several recent studies that have shown major concerns on the long term effects which are freaky scary.

http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gmo-pesticides-linked-to-birth-defects-disruption-of-male-hormones-cancer.html

It's clear GMO isn't regulated nearly enough or with enough restrictions.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

I could never enjoy a bucket of KFC

How about a nice juicy steak - that I want, along with some crisp vegies, maybe some pepper sauce
And I would be more than happy to pay $30 for it

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Galactic Dominator]

can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?

No, you can't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

Who knows how many more undiscovered serious long term effects GMO use causes. I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD, but until we get more comprehensive regulation on GMO I have am afraid to serve it to my family.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[hedwards]

The typical issue with GMO is the way the studies are done and the lack of controls to ensure that none of the organisms get out into the wild. It's been documented for years now that the test plots have a nasty habit of leaking GM organisms onto surrounding land and for such genes to make their way into surrounding vegetation.

There may well be nothing wrong with GMO products, but as long as there's no care being taken to ensure that they remain where they're intended to, they must not be allowed to continue with research.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

The thing to understand with those is that, with anything controversial thing, there will be studies to back it. There's dozens of studies claiming to proven that homeopathy works, but no one takes homeopathy seriously because they were all crap. Here, those things come and go. Take not that they have never, not once, been able to gain any sort of scientific consensus. There's a reason for that. They've never even been able to describe how and why GMOs would be dangerous. Genetic engineering is a wide topic; if a viral resistance gene with one promoter and terminator sequence inserted by agrobactrium somehow did the same thing as a fungal resistance gene with a different promoter & terminator inserted by gene gun had the same affects, that'd be news indeed. But the the anti-GMO guys don't even talk about that stuff (probably because they know nothing of the technical aspects of genetic engineering), nor do they even make an attempt to describe what protein is the cause of these alleged health problems, and ultimately, without that, and in the face of so much that finds no health problems, I'm not impressed. No causative agent, weak and often highly criticized science, that doesn't sway me much. Sure, you could blame the Cry protein or the glyphosate but that says bugger all about every other GMO that they also attack. That people seem to think genetic engineering is all one thing really shows their level of experience with the topic.

I haven't heard of that first study, but considering that there is an abundance of evidence otherwise, I'm going to go with consensus here. As for the second link, that was nothing impressive. Some guy made a claim, never even released his data, and everyone lapped it up. Yes, the same people constantly complaining that the piles of research open to anyone with a journal subscription were somehow not transparent enough accepted this guys claim without a shred of data. The mind boggles. As for the third link, ha, PrisonPlanet. If those guys said the sky was blue I'd go outside in horror to see what color it really was. A conspiracy nutjob site isn't even worth investigating, sorry. I'm surprised you didn't link to the latest one, where some guys in Canada claimed to have found the Cry1Ab protein used in GMOs in fetal blood, despite the fact that the test they used can't even detect things at the level they found it at.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jd]

But by being the fattest, they have twice the heart disease levels and heart attacks of Britain (which, in turn, is obese compared to much of Europe). This costs money. If you look at the total cost of those burgers, rather than the cost at the till, it stops looking so good. It's just that you're paying it via assorted taxes, insurance charges, co-pay fees, etc, so it's all invisible. Well, it's a bit worse. Junk food can be iron-deficient, damaging your concentration and eventually your brain. Reduced job market value is also a cost. Junk food also limits the immune system's ability to cope, which means even normal sicknesses are more common. Absenteeism, especially for contractors, is a huge cost. But again, it's all deferred and spread over many different things with no easy way for someone to find out exactly what those costs were.

If you could somehow add up all the hidden costs and add them to the burger, it would stop being $1 and start being damn scary.

Of course, the law of diminishing returns says that you'll somewhere hit a point that isn't great but is still very respectable whilst also being close enough to cheap. I have no idea what that point would be or what life would be like if that were the standard of eating that was considered ok for those on welfare or minimum wage. Bet it would be a good deal more interesting than life is today.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. GMO isn't causing problems in those studies, pesticide residues are.

Duh.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD

Sorry to tell you, but you just fell for it in both of those cases. The first one is kind of a wierd one. The person claiming to have linked GMOs to those things actually claimed to have linked glyphosate (not the GMO itself), an herbicide that some GMOs are resistant to, with, well, everything. This guy basically claimed that glyphosate somehow spontaniously created a fungal life form the size of a virus that caused pretty much every known disease in both animals and plants. Think about that for a few seconds. Spontanious generation, smallest eukaryote ever, ability to infect everything...if exprodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, then there better be something pretty good behind that one. But that guy hasn't released his data. He's getting his 15 minutes of fame, but no one can review his work. This hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from trumpeting it as gospel, but from a scientific standpoint, his claims are meaningless.

As for the second one, like the first, that one was big news in the popular media, not so much among scientists. A few weeks ago I spoke with a fairly well known plant molecular biologist who had never even heard of that one. What should it tell you that something like that has made so little impact? Yeah, nothing good. The sources I read about that did review it, the French High Concil on Biotechnology, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and European Food Safety Authority didn't think too highly of it. Basically the study was some wierd statistics based on Monsanto's own data, and in the end they concluded that Monsanto's studies were insufficient to make any conclusions, while at the same time concluding based on the data that they were dangerous. Uh, what?

Basically, every time there's one of those 'GMOs gonna get you' stories out there, they never, at least that I know of, have much to them. The analogy I like to use is the vaccines-autism case. You are going to hear anti-vax nonsense for years to come, despite the fact that the science on it is very clear. To me, someone in plant science, this GMO thing is no different. You are going to hear GMOs associated with every health problem there is until the day you die. But if you look at it really good, there actually isn't much strong evidence to suggest that there is or will be and health problem with them. Of course I supposed it might happen, but without evidence to suggest that, you could make the same non-falsifiable statement about anything. And hey, if you really feel strongly about it that buying organic gives you peace of mind that whatever, that's cool to. But I would hope it isn't something you really lose any sleep over. I've heard of cases of mothers struggling to make ends meet, wondering if they should sacrifices even more to buy expensive non-GMO food, and that, I think, is just horrible, horrible that people (and by people I mean organic lobby groups like the Organic Consumer's Association) choose to use fear as a marketing tool. If you're that worried, call up the agricultural extension office of you're local land grant university. You really can't trust Monsanto, but those guys you can trust, and they're there to help you.

And I just realized I just replied to two of your posts on this. Oops.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

I'm guessing you don't know much about this area, and the molecular biologist you spoke to was not a plant molecular biologist were they? First off, the pesticide commonly used in GMOs is the Bt protein, and that same protein has been used in organic farming for decades. It isn't new at all. And it is only active in alkaline environments (like the gut of an insect) where it binds to specific receptors in certain types of insects (which is why it affects cotton bollworm but not mirid), and if you've got an alkaline gut, GMOs are the least of your worries. And I don't know where you got that info about regulation, but these GMOs are very highly regulated, by the FDA , by the USDA, and by the EPA. It takes years and millions of dollars to get a GMO approved. It's actually fairly simple to make a GMO (once all the genes are identified and cut out ect), and yet, there's a reason why so few plants are genetically modified. Regulation. I would say if anything, it is too strict. Because really, you need to do more testing than necessary. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but I'll say it anyway: if the only detectable difference between a GMO and the non-GMO counterpart it the expression of the transgene (or cisgene or anti-sense gene or whatever), that it is reasonable to believe that is the only difference. Otherwise you drift into invisible pink unicorn territory, basing your agreements on something that might be there but for which no proof of it's existence exists. Any molecular biologist worth their salt should know about all the protein detection tests there are nowadays. And the funny thing about cross pollination (which is the proper term, not contamination, thank you) is that we actually do have safeguards against that in the terminator technology...but everyone threw such a big temper tantrum over that one that no one uses it. Facepalm.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wow.... Shove that bucket up your ugly, retarded ass stupid American. You really deserve more terrorists.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

>Especially GMOs, jeez, can we as a society get over that one?

GMOs might be acceptable, but patented GMOs are absolutely not (at least not in with current patent duration).

So I support the fight against GMO for now.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[m85476585]

I'm allergic to soybeans, but only mildly. And I'm only allergic to forms containing protein, so soybean oil and soy lecithin are OK (otherwise I wouldn't be able to eat 99% of mass produced food on the market). Soy flour is questionable but OK in small quantities. Hydrolyzed soy protein seems to be OK since it is normally used only in small quantities as a "flavor enhancer", and the process seems to denature the protein enough. Even if I do eat soybeans, I won't die from them since it is a relatively mild allergy. And I'm fairly good at avoiding things with soy. If I can prove that I'm only allergic to GMO soybeans, I wonder if I could sue Monsanto?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

Just because we do things does not mean that they are good and we should not change. Animal farming (factory or else) is using a lot more resources than most fruits or vegetables. This is a fact. In a finite planet where we are running out of resources, and people die of hunger, maybe it would be the wise decision to stop using animal products.

As far as the economy: see about finite resources. Producing crap to sell more crap is good for profit. Keeps people working for things that break. This could work on an infinite resource environment if you manage to keep the population dumb enough. Our planet is running out of stuff and we are ruining it. So just because all the nations use animals, well, maybe someone should stop it, or tax it based on the real cost: waste, water.

Maybe MORE and BIGGER should not be number one just because most nations think only about this. It would be nice to see quality come back, work hours go down, because we are simply capable to produce enough lasting things, and then we could work on better things than producing SHITTIER than shit products for more profit.
Economy 101 my ass. Show me a country that is not in debt/problems/wars with this mentality ....

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

Labeling is a good thing. It lets us all make informed choices based on our personal preferences.

I know no one wants to hear this, but labeling isn't about personal preference. It is about providing important information. Personally, I'm a big variety freak, I like knowing what variety things are, but some things, like blueberries and blackberries, are almost never labeled with the variety, and as much as I'd like to know, I don't have the right to legally require that information of producers. Another example that comes to mind, once, a Muslim professor who taught a class I was taking couldn't buy some Gummi Worms because the gelatin didn't specify if it was from a cow or pig, and I'm sure he would love if there was a label informing him if the gummis were Halal or Haram, but again, as much preference as he might have for such a label, he does not have the right to force producers to accommodate him. Do we have the right to create a market for those thing, yes, and does another person also have the right to supply that market, yes, but to make everyone else react to our preferences, no. On the other hand some things, like the presence of peanuts or milk, should be labeled because that can present a health risk to some people. Things like trans-fats and hydrogenated oils should be labeled because we have ample scientific evidence suggesting they're dangerous (IMO they should be banned from food use but that's another topic). GMOs are much more like the first category, and you can't treat those two categories as equivalent, because they're just not. If there was a clear and present health danger coming from GMOs, then it would be a much different story, but (the typical pseudoscientific riffraff all controversial things attract aside) no approved GMO has ever been linked to a single human health concern. Ever. Over 2 trillion GMO meals consumed, no health problems. 0/2,000,000,000,000 is pretty good. And of course we can muse about those oft discuses never described hypothetical long term problems, but with no evidence to suggest they're real and no way to falsify the notion, that simply isn't even worth talking about. Like Stephen Gould once said, 'I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.' Same thing here.

So no, labels are not there for personal preference, but to deliver real, relevant information. How a plant was created is not relevant, and furthermore, all that would do is scare people. It would be like if someone required that bananas be labeled according to how much radiation they emitted. It is true that bananas are slightly radioactive, but there is no valid reason to label them as such. And yes, tracking each and every shipment of grain and soy and canola ext through all the processes they go through would be quite costly, and I for one would strongly prefer not to pay extra for something without a good science based reason.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[dindi]

Water that is not loaded with fertilizer, heavy metals, fluoride, chlorine, antibiotics, recreational drugs....

Our water here is decent but needs chlorine filtering (Central Valley, Costa Rica).

Oh, yeah ... not in a non-BPA-free plastic bottle.

If that sounds paranoid, fine, at least google chlorine and fluoride health risks if you never wondered about this.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

Saying GMO food presents health risks is so compleatly vague its crazy. Its kinda like laying "gases" present health risks ya..... some do... others not so much.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[plague911]

To be fair I am pro GM foods here. However I would not be surprised if there are some health risks with some. Id actually be surprised if at least some day we dont end up killing people with them.. To me its just the price you have to pay for progress.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Savantissimo]

There seems to be a huge amount of spam in this thread coming from this long-winded industry apologist. The reasoning is always pathetic yet condescending, and while some may be swayed by this sort of hand-waving, I think more perceptive and discerning readers will come to almost automatically conclude the opposite of any position this manipulator is pushing.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

I don't know about that, I would be surprised if there was one that went through a decent approval process that later turned out to be dangerous. There have been some before, but I really don't think catching it is that big of an issue. Now, could one in a country with less developed regulation let one through? Maybe. Could someone develop one as intentionally dangerous? Unfortunately, that is also possible. If you have the right genes, equipment, enzymes, ect., people would be surprised at how easy it really is (I've made them before. It's nothing like what you see in the movies. It's a lot less flashy unfortunately). Maybe in the not too distant future there will be a DIY Biology community, and who knows what will come of that. Strictly speaking, it's possible, but I for one have a fair degree of confidence that someone will catch it before it is too late. If any problem does happen, it will probably be due to corporate greed, not unexpected science, which is why it really would be a good idea to step up public funding for these sort of things. Funny thing is, so many of the same anti-GMO people who complain about private corporate GMOs then turn around and complain that their tax dollars fund public research for university made GMOs!

You are right that it is progress. Not only can this make agricutlure more efficient, productive, and stable in developed countries, which is certainty great, but everyone should also know that there is something bigger here. By 2050 the population is expected to be 9 billion. That has significance. We will either need to make a few billion people disappear (not a very pleasant idea), increase our cultivated land (goodbye Amazon rainforests, Congo jungles, and Borneo cloudforests), or develop an ever increasing agricultural science and technology, including new input reducing methods, new improved chemical inputs, and new biotechnology. I read once (haven't confirmed if this is true) that if we still used the same farming techniques we used in the 50's we'd need an additional cultivated area the size of North America to feed everyone. We need to go forward. Sitting still is not an option.

Good to see that you and a few people other get it. Most clearly don't, and I think I just wasted six and a half hours banging out a dozen responses that aren't going to change anyone's mind anyway. It just baffles me that people who don't know anything about this subject, who don't even think out logical thoughts on it, still think they know more than everyone who actually studies it because they saw some jackass on a Youtube video. Bah, with the attitudes of the anti-GMO crowd I don't know why I even bother. No wonder so many biotech students get MBAs instead of working in the most misunderstood and hated field in science.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how farming practices are conflated with food preparation practices, granted Big Chain Food Outlets influence farming practice, eg pushing potato production from varieties good for roasting/mashing to those super thin cooking oil filled, fat sticks. A change in farming practice, should see a consistent change in practice across all downstream customers, removing antibiotics from reduces the threat of antibiotic resistent microbes, spread back into the general population of humans, (see history of Spanish Influenza, Avian Flu, swine flu), It would also improve the health of the population in general. Antibiotics allow the animals to eat more and put on body mass (fat) quicker, without antibiotics the meat will get leaner and pricier, so diets should improve.(healthier, less meat more vegies)

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[shilly]

Erm....kosher food is already labelled as such. Religious Jews will only eat food that they *know* is kosher.

I'd like to know how you are *sure* there's nothing wrong with GMOs. Conceptually, it's related to plant breeding in the same way that a Cray is related to an abacus.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[shilly]

You are conflating normative and descriptive. You would *like* labelling to be about real, important information blah blah blah (normative). You describe today's labelling as being about real, important information. But of course, today's labelling is about a compromise between the commercial interests of the food producers / retailers, the public duties and ideologies of the regulators, and the ideologies of pressure groups.

If food labelling were *really* about real, important information blah blah, then soda cans would say "For fuck's sake, don't buy this shit, it'll rot your teeth, give you diabetes and kill you stone dead of cancer or heart disease." Which is, of course, what fate and food has in store for a large percentage of the US population.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

I am a software deveolper, my ignorance on all things biological is indeed profound. However the person I was talking to was indeed a plant molecular biologist, a professor at one of australias leading research universities. I simply regaled the information as best as I understood it, undoubtedly adding the bias of the originator, and a little of my own. I may have some of the facts a little off, but I know I got the gist.

You seem to have a wealth of information on the topic. In the interests of transparency, would you care to tell me if I am conversing with someone from academia or someone actually working to create such products? If from academia, can you explain why this person is so concerned? Is she simply the one lone loony plant molecular biologist? (actually my sister is doing her PhD in plant molecular biology, and I'm pretty sure she endorsed these concerns as well. Perhaps the lone two? Maybe it's only women?).

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[DurendalMac]

It's not so much the testing as Monsanto being deliberately full of shit. "Yeah, we have these proteins, but they cook out." Except they don't because nobody is going to cook soybeans for as long and as hot as Monsanto. Maybe the soybeans won't be a problem at all for people who eat them. That's not the point. The point is that Monsanto lies out their ass about them, which draws some pretty serious concerns over what else they may have lied about.

On an unrelated note, are the fucking morons running this site EVER going to fix the fucking "Go to replies of this post and every click you make on the page keeps fucking expanding every post" bug?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Alex Belits]

I am for labeling 100%. I want to be able to make the choice to accept GMO or not.

So you are one of those guys that caused EVERYTHING to have label "May or may not contain horrible poisons"?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Loki_1929]

The meat I buy from Whole Foods is typically completely grass-fed (in the case of the beef) and has a 4 or higher on their scale (meaning it spends most of its time outdoors grazing and has no hormones or antibiotics used). The chicken I buy from there is raised in similar conditions (no cages, no weird food, no antibiotics, etc). It most certainly doesn't cost me 6x what it did when I shopped at the typical chain stores. At most, I'm paying ~20% more. On average, it's closer to 10%. The milk I buy (no hormones, all organic, etc) is about 20 cents cheaper per gallon than the milk at the chain store down the street and literally lasts 2 - 3x as long.

I couldn't care less about how 'happy' my food is before it's slaughtered. What I care about is that I'm eating an animal that was healthy and normal while it was alive and that nothing weird (chlorine baths, ammonia injections, etc) happened along the way to it hitting my kitchen. You see, when the cow isn't being fed crap that turns it from newborn to market weight in 10 months (as opposed to 3-5 years), isn't spending its entire life standing in one place (causing most of the muscle to atrophy), and isn't jammed shoulder-to-shoulder with a thousand other cows 24/7 covered in its own shit and the shit of others nearby to the point that it needs constant antibiotic flows just to keep it alive long enough to kill it, you don't have the same problems with disease and such that you do with meat from a factory farm. And when your chicken doesn't come from a place where the chickens have been altered to the point where they can't support their own weight and where they're kept packed so tightly together that they're literally resting on the rotting corpses of the ones that didn't make it, you don't need to worry about a lot of the problems you typically find in store-bought chicken these days.

I understand that not everyone can afford to push another 10% into their meat purchases, but honestly, I think we'd all be a whole lot better off if we weren't being fed Clorox/Mr. Clean-sanitized products from sick and dying animals kept in the most monumentally unsanitary conditions imaginable their entire lives. Human beings are dying because they've been fed food that's filled to the brim with lethal pathogens that weren't killed during preparation. Every time we start actually testing the food on our supermarket shelves, it looks worse and worse in terms of what we find living on it. So perhaps some across-the-board labeling actually does make sense so that individuals can know what their purchase options are. Do you give up a movie night a month so you can afford to spend the extra 10% on hamburger that could save your child's life? That's a personal call, but it's one that ought to be made by informed consumers.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[rizole]

Well then maybe those little babies wont become obese. What would be the economic impact of that?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jbmartin6]

An ad hominem attack is also a form of manipulation. I'd like to think even more perceptive and discerning readers will judge the arguments on the facts and merits. It is almost guaranteed that anyone who tries to support certain positions will be called an 'industry apologist'

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

If factory farms disappeared, small farms would replace them. Prices might rise a little, or they might fall a little, no one knows. The parent is just FUD. As for infant formula...last i checked, that was not made from meat. And less formula would be good; infants should be drinking their mother's milk as numerous studies have shown that is by far the best thing for them; not some synthetic chemical cocktail.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Recent survey showed about 10% of that is spent on food = $660B. Impact to economy of 6x higher prices is about $3T.

Food spending will not go up sixfold if meat prices go up sixfold, unless you literally eat nothing but meat. Nobody does, though, and what's more, in reality, people would simply rebalance their budget: they'd eat less meat. Unthinkable, isn't it?

When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?

Helen Lovejoy, is that you?

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its not like that. The costs of keeping hospitals clean and curing in-cur-able patients are probably as high as you estimated the costs of a safe food system. And mind also that those could be more like investions that do not recur.

Having a overblown system of really expensive hospitals does not help to gain resilience in a society, good farming without (todays known) externalities helps.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

I agree with you regarding the effect of raising animals for food on the ecology. Eventually we will do much less of it from the simple economics of the proposition. However what you are proposing goes WAY beyond that.

As far as finite resources, I am well aware of the issues associated with that. It has nothing to do with economic efficiency and profitability. Finite resources is an economic factor as these resources are part of the cost of production. The lower the amount of resources you waste, the more efficient and profitable you will be.

More and bigger is unstoppable. Get used to it.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

I am for labeling foods when the labels provide useful information like the basic nutritional content of the food.

However there is NO NONE ZERO scientific basis for labeling food as GMO or non-GMO. This is purely a politically driven idea. As such there is no reason to cram the costs for doing this down consumer's throats, so to speak.

If you want to pay for it, fine. But I strongly object.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[azalin]

It isn't crazy at all actually. I don't know how if it works the same in hormone treated meat (again, I'm a plant person), but I know with genetically modified crops they are rejected by many countries for a very good (sorta) reason that really has nothing to do with safety: trade protectionism. A lot of countries, particularly in Europe, don't want to open their farms up to global market forces because they'd be out competed. Here in the US for instance we are really good at producing corn, and could totally kill Europe's native corn industry. Now, WTO laws forbid protectionism, but if you forbid import of something under the guise of regulatory issues, like say a ban on genetic engineering, they you're free to keep your market protected. I was unaware of US beef exports being banned as a result of rBGH (I thought if anything it was related to BSE), but if that is indeed the case I would not be surprised. Food gets pretty political.

I recon you never lived in Europe then. People over here are up in arms for simply mentioning the idea of introducing GMOs into the food chain. Fields with experimental crops had on several occasions to be protected by the police or were destroyed by protesters. Any politician who would try to allow large scale imports of GMO would face a painful political backlash from the voters.
Of course most of that is just "I don't understand it, so I'm scared of it" bullshit and fearmongering. But still it is a choice that people made

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy that 30 dollar bucket of KFC.

How insightful! Agriculture without sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics has existed for a long time, is called organic agriculture. And the costs and productivity are close to modern intensive agriculture.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Let's assume that what you say is true. $30 for chicken is probably 6x the normal price. So, what would happen if food costs were 6x across the board?

Some US Census data:
Population estimate for 2009 is 307M
Per capita income $21.5k in 1999
Total household income = $6.6T

Recent survey showed about 10% of that is spent on food = $660B. Impact to economy of 6x higher prices is about $3T.

I doubt the US spends $3T annually on cases of hemorrhagic e. coli.

Now, of course that chicken won't really be $30, but the impact to the economy of even a modest food price increase is enormous. So, safety at any cost is a foolish policy. When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?

Only most babies don't actually need infant formula. Breast milk is...free. We all need to get a grip on the REAL cost of food. As food costs rise (FAO food price index is now the highest it has ever been.), a major shift in the food paradigm needs to happen, in our own minds. Local, sustainable, fresh, non-processed, and....not cheap and convenient. Food needs to be respected as a real cost, just like shelter. About 70 years ago people were growing their own food, just before WW2. People are starting to do this again, today. Converting space in their homes for indoor growing, their backyards in raised beds, in vacant land in their communities. There is a way out of this mess, and it requires people waking up to the reality of the "high cost of cheap industrialized food". The beauty is, the food revolution is happening all over America and people are starting to take ownership of their own supply chain.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Somehow I think that returning to the days with one in two Americans was a farmer is the right solution. Why have so many farms been turned into suburban housing developments? Simple: modern farming techniques have made the land unnecessary - we produce huge surpluses. Now, idiotic policy like corn-based ethanol in gas has helped diminish that, but the solution isn't to return to every town dedicating 80% of its land to fields.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[mpe]

1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.

Monocultures have been an issue with agriculture since long before anyone even had any idea what a "gene" actually was. Note that many commercially important crops are effectivly "clones"

2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes.

This is an actual problem. But the only people who can fix it are legislators.

3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used.

Whilst it might be possible to do this it would probably be beyond current abilities to alter a plant's genome in such a way. To influence a plant in such a way requires rather more precision than being able to have some "alien" genes placed randomly in the genome be expressed in the adult plant.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Look, if your goal is to ban infant formula, why don't you just write your local congresman and ask them to submit a bill? Maybe they can find a few guys who are looking to retire to co-sponsor it. Then watch it die on the vine...

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Gordonjcp]

How can people say, that animal farming is not inhumane. It is absurd for me to see people not seeing this!

Because no-one outside of the US farms this way. Over there you get to eat cheap, greasy, bland meat that you can burn on a grill and then smear with cheap hot sauce. Mmmm, yum.

I'll stick with sustainable farming, thanks. You need livestock farming to make arable farming work properly. A vegan diet is astoundingly bad for the environment, simply due to the massive quantities of petrochemicals needed to intensively farm the cheap crappy vegetables in the supermarket.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Mr_Perl]

You'd think people ate nothing but chicken, or possibly meat, by your argument.

I'll give you a utilitarian argument that does make sense, however:

It's a well accepted fact that you can feed far more people on grain than meat. Meat is a very wasteful way to get nutrition because of all the grain that it requires, which could be used as nutrition for many more people.

Assuming the price of chicken (one of the least inefficient meats) were to go up, demand will decline, and as a consequence of simple economics, since the price increase is caused by a situation not advantageous to the producer, production of chicken would decline. Obviously at that point the supply of grain available for human consumption would increase, with lowering in price being a primary consequence of that.

So the net effect would be the complete opposite: an increase in affordable alternative nutrition for the population. And incidentally, a decrease in the costs of treating diseases introduced into the food supply may also provide a utilitarian benefit.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[evolvearth]

I have similar objections to the USDA prohibiting farmers for doing 100% screening and labeling their meat as salmonella free. Apparently that would make other farms look bad and since all the meat is safe it isn't necessary so why should consumers have that choice?

Wouldn't that give people a false sense of security? Salmonella contamination can happen at any stage of meat processing. It is probably most frequent at the site of meat packaging, like a butcher shop or something.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Omestes]

More information is good as long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line of gigantic corporations (I'll throw in an "evil" too, if we're talking about Monsanto). Also, if 99% of the population are morons, we should also strip the ability to make free choices from the remaining 1% (to preserve a giant corporations profit margins).

I personally am a HUGE fan of food labeling. Food is the most important thing in the world, and the most important thing to human life itself. I have the right to know what I am eating, what risks it poses, and where it came from.

I have nothing again GM foods, per se. But claiming that they are risk free is absurd. Even if a majority of GMO's are fine and dandy, that doesn't preclude some of them not being good. GMO's should be regulated, observed, studied, and labeled with all of the pertinent information. Barring that (since economy is more important than people's right to be informed), products NOT containing modified foodstuffs should be allowed to label themselves as such.

Not requiring labels on GMOs is very different than allowing other producers to label their products as not containing them.

But then again I will always put people above corporations, even if those people are stupid. If a mass of stupid people making stupid choices cause Monsanto to go kaput, I'm fine with that. That's how the world works.

People can't make rational choices if there is no information. Everything with the term "free" in it (including markets and societies) require informed actors to function fully. Thus maximizing information makes pretty much everything better.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[mpe]

There are GMO crops that produce their own pesticides, and these have actually REDUCE the use of pesticides.

There are plenty of naturally evolved plants which produce their own pesticides some of which are toxic to "pests" rather larger than insects :)

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Omestes]

However there is NO NONE ZERO scientific basis for labeling food as GMO or non-GMO.

Who cares? I don't WANT to eat it. I don't care if there is science involved or not, I just really don't want consume it.*

Perhaps we should bar labeling food as kosher or halal, since there is no scientific basis behind that either. It is unfair to producers of non-kosher or halal foodstuffs since it steers Jews and Muslims away from their foods for no real, scientific, reason.

* That was a rhetorical "I". I personally have nothing against GMOs, though I do think labeling and regulation is very important. Most GMO might be fine and dandy, but that isn't proof that ALL GMO is fine, or that all future products will also be fine. I also would probably boycott a fair amount of foods because I don't want to support some large companies involved in the GMO industry (Monsanto). I also always hold personal choice (no matter how nonsensical) above corporate interests.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

If you live in the US I doubt you'd have to prove anything. Line up at the gravy train and collect...

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

I have no doubts that we spend huge fortunes on hospitals currently. Do you really think that a dollar spent on giving cattle more space will translate into more than a dollar saved on hospital expenses? I don't think anybody has proven any difference between factory-raised and open-range meat, or any impact from preservatives/etc either.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Sure, if a majority of voters are willing to accept not eating meat most of the time. I doubt they'll go for that. I'm sure we'd save money on electricity if we banned air conditioning - good luck with that.

Also, I don't think anybody has shown that a substantial shift of diet towards grains is going to not have negative health impacts.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Well, yes and no. The farmers should be able to label their meat as salmonella-free, if it is in fact so. Of course, as you say farmers don't sell to consumers - they sell to packagers. The packagers could only label the meat sold to consumers as salmonella-free if they can also guarantee this. If a packager only accepted salmonella-free meat and had decent controls on their process, it seems likely that they could prevent the introduction of salmonella during handling.

I do agree that the final product is clean only if the entire chain is.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

Yeah, but kosher labels are voluntary. I've never seen anything specifically labeled as non-kosher, and producers shouldn't have to label things as such. I have no problem with people willingly choosing to label products about if they do or don't have GMOs. What I don't like is that some people want to force it on everyone else.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

Oh gee, didn't see that one coming. No one's ever accused me of being an industry apologist. /sarcasm So, have you ever worked with GMOs? I have. Have you ever been in a molecular biology lab? I have. Have you ever even talked with a plant biologist? I have, quite frequently. Or are you just playing the same tired canard that every quack, crank, and denialist plays when they have no evidence to back their unscientific point yet refuse to consider that maybe they're wrong? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason I'm handwaving is because all the science is only on one side, and all the other side has is sloppy studies, non falsifiable musing, and a conspiracy, which you so nicely demonstrate with your shill gambit. Everything I've said is basic information that just about any plant biologist will tell you, not controversial at all among relevant experts. I hardly went into the details. And if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd see I covered that several times. Funny thing about stupid conspiracies is, they always attack some big company or something with over the top misinformation, so whenever you correct those lies for the sake of accuracy, you are then accused of working for them and dismissed. A great strategy for appealing to the scientifically illiterate.

But hey, if actually knowing what you're talking about makes one a manipulator, no wonder the world is in the state it's in. It's people like you who assume anyone who actually has education and experience is part of teh ebil conspiracy. Am I condescending? Maybe a little, and you know why? Because education won't work, people like you won't read the easily available texts on the subject, you won't listen to petty little things like facts and reason, or even basic logic. Cracking a damn science book is so hard for some people that I don't see many other options besides mockery. It worked for science based medicine, maybe it will work for science based agriculture, and speaking of which, people like you are the reason kids still die of measles.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[MattskEE]

The milk I buy (no hormones, all organic, etc) is about 20 cents cheaper per gallon than the milk at the chain store down the street and literally lasts 2 - 3x as long.

Most organic milk is ultra-pasteurized which, which involves heating to a higher temperature for a shorter time than a normal pasteurization which is done for non-organic milk. This is what gives organic milk the extremely long shelf-life, though some people argue that it decreases nutritional value. The plus side of organic milk is still that it requires that cows not get BGH and not get continuous antibiotics, plus they get organic feed though it's usually still grain rather than grass.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jedidiah]

> 2. You've got me there. Patents on food (and medicine, imho.. probably software too, but I digress) are stupid.

Stop right there. Not owning your own seed is a show stopper. The rest doesn't really matter after that.

Farmers need to be able to be self sufficient rather than being artificially dependent on and at the mercy of one particular corporation.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jedidiah]

I pay $15 for an uber-organic and also locally grown chicken.

Sure, the costs are high but they aren't quite as bad as what some want to claim.

Do you want to know why I will pay that much for a chicken? Someone in the family is seriously allergic to penicillin and tends to have allergic reactions to more industrially grown chickens. There's enough penicillin still in the chicken afterwards to be a problem for some people.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[jedidiah]

...the rants of the blissfully unaware.

There's plenty of places in the US where the tap water is unfit. It may be due to chemical contamination or just be a biohazard.

You can't just blindly assume that "the government will make you safe". It doesn't always happen that way and blindly assuming it does tends to ensure that it won't. Not enough people will bother to pay any attention or raise a ruckus if necessary.

Can't avoid GMO foods.
Can't avoid stuff made in China.
Hard to avoid WinDOS.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[ChromeAeonium]

I've got no problem with that. I'm in academics. I'm actually just a lowly student at a land grant university, no one important, although I have discussed this topic at length with people who are, predominantly someone who once made the front page of the most prestigious biology journal (which is to say, someone very important and very knowledgeable), so while I consider myself an far from an expert, I base my points on what I have learned from people who are experts in plant biology/molecular biology/genetics/agriculture/ect., and I do have experience, and a lot more knowledge & understanding of the science and related issues of genetically modified crops than most people.

Why was the person you were talking to concerned? I don't know. Most people that I've talked to aren't worried at all about that particular trait. It just seems really strange to me that the person you talked to would say something like that about both Bt and the regulatory process. Regulation is very strict (at least here in the US it is, and I'd assume the same is true of Australia, if not more so), and I really haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Bt protein is concerning. With cross pollination, well, that happens, however, with a bit of foresight I really don't think it's that big of a problem in light of all the outcrossing varieties of crops that are really easily cross pollinated that have managed to stay pure lines (as in not crossing with other lines, for example, there are hundreds of varieties of squash, like Red Kuri, Jarrahdale, and Galeux d'Eysines that have existed and been preserved as pure lines for hundreds of years). Seedsavers have been doing it for ages (and heirloom enthusiasts like myself continue to do it today), and just because there are now transgenes out there I don't see how that changes things much. Perhaps they were taking more of an issue with the fact that genes and plants can be patented. I, personally, don't have much of a problem with that, but I can respect the opinions of people who do, and I can understand good arguments against it, and I can see cutting back on the power those patents can grant a bit. I'm sure that as someone working in computers you've gone through enough third person troubleshooting to appreciate the difficulty of understanding something technical via someone who isn't quite as experienced in that area, but the legal/patent thing would be my guess anyway, and if that's the case they are far from alone even among experts in that concern, and although I do disagree, I would not call such a position loony at all. Australia you say? I wonder if they know Dr. Tribe at the University of Melboure.

And I hope I didn't come off as too snarky the first time. Many people are very ignorant on this subject, but very few will actually admit it; most just think farmers are stupid/evil and that seeing Jurassic Park or some silly documentary makes them as knowledgeable as all the agriculturalists, geneticists, ect who devote their lives to studying this stuff (Dunning-Kruger strikes again).

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

I care because YOU are proposing to force me to pay for your completely IRRATIONAL phobias.

That is why.

As far as Kosher goes I DON'T pay for that. I don't buy Kosher food. We are not forcing manufacturers of NON-Kosher foods to engage in any labeling or analysis or tracking of the kosher status of the ingredients!! It is the people who engage in that particular set of beliefs that have to foot the bill for it.

As far as your political objections to Monsanto, that is your problem, not mine and I don't see why I should have to pay for your desire to boycott a particular company (not that GMO labeling would help you in any way in that regard - there are several other companies and even non-profits involved in that business so GMO labeling would NOT be sufficient information).

but that isn't proof that ALL GMO is fine, or that all future products will also be fine.

Another ludicrous concept. You want something labeled because there isn't proof that it is safe, and there isn't proof that there won't be variations of it in the future that will not be safe?

Do you realize that NOTHING is proven safe? It is impossible to prove something to be safe. You CANNOT prove a negative! It's a logical fallacy.

And to prove that something will be safe in the future? We can't even prove whether or not it will rain tomorrow.

By this twisted logic EVERYTHING should be labeled with all the possible imaginary warnings anyone can dream up.

If this sort of logic existed in the neolithic man would have decided that fire could not be proven safe, nor could all it's future dangers be predicted and we would STILL be eating our meat raw and living in dark caves!

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[GreenCow]

Milk is not just some useless by-product which cows produce. Cows make milk for the same reason that human mothers do: to feed their young. Dairy cows are impregnated as often as possible, and their young are taken away to make veal as soon as possible. Mother and child will call out to each other for days.

All this for a product which is not particularly healthy. There are better sources of calcium and protein.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[m85476585]

I don't know, Monsanto probably has a massive legal team defending them. They are like the RIAA/MPAA of seeds.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

Well, it looks like I got a bunch of things wrong. First of all, it's not GM in general that was the issue with regards to regulation, but rather foods modified via a bacteriophage or virus not being classed as GM and hence not being regulated or tested in the same way. The person I mentioned was not against genetically modifying plants, she just had a strong conviction that the current safe guards and regulation were inadequate in regards to this modification vector (and I guess in my mind I conflated a specific issue as being a more general one). Yeah so... whoops, just another ignorant software guy mouthing off.

I think it is very important that your voice is part of this discussion as you have first hand knowledge and are presenting a view that will otherwise be drowned in a sea of "GM is bad" posts. My sister has subsequently given me a great deal more information on this topic (she has a gift for explaining the science to an ignorant layperson such as myself), so I think I now understand a bit more.

On the patenting side, no mention of patenting of genes was made, and I don't believe genes are currently patentable in Australia (a quick google suggests some big decisions are pending). The impression that I have been given, though, is that the scientists are often at odds with industry on this issue, and large pressure is being brought to bear from US corporate interests.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Galactic Dominator]

Dairy calves are generally not sold to make veal. Veal has a very small consumption rate, even in the US where it is a little higher per capita than most other countries. Also, I'm not sure you can draw a moral distinction between butchering adult cattle vs young calves. I just don't get that argument.

All this for a product which is not particularly healthy. There are better sources of calcium and protein.

Beef is very healthy when done in moderation like most other common food products. Feedlot cattle not as much grass fed because it tends to be fattier and higher in cholesterol. But really all the effort goes into it because of the taste. Cattle have the unfortunate distinction of being the tastiest animal on the planet.

I raise calves purchased from such operations, and cattle raising has been part of my family for generations. Cows get over the loss of their calf soon(calf death is quite common even when raised by the mother), but the process is definitely harder on the calf. Calf survival is harmed by separating it from it's mother, even when the separated calf is given colostrum, appropriate vaccines. and good quality milk replacer.

I have 7 head which roam around 9 acres of grass and woodland. They are very happy, extremely people friendly, and very entertaining to be around as they each have unique personalities. However, at the end of the day they are beef cattle, and when the time comes they will be brought to auction. If you have moral qualms about the treatment of farm animals, but still like the taste of beef you should seek out small producers like myself in your area. Conditions at the larger beef feedlots I've seen are much better than say some of the chicken farm videos I've seen, but cattle like mine are much happier because they live in a low stress environment that is similar to their natural one. Feedlot cattle are kept in large pens, fed antibiotic treated feed mostly based on corn, and largely have little choice in their daily actions.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Galactic Dominator]

It's a well accepted fact that you can feed far more people on grain than meat. Meat is a very wasteful way to get nutrition because of all the grain that it requires, which could be used as nutrition for many more people.

Interesting, you think meat animals only eat grain? In fact, no they don't. For example there are things called grass fed beef which largely subsist on plants inedible to humans on land that is not suitable for farming for one reason or another. That seems like a pretty efficient use of resources to me. There are many things like meat/grain energy efficiently which are true in a controlled environment, but in the real world don't make sense for a lot situations.

Also the whole "grain can feed the whole world better" argument may be true but is entirely pointless at this stage. The world wastes a tremendous of amount of food every year and the large majority of that is grain. This clearly shows there is no grain shortage, and since it's a perishable consumable there is zero reward for "conserving" grain at this point. Come talk to me when grain is being fully distributed and consumed and there are still hunger problems. At that point, I would consider giving up my steak.

 

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[drsquare]

Perhaps if you ate meat of better quality you wouldn't feel a need to eat a bucket of it. There's a reason they have to drown that factory-farmed chicken in batter, oil, salt and gravy, as well as dulling your tastebuds with sugary drinks: so you can't taste the chicken itself.

Although what is most disturbing about your post is the insinuation that animal cruelty, disease, and environmental degradation are all worth it if it means you can stuff yourself with even greater quantities of junk food.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[angel'o'sphere]

Beyond that, there has been so much fearmongering by anti-GMO assholes like Greenpeace that for a lot of crops there's so much fear of consumer rejection

Only an idiot calls normal concerns "fearmongering".
If you don't know much about the problems then go and read something about it. Your whole post is nonsens.
If the companies would not fight so bloody about not needing to label GM food accordingly the market could decide if they want it or not.

Most anti-GMO people are simply denialists ...

You are mixing things up. The denialist here is you. Most anti-GMO people likely have a clue about what they are talking, unlike you.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[angel'o'sphere]

it could very well be due to something similar to the European GMO situation, where GMOs are banned in theory because of safety questions, but in reality as a way to get around WTO protectionism laws.

Thats bullshit and FUD.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[angel'o'sphere]

And yes, tracking each and every shipment of grain and soy and canola ext through all the processes they go through would be quite costly, and I for one would strongly prefer not to pay extra for something without a good science based reason.

Yeah, and that is done in europe, and it is mandatory for every food that is sold in europe. Seems not so costly bottom line.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[angel'o'sphere]

However there is NO NONE ZERO scientific basis for labeling food as GMO or non-GMO. This is purely a politically driven idea. As such there is no reason to cram the costs for doing this down consumer's throats, so to speak.

Emphasizes in italics are mine.
Sorry but this wrong. There are lots of scientific reasons to do so.
For example there where once GMed tomatoes with a chicken gen that caused the tomatoes to produce a proteine. The effect was that the skin was stronger and they did not get damaged so easy by squeezing them.
That was a great idea as it reduced waste during transport and they could be offerd for sale longer in the shops.
However: it sucks to die to a chicken allergy when you eat a tomato, doesn't it?
If you had _ever_ cared to read 3 or 4 arguments against GM or at least pro labeling GM food, you would know that.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[angel'o'sphere]

If raising cattle on antiobiotics is standard practice in most European countries, you can bet it's standard in the USA as well - they're producing for the same global market.

I think your sentence should lstart with: If raising cattle without antiobiotics is standard practice in most European countries ... but then the end of your sentence makes no sense anymore.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but let's think about where that 6 trillion would ACTUALLY go, it doesn't just disappear, that's a fallacy I'm sure none of us need in this discussion It will probably go to local farms, some of it, and the rest to other parts of the economy. The money still moves, and will create the Ever Important GDP. People will still spend that money, it doesn't just POOF vanish.

Sure, there would be short term turmoil, but ultimately that money will still move through the economy. Some of it might even stay in consumers pockets and be saved.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Omestes]

You are very emotionally invested in this topic, which is a little weird. Out side of the cult-ish, and largely irrational "whole food/organic/paleo/whatnot" crowd, I've never seen anyone really care to the extent that you seem to. From you tone, you also seemed to miss the fact that I wasn't typing most of that message as a representation of my own views, but of views that are out there.

I'm not really sure how food prices would go up with labeling in the first place. The price of labeling would be marginal, if even existent. I don't care if products with GMO in it is labeled, but products without it should be allowed to; so the price of adding a label wouldn't hurt producers of GMO food in the slightest. As for driving some customers away from GMO thanks to freer information, I don't see how this would have much of an effect on price either.

Allowing "organic" or "all natural" labels didn't change the price of non-organic foodstuffs. Or at least it didn't in any way that I've noticed. Being non-organic only hurts the market in a very small way, since most people don't care. You lose a small, fringe, portion of the market, who probably weren't a very imporant part of the "non-organic" market. Labels proclaiming the lack of "GMO" would be pretty much the same, and thus have very little, to no, effect on food prices.

If anything a slight reduction of buyers would lower prices via standard demand curves. Less buyers and a roughly equal supply means producers try to lower costs to move products. Also suppliers might want to lower price-points to make GMO containing products more attractive than labeled GMO free foodstuffs.

I really can't see the difference between being allowed to label something as organic, and being allowed to label something as GMO free. There isn't much evidence that organic foodstuffs is much better for you than non-organic, and there isn't much proof that non-organic food is harmful (just like GMO), but still they are allowed to label, and this label hasn't affected me, the customer, in any noticeable way besides opening up an avenue for choice.

I try my hardest to only buy organic, heirloom, tomatoes (they taste like tomatoes used to) instead of the giant, bright red, industrial ones. I haven't see the price of the non-organic ones sky-rocket because of my perfectly valid preferences. Even the organic ones have been declining, while the non-organic ones have been roughly the same. So why would a "non-GMO" label hurt, if "organic" one doesn't?

Another example is the no rBGH stickers on diary. I haven't seen products that don't have that label's prices to skyrocket. Hell, there is no real price difference between non-rBGH milk and unlabeled milk.

How would GMO labeling differ from these precedents. I don't see it.

My Kosher example still stands, since I agree with you (sans the tone); producers of non-Kosher food arent', and shouldn't be, required to label anything. But producers of kosher products should be allowed to label, even if it drives portions of the Jewish community away from things not labeled. Producers of non-Kosher foods are losing customers, though, thanks to having labeled alternative products.

So being allowed to label your food "kosher", or non-rBGH, or organic, is magically different than being able to label your food "non-GMO". I don't see it.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Anonymous Coward]

...and since I'm sleep-deprived, I meant to also say that people will still need to eat, the food industry will still see at least part of that money.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[Rich0]

Uh, the food industry would see all of that money. More people would become farmers, and fewer people would do things like build computers, do research, and so on. Clearly people will still eat. Once upon a time we were able to feed all of society without a single machine or fertilizer. The problem was that half of the entire population was employed as farmers to do it.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

There was never any such tomato sold to the general public.

I have read many arguments against GMO foods. The ones I have read all show a startling like of understanding of basic biology, farming, nutrition, science in general, the FDA, genetics, patent law in various and sundry combinations.

99% of the messages on this forum are even worse.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[the eric conspiracy]

The price of labeling would be marginal, if even existent. I don't care if products with GMO in it is labeled, but products without it should be allowed to; so the price of adding a label wouldn't hurt producers of GMO food in the slightest. As for driving some customers away from GMO thanks to freer information, I don't see how this would have much of an effect on price either.

That is not the proposal that most people are considering. The usual idea is that GMO foods must be labelled as to their GMO content.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[QuasiSteve]

Stop right there.

I don't wanna. Know why?

Not owning your own seed is a show stopper.

Because I cited the 2nd point as my main reason not to be too keen on GMO in general.

That said...

The rest doesn't really matter after that.

sure it does, because the argument was against GMOs wholesale, while there's nothing about a GMO that makes it automatically patented. There's absolutely no reason you couldn't go into a laboratory, genetically modify some vegetable for whatever purposes, and release that into the public domain rather than patenting it to hell and back.

Besides, as I also stated in my comment (another good reason not to 'stop right there'), non-GMO foods can be patented just as well.

Re:Factory farming should stop, really

[hawkfish]

When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?

Um, breast feeding?

Finally

[fey000]

Jokes aside, this is a very important subject. Every day, virii and bacteria are evolving to become immune to traditional treatment. This is because we as a population are drowned in BSA amongst others for "precautionary" reasons, mostly commercial. Just look at Greece. What do you think happens when your inflammations are immune to treatment? You can kiss grandma goodbye, thats for sure.

Total BS

[Anonymous Coward]

No pun intended. The fact is, no antibiotics in general use on farms are also used for human treatments. There is absolutely no chance of any of these paranoid delusions becoming reality. These are just more assholes using animals as an excuse to let them act as bullies, because what they really want to do is hurt people.

Re:Total BS

[yndrd1984]

The fact is, no antibiotics in general use on farms are also used for human treatments.

The summary itself mentioned "penicillin and tetracycline" that are used on farms. Are you saying those aren't used on humans?

Re:Total BS

[NiceGeek]

http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/2/303.short
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/75/34550/fda-finds-penicillin-drug-abuse-ny-farm-animals.html

Up next ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this suit works, watch for more activity on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming front. The skeptics definitely think they can win a suit where a judge can use logic to determine the facts. I'm not taking sides on this but I sure bet it will happen.

No...

[GWRedDragon]

Historically in the US, the judge is the arbiter of questions of law. Questions of fact are for juries.

Re:No...

[hedwards]

Cases like this sometimes end up as bench trials Since this is a civil matter and one that's pretty complicated it's definitely possible for it to end up as a bench trial.

Trouble

[Black Parrot]

We're running out of antibiotics that there aren't any bugs resistant to, and no new ones are in development because the pharmaceuticals don't see any profit in it.[*] Estimates say it would take a decade to get a new one on the market.

Meanwhile, we use antibiotics so heavily that environmentalists find them in places like rivers and streams, and public water supplies. It has become a pollutant, but one with a particularly insidious effect.

[*] Such is the folly of leaving public health dependent on the profit motive.

Re:Trouble

[davester666]

I thought it works like this:

1) Universities do research into drug possibilities, using public funds. Patent drug.
2) Once a drug proves to be useful, sell rights to drug to a big pharmacy.
3) Big Pharmacy runs trials, hiding poor results while prominently publishing good results
4) Get drug on the market for a huge markup. Bribe doctors to use it, market it to end-users to get them to ask their doctors to prescribe it to them. Also, stop manufacturing similar but older drugs, even if similar in effect, because they have a lower profit margin [and cost to consumer].

Re:Trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe for one second that most drugs that come to market are similar in effect to older drugs and come to market simply as a way to preserve the income for pharmaceutical companies.

Yes you are damn right, they make way too much money and tend to use that money to make more money. If half the money that went to researching the cure for baldness went into research against HIV, we'd hopefully be closer to a cure or at least cheaper and better treatment.

However since we live in a market oriented world and most of the money is with the bald guys rather than with the sick ones, it's only logical that pharmaceutical companies would try to cure baldness.

If you want things to change, how about changing the government. Start by firing every senator that believes in creationism, as they by definition wouldn't be able to comprehend why you would need new antibiotics (hint, it's because of something called survival of the fittest).

Re:Trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Once you remove the antibiotics then drug resistant bacteria have no advantage and their genes would eventually be removed from the pool. This is why simply switching from one antibiotic to another and then back a week later works so well. Of course, if the bacterium is resistant to all your antibiotics and you don't have time to stop the antibiotics because it will kill the patient, then you are out of luck.

Re:Trouble

[Black Parrot]

1) Universities do research into drug possibilities, using public funds. Patent drug.
2) Once a drug proves to be useful, sell rights to drug to a big pharmacy.

Are universities usually involved? I thought the pharmaceuticals did their own research, and justified the patent-based stranglehold on your health as a necessary means for recouping their research investment.

3) Big Pharmacy runs trials, hiding poor results while prominently publishing good results

Including little things like elevated suicide rates that get "lost" in the reporting.

Re:Trouble

[demonlapin]

Such is the folly of leaving public health dependent on the profit motive.

You know, if a country thought it would be worthwhile to have some new antibiotics, it could just form its own socialized pharmaceutical company and support it. Yet they don't.

Re:Trouble

[Black Parrot]

I don't believe for one second that most drugs that come to market are similar in effect to older drugs and come to market simply as a way to preserve the income for pharmaceutical companies.

I don't know about in general, but as I recall it Clariton's successor, with an active ingredient identical to the original except for one relatively small attachment, hit the market right when the patent on the original expired and you could start buying OTS clones. Sure looked like they timed it to keep the big bucks rolling in.

If you want things to change, how about changing the government.

Darn straight. But for medicine I don't think creationists are the problem in this case; it's just that our legislature doesn't want to pass any laws that undercut anyone's profits: the stock market is more important than public health.

Re:Trouble

[Rich0]

Well, gist of what you say is true with some major caveats:

1. The bribes are under a lot of scrutiny and are down a bit (along with Pharma profits).
2. I'm not aware of any older drug that you can't buy - in fact most branded companies still sell it even after it is off patent. They just don't market it.
3. No university figures out if a drug is useful. They figure out if some molecule has some activity in some assay, or maybe in animals. To be useful it needs to have good safety and efficacy in humans.
4. Step #3 in your list costs probably around $100M, and most of the time the drug is dropped, even if sometimes the ones that aren't have some issues.

So, even if a university comes up with the perfect antibiotic (in some professor's mind), you need to convince a company to spend $100M to test it, when most likely it won't work out, and if it does it will only be prescribed if the other 30 antibiotics on the market all don't work, which is only for a very small number of cases per year. Oh, and medicare will fight over the price by the time you get it on the market.

I'll agree that universities have a big part in drug discovery. It might even be the hardest and most creative part. However, it all comes before any of the real money gets spent. The expensive part of drug development is the clinical trials. Those are easy to design and boring, but they are VERY expensive and usually result in failure.

Re:Trouble

[Rich0]

Pharmaceuticals do their own research. They also leverage public basic research results, and they also license compounds from all kinds of places including universities.

So, universities do have a big role in drug discovery. However, universities almost never pay the costs of clinical trials, which is where you spend $50M to find out that the cure for cancer in mice doesn't work in people. Once in a while you spend $100M and figure out that a drug is good. So, even if it is mundane Pharma companies do spend a ton of money on development, and they aren't going to do this without some kind of return.

I'm generally in favor of experimenting with other models. The NIH could fund a royalty free drug start-to-finish - perhaps even outsourcing the work to a pharma company (but retaining patent rights). The NIH could announce bounties for treatments for particular conditions. However, I'm under no illusions that any of this will be cheap.

Re:Trouble

[Black Parrot]

I'm generally in favor of experimenting with other models. The NIH could fund a royalty free drug start-to-finish - perhaps even outsourcing the work to a pharma company (but retaining patent rights). The NIH could announce bounties for treatments for particular conditions.

Interesting ideas.

However, I'm under no illusions that any of this will be cheap.

Me neither. However, IMO the question we should ask before we ask what it costs is, "What is the value of public health to a Republic?" If the answer is "a lot", then we should be glad to spend a lot on it without complaining.

Re:Trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Pharmacist here. That happens all the time. I think the drug you are referring to is Xyzal, which is purified enantiomer of Claritin, I believe (I don't have the paperwork in front of me).

The drugs that get something added and re-patented are called designer drugs. These don't prevent the original from going generic. Take Zegerid for instance, it's just omeprazole (Prilosec) with sodium bicarbonate. It went for a couple hundred bucks a month when you could get baking soda and prilosec OTC for under 30/month. Doctors, pharmacist and insurance companies know this, and adjust accordingly. I used to change Zegeric Rx's to sodium bicarb tablets and omeprazole 20mg or 40mg all the time. Don't think for a second that my patients aren't happy when their copay for one Rx goes from $40 to $10.

Unfortunately, this bullshit happens all them time. All I can do is roll my eyes. Zegerid is OTC now, by the way.

Re:Trouble

[sjames]

More to the point, the major contributors to political campaigns would prefer we not do that.

Re:Trouble

[demonlapin]

The United States of America is not the only country on earth. Yet none of them do this.

Re:Trouble

[sjames]

You're saying the U.S. is the only country that has a problem with corrupt politicians?

Re:Trouble

[demonlapin]

Your initial comment is very typical of the kind of people who insist that the US is a corporate-driven nightmare, while "civilized" countries don't have that problem. Because it's short, there is no nuance. I apologize if I was overbroad - after all, I did post a very short reply myself, one just as open to misinterpretation.

Re:Trouble

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

We're running out of antibiotics that there aren't any bugs resistant to, and no new ones are in development because the pharmaceuticals don't see any profit in it.[*]

Wrong! My little sister is doing her PHD in trying to find new types of antibiotics. Trust me, there is a fortune to be made (not for her). The problem, and the thing that is truely scary, is that these bugs are now resistant to entire classes of antibiotics. This means that the vast vast majority of new antibiotics are already useless. So yeah, at the moment we are stairing down the barrel of a future without being able to treat infection, unless we can stop this shit AND come up with an entire new class of antibiotics. It's too late for this lot. Wish my sister success.

Re:Trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like your country to pay for the production of an antibiotic that the whole world really ought to be paying for, without any expectation of getting its money back?

Re:Trouble

[Idarubicin]

You know, if a country thought it would be worthwhile to have some new antibiotics, it could just form its own socialized pharmaceutical company and support it. Yet they don't.

Yes, as I'm sure that there wouldn't be any lobbying or brutal lawsuits if the government of an industrialized nation so much as hinted at creating companies which might somehow compete with a massively-profitable private industry.

I mean, as Slashdot readers we've obviously never seen any similar problems. It's not like U.S. cable companies have fought tooth and nail to prevent rural municipalities providing broadband service where those private companies have failed to do so.... Oh.

Re:Trouble

[Rich0]

Well, my feeling is that these are experiments that won't work out as well as some of the proponents of ending patents/etc think they will. However, I also feel that this is an experiment that has never been tried, and is worth trying. Without up-ending the entire pharmaceutical industry it would be easy to try it a few times, and see how it actually works. If we find that the NIH model provides net-benefit then we should put more and more money into it until nobody even buys patented drugs since the public ones are sufficient. If we find that the NIH model costs far more than it is worth then we should either halt it or tweak it until it works.

There is far too much rhetoric in this debate on both sides. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or throw up our hands and merely accept the status quo. We can preserve the current system while building a new one - and then make policy decisions on the basis of actual data.

Please distinguish

[overshoot]

Every day, virii and bacteria are evolving to become immune to traditional treatment.

With a very few exceptions [1], standard treatment for viral infections is supportive care. Your own immune system is stuck with the job, possibly with a bit of advanced training via vaccines. Fortunately, none of the few post-infection treatments for viral diseases are being abused the way antibiotics are, so it's just the same old evolutionary arms race that's been going on for the last billion years or so.

[1] Notable exception: HAART for HIV. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:Please distinguish

[St.Creed]

Ah no... remember zovirax, the stuff that makes herpes simplex go away sooner? Thats basically an antiviral, and doctors are already pretty wary of the abuse of that type of antiviral (which is really a last resort medication) for curing a minor infection one day earlier. Same with anti-cold medication with antivirals. If these patients ever do get a real infection that needs antivirals, they're going to be in trouble much more than other people.

Also an issue in the Netherlands

[FridayBob]

In the Netherlands, this has also been an issue for some time for exactly the same reasons. However, the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry, the farming industry and one very large veterinary firm that sells the antibiotics directly to the farmers (giving them as much as they want and making way too much money in the process) seem to have far too much influence in the Hague, which is the seat of the Dutch government. With these rather influential veterinarians arguing that any restrictions placed upon them would be unfair and against EU trade rules, the government is now considering banning all veterinarians from selling their own drugs, forcing their clients to buy directly from normal pharmacies instead. That would be unfortunate, because these pharmacies only have experience with human medicine. Thus there would be the risk of the pharmacies giving or offering (cheaper) alternatives that may not work for dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc. (apparently, there are plenty of examples of this). This is one of the reasons why vets are also trained as, and usually operate as pharmacists.

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[mspohr]

Denmark (and Sweden and others) have successfully banned antibiotics in farm animals with a good result on human health. http://www.colby.edu/biology/BI402B/Casewell%20et%20al%202003.pdf

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you didn't read the paper you linked to:

Following the ban of all food animal growth-promoting antibiotics by Sweden in 1986, the European Union
banned avoparcin in 1997 and bacitracin, spiramycin, tylosin and virginiamycin in 1999. Three years later,
the only attributable effect in humans has been a diminution in acquired resistance in enterococci isolated
from human faecal carriers. There has been an increase in human infection from vancomycin-resistant
enterococci in Europe, probably related to the increased in usage of vancomycin for the treatment of
methicillin-resistant staphylococci. The ban of growth promoters has, however, revealed that these agents
had important prophylactic activity and their withdrawal is now associated with a deterioration in animal
health, including increased diarrhoea, weight loss and mortality due to Escherichia coli and Lawsonia intra-
cellularis in early post-weaning pigs, and clostridial necrotic enteritis in broilers. A directly attributable
effect of these infections is the increase in usage of therapeutic antibiotics in food animals, including that of
tetracycline, aminoglycosides, trimethoprim/sulphonamide, macrolides and lincosamides, all of which are
of direct importance in human medicine. The theoretical and political benefit of the widespread ban of
growth promoters needs to be more carefully weighed against the increasingly apparent adverse conse-
quences.

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

The paper you link to does not seem to support your statement of "a good result on human health". As far as I can tell, it claims that there have been no fewer resistant infections after the ban.

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[the eric conspiracy]

One has to wonder if this will have any effect even if the lawsuit is successful because of abuse in the human population.

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[Rich0]

Frankly, as a citizen in the US I'd like to see a general ban on doctors selling products of ANY kind, or receiving payments of any kind from the manufacturer of ANY product.

You have vets in the US recommending some kind of food for your pet, and guess what, you can only buy it in vets and only from the vet who cares for your pet. I asked my vet about pet insurance, and they only knew about one kind of insurance, but they said that they had reps from some other company visiting them and they were checking them out so there might be other options in the future. A little online research shows that there are probably a dozen reputable options, but I'm sure that not all of them give kickbacks to the local vet.

It is a conflict of interest for a doctor to make a profit off of a product they are recommending for your care, and that is all there is to it. I don't mind it so much for barbershops or the 47 other places where this happens, but when health care is at stake the doctor's incentives have to be aligned to the health outcome of the patient, not how many procedures the patient gets or what products they buy.

Re:Also an issue in the Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

You lying sack of shit. The bottom line of the article you referenced is "The theoretical and political benefit of the widespread ban of
growth promoters needs to be more carefully weighed against the increasingly apparent adverse consequences."

Then stop buying it.

[Trip6]

If you and enough of your friends refuse to buy this type of meat, it will stop.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[plague911]

There are too many stupids in this nation for the buying habits of the smart to influence the stupid.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[DurendalMac]

Wish I had mod points for this. Boycotts don't work unless you give the brainless masses a very good reason to do it, and protesting factory farming aint gonna do it.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but what's the alternative? I've read that tofu is made from puppies, and there are even laws about SPAM now.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[dindi]

Even more frightening for me is when I see other countries (not US), where it is actually more expensive and "special" to go to one of these "fast food" places.

In Costa Rica you will pay more for an equally portioned MC meal than what you would pay at a family restaurant. I am talking about a nice looking, clean simple local place where they serve fresh-made dishes with vegetarian/healthy options.

Still, 12pm on a Saturday you will see the family restaurant with clients, but MC, KFC, BK and all the crap have cars lined up outside waiting to get in.

As a result of this, and people eating at the mall food court every day, you start to see that the average person on the street went from normal to slightly overweight, with a lot of people growing some serious belly and ass. It is not just the US whose people are making the worst buying choices.

I also think (agree) with the comment above, that suggests, that people are really too busy, stupid, ignorant, uninterested to think and change. When you can cure diabetes with a diet change in most cases (google Raw for 30 days, I personally know someone who did this too), when you have people smoking and drinking after they were warned by a doctor: how do you expect a bunch of people to change their diet who hear it 24/7 : you need your milk, egg, meat, and you get this the cheapest at these outlets. HOW do you tell the guy to go for organic vegetables, when corn syrup is subsidized and all he cares is how it tastes, not what it does????

Re:Then stop buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feed him and his family all the shitty unhealthy food they want and hope they either die quickly, become sterile, or become too fucking fat and lazy to breed.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[plague911]

except we spend billions keeping these "people" alive

Re:Then stop buying it.

[jd]

Jamie Oliver demonstrated by switching a school's menu that a poor diet causes the masses to become brainless. (The improved diet, once accepted, caused exam scores to skyrocket and absence to plumet. After that, both media and schools started taking his views a bit more seriously - except in LA, where he was banned.)

It follows that you've a self-perpetuating cycle. People on heavily-processed, factory-farmed diets will, in general, be too stupid - as a direct result of those diets - to change.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about a 2000% tax on fast-food? I think that would work better.

Re:Then stop buying it.

[cavebison]

There are too many stupids in this nation for the buying habits of the smart to influence the stupid.

Still, it's a fine line...

FOOD and Drug, not FEDERAL Drug...

[Dubious Maximus]

If you're talking about the FDA, at least try to get what the abbreviation stands for correct.

Re:FOOD and Drug, not FEDERAL Drug...

[Samantha Wright]

I think the idea is that food is now a drug maybe?

Why isn't it criminal to use antibiotics wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Abuse of antibiotics means antibiotics eventually will not work.
Why isn't it criminal to abuse antibiotics, you're sacrificing our future generation's health for a greedy personal dollar. This should be criminal.

Re:Why isn't it criminal to use antibiotics wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolutely wrong. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cannot compete with normal bacteria in any environment not filled with antibiotics. If they could, they would have already completely replaced the normal bacteria.

The antibiotics do not cause the genetic mutations that make the bacteria resistant; those happen normally, all the time, all over the place. But in order to resist antibiotics, they have to give up something else. That could be reduced mobility, or lower reproductive rates, or a vulnerability to something else. Regardless, it results in the "normal" bacteria being naturally selected over the antibiotic-resistant ones.

In places like hospitals, clinics, and the like, bacteria have nowhere to live except in people - people who are given antibiotics. This makes the antibiotic-resistant bacteria the dominant species. In all other areas, bacteria live everywhere. Not just dirty places, like drains and toilets, but even on your walls and ceilings; even in the dust floating in the air. These places do not have antibiotics, and they are a far more essential place for bacteria than inside people. The antibiotic-resistant bacteria cannot compete in such places.

To put it simply, there is no chance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria becoming pandemic, or they would have already done so.

Re:Why isn't it criminal to use antibiotics wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

say hello to Ehec

Solution needs to be world wide

[turing_m]

The USA doesn't grow most of the world's food. Farms in other countries will still use antibiotics irrespective of what the FDA does. The superbugs being developed elsewhere will eventually migrate to every other country. If we are to retain the ability to use the antibiotics we have today, action needs to be taken globally. Not sure how to enforce that, but that's what would have to happen.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the rest of the world already forbids this practice, you fool. Saying that everyone doesn't do it isn't an excuse for not doing it ourselves.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think you quite understand the AMOUNT of food the American midwest makes. It is a number way higher than you think.

You also here how 'grain prices are being pushed up by ethonal practices'. While that is somewhat true. There is a bigger practice going on in the grain markets (cough manipulation cough).

At one point they made so much food they literally let it rot at the grain silos.

They make so much food they literally did not have a market for it.

While the US does not grow all of the worlds food. It does count for a large portion. More than most people realize.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Idarubicin]

The USA doesn't grow most of the world's food. Farms in other countries will still use antibiotics irrespective of what the FDA does. The superbugs being developed elsewhere will eventually migrate to every other country. If we are to retain the ability to use the antibiotics we have today, action needs to be taken globally. Not sure how to enforce that, but that's what would have to happen.

On the other hand, saying "We won't do anything unless everyone else does it first" is pretty much a recipe for failure. Moreover, it isn't necessarily required for this to work.

Heavily restrict the import of livestock and meat products from countries which don't restrict the use of antibiotics appropriately. Insist on lengthy quarantine periods and thorough testing for imported livestock. These first two points will probably be popular because they appeal to the American instinct for protectionism anyway. Aggressively screen and quarantine any domestic animals/herds which are suspected of harboring antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

You don't need to get rid of every single resistant bacterium to see public health benefits. In the absence of regular exposure to antibiotics, the 'superbugs' have no competitive advantage over other bacteria (indeed, maintaining their antibiotic resistance when they don't need it probably costs them just a little bit) and there will just naturally be fewer of them in the domestic food supply. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing. And sometimes it's good to set a constructive example.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

"Superbugs" is mostly a local problem. Norway (my country of origin) has very few problems with e.g. MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) due to being very restrictive with antibiotics. I assume there's so many other forces active around bacterial evolution that carrying around resistance genes is too expensive if they're not being used much.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[turing_m]

You don't need to get rid of every single resistant bacterium to see public health benefits. In the absence of regular exposure to antibiotics, the 'superbugs' have no competitive advantage over other bacteria (indeed, maintaining their antibiotic resistance when they don't need it probably costs them just a little bit) and there will just naturally be fewer of them in the domestic food supply. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing. And sometimes it's good to set a constructive example.

You bring up some good points. I probably should have prefaced that I think that the FDA should act in this case, and that the USA should set a good example. And I know that they can force other countries to toe the line by virtue of their import restrictions. I just didn't see this being addressed in any of the other comments.

I do realize that superbugs only have a competitive advantage over other bacteria in places like the human body, once entrenched (since everything else annoying will get destroyed by regular antibiotics). And they will continue to be a problem in any environment that sees a lot of contact between different people, e.g. contact sports with a lot of skin contact (e.g. wrestling), prostitution, hospitals, etc. Because people will continue to do those sort of activities and travel internationally, I doubt we'll ever be rid of diseases like MRSA. But we have to do something.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[thue]

As in many other cases, such as fx the Kyoto agreement, "world wide" means that the US is the last country to do the obvious. Europe has fx done this long ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/234985.stm

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure about that? In environments without antibiotics, the superbugs are really inferior-bugs. Features don't come for free you know.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[qengho]

Europe is way ahead of the US. Banned since 2006.

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, here in Canada our government has explained to us that we shouldn't try to solve global problems. It seems that acting without the U.S. government going first would be economically counterproductive. So the only thing our government could possibly do is politely ask the U.S. government to start, then we'd be glad to help.

(BTW, the majority of Canadian voters did not vote for this government.)

Re:Solution needs to be world wide

[Anonymous Coward]

wikipedia tells me that the US is the third largest producer of agricultural products, after india and china. So it's not "most of the worlds food" but it's definitely significant. India represents a serious problem regarding antibiotic resistance largely due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans as well. So there's no magic bullet here, but being responsible with antibiotics is important, even if it doesn't happen instantly world wide.

On the medical side of things

[StandardAI]

Over use of antibiotics creates stronger bacteria that are more resistant to the antibiotics. What would of normally been cured by a low dose of penicillin will now take a much larger dose of another antibiotic.

FDA != Federal Drug Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, it was the Food & Drug Administration.

I Live in Iowa and Guess What???

[ozone702]

From inside sources (people I know who work in hog confinements) I've been informed that over 90% of hog confinements in Iowa are infected with H1N1 virus. They do everything they can to keep it from incubating to human transmittable. We're so screwed and hardly anyone even knows how bad its getting.

Trust me, when the zhit hits the fan, it will be so quick nobody will have time to react to it. The only ones who will survive it will be people who have been exposed to it enough to build an immunity and most likely carriers.

It's a money thing, not stupidity

[Trip6]

It's not stupidity as much as a money thing. Let's weigh an unseen evil (factory farms) against paying 30% more for meat, when most dual-income families are barely making ends meet as it is. It's a no brainer.

Same argument goes for "Made in USA" btw.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[plague911]

The average american should go with eating 30% less. But ya I get your point but i still disagree I think it is the stupids. I see these shows with some moronic family complaining about how its cheaper/quicker to feed their family off fast food and that it fills up their kids more. Meanwhile their kids are fatasses and diabetic ... maybe their kids should be a little hungry it would do some good

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

So buy some veggies/fruits/grains to make up for it? Overabundance of meat these days is part of the reason we've got an obesity epidemic, as some people (call them "stupids" if you wish) can't control their damn intake of it.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[Loki_1929]

Rather than an overabundance of meat in general, perhaps a larger contributing factor is the fact that what meat people do get these days often looks more like fat than meat when held under a microscope. Anyone eating typical supermarket meat is mostly consuming pure fat.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not stupidity as much as a money thing. Let's weigh an unseen evil (factory farms) against paying 30% more for meat, when most dual-income families are barely making ends meet as it is. It's a no brainer.

Same argument goes for "Made in USA" btw.

So you only understand microeconomics and don't really even acknowledge the existence of macroeconomics? If beef costs more where do you think the money goes? It goes into the hands of working Americans who made the beef, who then spend it in America, which then goes into the hands of other working Americans. Spinning the economic wheel faster with a purpose can be a good thing. It only breaks down when the end of the money cycle is someone at Walmart buying Chinese-made goods, which unfortunately is the reality, and that is why "Made in the USA" is also something we need to strive for. Of course there are inflation issues, etc. but that is another discussion.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[simoncpu was here]

If beef costs more where do you think the money goes? It goes into the hands of working Americans who made the beef, who then spend it in America, which then goes into the hands of other working Americans.

Sorry, but the money won't be transferred into the hands of working Americans because people won't buy more expensive beef in the first place. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would need to pass a law that would "protect" the American beef industry from "evil" corporations. Unfortunately for you, this law would enable bad companies to monopolize the industry, thereby lowering the quality of beef and driving its prices up.

Yeah, macroeconomics dude.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[plague911]

Protectionism does not create monopolies as a mater of fact.

Re:It's a money thing, not stupidity

[drsquare]

Americans already eat way too much food, cutting meat consumption would probably be good for them.

Uh....

[Anonymous Coward]

How will increasing the cost of meat production raise prices on grain?

Or any other plant?

Plants are food too, you know. Protein-rich, despite what the meat and dairy industry would have you believe, and free of cholesterol.

When meat is too pricey, the people can buy veggie subs. Problem solved.

Re:Uh....

[OpenLegs]

Turn your thinking cap on and you might realize what Cows eat.

Ah, I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially GMOs, jeez, can we as a society get over that one? It's just a way of improving a plant, it isn't Frankenstein or Jurassic Park or Splice or whatever fairy tale people are believing over science today [...]

I am convinced now. Your arguments very compelling. Yummy GM food!

Europe banned this use of antibiotics long ago

[thue]

Europe banned this use of antibiotics long ago, for this reason: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/234985.stm

The main issue is PATENTS.

[the_raptor]

The real issue with GM crops is patents. If you grow non-GM crops and your neighbour puts in GM crops will you better start paying that rent money to Monsanto because your crops will be contaminated with GM plants in short order and due to retarded IP laws you will be liable for this "patent infringement".

If Monsanto and the like gets their way every single farmer will be paying monopoly rents due to the fact that cross pollination and wind blown seeds can not be contained. Patent laws are not designed to be applied where "infringement" can happen without human intervention.

Re:The main issue is PATENTS.

[azalin]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could just sue them for contamination of your fields? Though they would probably argue that it wasn't their fault, but that of the farmer next doors.
Personally I believe that GM has some potential gains, but also potential some risks associated. My opinion would be that every product containing GM crops must be labeled as such. This would also have to include secondary products (like meat from animals fed with GM crops).
The reason? While I believe most of this stuff to be a good idea, I don't trust companies that just put shitloads of money into research and patents to truthfully report a flaw that only might be dangerous in the long term.

Is it proven?

[Nicolas MONNET]

> For colds they'd be better off taking a zinc supplement at the onset of the symptoms.

Is it proven this works?

Why do you ask for proof when you yourself peddle dodgy alternative type remedies?

In any case colds are caused by viruses, and nobody who knows what an antibiotic is ever claimed it worked for those.

Re:Is it proven?

[TheLink]

Why do you accuse me of peddling dodgy treatments? Just google for zinc and cold.

It works better than placebo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12462910
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/for-cold-virus-zinc-may-edge-out-even-chicken-soup/
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional/

Stick to the pills/lozenges, take them at early onset of symptoms, don't overdose and definitely don't spray your nose with it (or you might damage/lose your sense of smell). May not be a cure, but most subjects would feel better and that's good enough for most people.

AFAIK doctors in some countries are still prescribing antibiotics to those with colds and flu. Despite being told year after year not to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/20/coughs-colds-cures-treatment-antibiotics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6526575/GPs-told-to-stop-prescribing-antibiotics-for-coughs-and-colds.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574995/Stop-giving-antibiotics-for-colds-doctors-told.html

My current guess (not enough proof yet :) ) that most people get antibiotic resistant bacteria from hospitals, not farms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20524852

RESULTS:
Neither the preintervention rate of MRSA colonization or infection (0.56 cases per 1,000 patient-days [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.49-0.62 cases per 1,000 patient-days]) nor the slope for the rate of MRSA colonization or infection changed significantly after the first intervention. The rate decreased significantly to 0.28 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.17-0.40 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the second intervention and to 0.07 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.06-0.08 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the third intervention, and the rate remained at a similar level for 8 years. The MRSA bacteremia rate decreased by 80%, whereas the rate of bacteremia due to methicillin-susceptible S. aureus did not change. Eighty-three percent of the MRSA isolates identified were clonally related. All MRSA isolates obtained from healthcare workers were clonally related to those recovered from patients who were in their care.
CONCLUSION:
Our data indicate that long-term control of endemic MRSA is feasible in tertiary care centers. The use of targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients and healthcare workers in specific wards (identified by means of analysis of clinical epidemiology data) and the use of decolonization were key to the success of the program.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718935

March 22, 2010 â" A multifaceted infection control program led to a significant decline in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases in Paris-area hospitals with high endemic MRSA rates, according to an article in the March 22 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

There are other superbugs too:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/enemy_pr.html

It's true that many species of acinetobacter flourish widely in the environment. Thriving colonies have been recovered from soil, cell phones, frozen chicken, wastewater treatment plants, Formica countertops, and even irradiated food

Re:Is it proven?

[TheLink]

Note: the medscape link only works if you go via google. So google for "http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718935" if you want to read it.

You can't fight the Meatrix

[Crock23A]

http://www.themeatrix.com/ If anything, I got a lot of entertainment value out of this.

The FDA is corrupt and ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the rest of our governments. Evil, greedy, rich people have infiltrated and perverted the system for their own ends.

Open your eyes, clearly there is no effective oversight since our food is already full of poisonous chemicals.

This is Skitso

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Skitso, why remove a precautionary dose of antibiotics? The AMA are nasty murdering people who need removing from their job. Their science is wrong, it kills fit animals. Dependency creation based hacks are abhorrent. See through the lie America and de fund them!

humanity is f%@#ing doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

'While this may cause eyerolls among some who look at this as "just another lawsuit,"

If people are rolling their eyes then lets hope they keep rolling them while they are wheeled into the ER with some stupid bug that was cured ages ago. Lets see how they feel as a doctor explains yeah, we used to have a simple and exceptionally effective medicine for that but we just gave the last useful dose to a cow who wasn`t sick anyway just so we could keep cows packed a little closer together and save a little money. Long story short now you are gonna die just like people did in medieval times so try not to cough in anybodies face while you do that okay?

'As it happens, one of the main roles of a judge is as "finder of fact." In practice, this means that judges determine whether scientific evidence is compelling enough to force government action."'"

Humanity is f#$%ing doomed isn`t it? Science finds facts, court just try to split the difference by dragging people in two opposing camps and then having people equally qualified on paper fling FUD at each other while one side gets rich and the other pulls its hairs out. Smoking and cancer, global warming the evolution of anti-biotics resistance... all just matters of opinion.

The only reason is because voters are more scared by the well crafted gay marriage related cooties scare than by actual diseases. And it not just the E-Coli conservatives.

Is there a betting pool I can join on whether the judge was taught creationism in school?

If a cow kept for meat has a bacterial infection then just find the cow, kill the cow eat cook the cow and eat the cow. Why is it that in a world of dirt cheap bio-chips we can`t just detect a sick cow in time to eat it before it infects too much of the herd?

If stealing candy from a baby is bad, then what does that make stealing the last useful doses of a medicine from an entire generation just so you can give it to cows kept for their meat?

Humanity is f@#$ing doomed.