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

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[virgnarus]

Enjoy that 30 dollar bucket of KFC.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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:Then stop buying it.

[plague911]

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

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: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.

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