Slashdot Mirror
FDA Backtracks On Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Proposal
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The FDA recognized, 35 years ago, that feeding animals low-doses of certain antibiotics used in human medicine — namely, penicillin and tetracyclines — could promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria capable of infecting people who eat meat, and proposed to withdraw approval for the use of those antibiotics in animal feed. Instead of acting upon the proposal, the FDA has now withdrawn it. Although admitting that it continues to have 'concerns' about the safety of the use of antibiotics in animal feed, the FDA says that it will just continue to rely on 'voluntary self-policing' by the industry, the same method which hasn't worked out too well during the past 35 years, as antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance have continued to rise throughout the entire period."
FDA continues to admit it's useless and just likes to thrash its arms about in a non threatening manner. I guess I'm not surprised.
I'll never get sick of eating it.
Bet you it leads back to Industry.
Unfortunately they will eventually spread their antibiotic-resistant bacteria around, and the rest of us will be doomed as well.
Don't eat meat.
Trying to dissprove the concept of "tragedy of the commons"?
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Yet another consequence to greed. View the documentary 'Food Inc.', they show how the food industry have become afraid of the public opinion by creating laws against criticizing food producers and totally dedicated to generate more profit by lowering quality standards and so on..
If enjoying the wonderful taste of a wood roasted tenderloin filet spreads the antibiotic-resistant bacteria around and in the process kills everyone, I am OK with that. We all die eventually, and if others can die for my happiness, cool! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis ba-dum-*tish*
in the moment when you have practices in farming which require feeding antibiotics constantly to cows, i suggest you change something.
You know how to tell if someone is a vegetarian?
They will tell you.
As a veterinarian this is finality a topic on Slashdot I am qualified to talk about. However, rather than get into the details I am going to punt this one :)
Here is a four-part series on the struggle over the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry, the threat of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and the veterinary profession’s role in safeguarding animal and public health.
http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=18645
Other than the summary - is there any reference that this promotes 'bacteria capable of infecting people who eat meat'? Or does it promote bacteria with resistance to the antibiotics in use that can affect everyone?
The FDA is looking out for the best interests of America's citizens. NOT!
This summary might be the most misleading I've ever seen on slashdot.
For one thing, the FDA has almost no authority in many of their jurisdictions; they can recommend things, but in most cases have no power to change policy or punish reckless companies. This is especially true with meat and produce. Do some googling about dirty slaughterhouses and meat packing plants and you'll find accounts of the FDA actually pleading with meat packers and state health districts to stop distributing meat from plants that had floors, walls, and packing equipment test positive for wide varieties of serious food-borne pathogens. The same goes for packing plants that had open holes in the walls and ceilings, or rodents literally scurrying underfoot on the packing line. The FDA had absolutely no authority to mandate closure of those plants, and still doesn't as far as I know.
They shouldn't have withdrawn their recommendation against antibiotics in feed (saying the right thing is never wrong in science), but that recommendation never affected policy in the first place; it's total bullshit to imply, quite strongly, that the FDA just doesn't care anymore and thinks it's totally fine for meat producers to inspect themselves.
They don't think it's fine; they fucking hate it. At least the scientists do, and the field inspectors do. The FDA does have a lot of senior management who, by many internal accounts, dedicate themselves solely to rubber-stamping industry proposals - and harassing any pissant scientist who objects. If this new policy is half as blase or half as scientifically ignorant as the linked article implies, and indeed came about to dodge a lawsuit, you can bet it came from some ass-covering prick at the top who doesn't represent the viewpoints of even 10% of the FDA staff.
So ultimately, the FDA doesn't have the mandate, the funding, or the legal prerogative to do even one-tenth as much as the scientists and lower-management would like - and which organizations like the NRDC expect them to do. The politically appointed senior management pull bullshit like this, and people like the NRDC and the submitter use corruption at the highest levels to denigrate a lot of dedicated, well-meaning scientists by calling the whole organization a bunch of lazy sociopaths.
If you want safe food and better drug testing then don't piss on the FDA: you should bitch at Congress about the fucking pro-corporate morons they appoint to lead the FDA, and about the shitty laws and budgets that leave the FDA with not even half the money and authority they need to do the job we expect of them.
FDA seeks to invest in foodborne illness prevention, medical product safety and countermeasures $4.3 billion request reflects a 33 percent increase from FY 2010 enacted budget
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is requesting a budget of $4.3 billion to protect and promote the public health as part of the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget — a 33 percent increase over the FDA enacted budget for FY 2010. The FY 2012 request covers the period of Oct. 1, 2011, through Sept. 30, 2012.
“FDA protects and promotes the health of all Americans through every stage of life,” said Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs. “The breadth of this mandate means that FDA responsibilities continue to grow. The new budget contains new resources so that FDA can fulfill its growing responsibilities to the American public.” http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm243354.htm
It is a supreme falsehood that a government's responsibilities and resources must grow. Bureaucracies like the FDA may be immune to democracy, but the politicians who seek to grow them are not.
As I understand it this is how it works, they give cows and pigs antibiotics in low doses so they won't get sick in the crowded feeding yards. There is not a problem with the bacteria in cows and pigs being resistant because properly handling and cooking the meat will kill the bacteria, and sick animals are treated before they are slaughtered. However the antibiotics are still in the cows and pigs and are passed on to the consumer, at those low doses bacteria will not be completely eliminated and can become resistant to them. Once the person is sick they will spread the more resistant bacteria to anyone they come in contact with. So it's not a problem that the vegetarians are immune too, vegetarians can't make the bacteria any stronger, but still can get the illness.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
What idiot thinks that "voluntary self-policing" works in any for-profit business? There are two fundamental problems with that plan: (1) businesses will only "volunteer" to do what benefits them, not the public, and (2) many businesses are surprisingly short-sighted and will only "volunteer" to do things that help their industry or their business in the short-term.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Other than the summary - is there any reference that this promotes 'bacteria capable of infecting people who eat meat'? Or does it promote bacteria with resistance to the antibiotics in use that can affect everyone?
It's the second, of course: meat-eaters aren't a unique class of person vulnerable to completely different pathogenic illnesses than those who don't eat meat.
On the other hand, animals and animal products are an excellent way of acquiring any pathogenic illness that isn't transmitted by sex or air, and they're still the number one source of novel diseases. Anthropologists have pretty well established that major plagues usually jumped directly from animals, often livestock, into humans. They didn't call it swine flu for the nasty imagery.
The powerful connection between animal products in the food supply and infectious disease must be what they're really getting at - and the reason they don't want to risk making animal-borne bacteria any stronger.
On the other hand, public discomfort with antibiotics has, in the last few years, created a market (albeit small) for organic meat. While it isn't available everywhere, many people do have a choice to "opt out" regardless of the FDA's lack of action.
Following your google search, I read the first three articles referencing food-related shutdowns. Every one, even the ones entitled "FDA shuts down" or claiming that the FDA "ordered" someone to stop production, ultimately acknowledged that the company "agreed" to cease production and signed a "consent decree" with the FDA.
So it's still exactly as I read in Fast Food Nation and Michael Pollan books: the FDA finds violations and they have to whine, beg, and invoke publicity campaigns to get dirty producers to shut down or improve conditions. They still can't force anyone to do anything most of the time.
So anyway, thanks for playing, and judging by your second paragraph it's time for your thorazine, so please follow the nice nurse to your bedroom and she'll give you a nice gentle prick in the ass. Right where your opinions and your research come from.
It's not meant to be a point of criticism, but it's not meat that's making so many American's fat -- it's fructose in the diet from table sugar and just as bad high corn fructose syrup. Here's a link to a fascinating video by Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist specializing in childhood obesity, entitled "The Bitter Truth About Sugar" that covers among other topics the biochemical process that connects fructose to creation of fat cells: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. Checkout the history between the size of soda cans/bottles and the correlation to obesity rates in America. If you just want the highlights from the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKEncojQ In my own personal research it's mind blowing the amount of fructose in soda vs. other food products. The amount of sugar in a low sugar whole wheat slice of bread: 1g. The amount of sugar in a 24 oz. Dr. Pepper bottle: 80g! Unholy bat guano! It's a miracle that people's pancreas don't explode from the amount of sugar consumed on a daily basis.
It is a supreme falsehood that a government's responsibilities and resources must grow. Bureaucracies like the FDA may be immune to democracy, but the politicians who seek to grow them are not.
So therefore any and all attempts at increasing government spending represent greedy politicians squeezing more cash out of the populace?
Even the most hardcore libertarians I know believe the government has taxation authority for transportation infrastructure, weights & measures enforcement, and a military - including growing those things when needed. But not you, you saw through even those bullshit arguments! Guess the next time I-90 buckles or a new town with 2 million people thinks that *maybe* it's time they got a freeway we'll have to point out that: "No! Lee Greatrex opened our eyes and we know that government spending shalt never grow!".
Wake up and smell the rotting pig entrails, pal. The FDA has been underfunded and under-mandated since the 70's. If I recall, they don't even get inflation adjustments under some congresses. Increasing their budget by 33% is still not even 1/10th of the budget and none of the authority that epidemiologists, food safety advocates, and drug company whistle-blowers think they need.
It works !! it works SO well that you can understand how well it works from the words from testimony of Alan Greenspan in front of senate inquiry committee regarding wall street :
"I dont understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves"
Read radical news here
I usually like NewYorkCountryLawyer, but I'm going to have to ask him for some proof for the statement "antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance have continued to rise throughout the entire period". I would offer the alternative that antibiotic use peaked, and then declined because overuse led to antibiotic resistance. Currently I believe that livestock antibiotic use is minimal, simply because frequent heavy use doesn't work well. And the livestock antibiotics is only a minor cause for the rise in antibiotic resistance. That resistance, which predates livestock use, is primarily caused by overuse in humans.
You interested? Has your dick became and horny?
Yes!
But not horny for you. Good god, not for you.
Oh great, another propaganda point that somehow supersedes a 3 centuries of research (keeping soldiers alive on the high seas was an intense focus of research with lots of fuckups ... and you know what they already knew 3 centuries ago ? No matter what the fuckup, raw meat can fix it. Cooked/baked meat and fish (raw or cooked) can fix the large majority of fuckups with a few notable exceptions).
People (mostly small children though) die from not eating meat
If you die from too much meat, it'll be at 50 at the earliest.
And yes with a massively varied diet of plants you can avoid the need to eat meat almost completely. Not quite completely, but almost. To the point that your body can survive for maybe 2 decades without meat. This requires constant nutritional supplements (usually made from fish, so there's barely any nutricional supplements that qualify as vegetarian) and medical monitoring. It is a very difficult exercise, that's basically impossible in all but the most developed countries. You can cheat and drink milk and eat eggs, which will help a lot.
Your dietary suggestion of beans + grain is moronic. How about you eat beans and grains exclusively for 4 months, and we bet for 1000 dollars that it won't work. Of course, that's a bad bet, since either you cheat, or you die ... In both cases I doubt I'll see any money. You will after all have died from the most basic of food diseases, scurvy, after 2-3 months. That would be 2-3 weeks at best if you didn't start out living in one of the most developed nations on earth.
In practice 2 weeks will cause enough symptoms to manifest themselves that the pain alone will drive you back to normalcy : after about a week on your proposed diet you will get small wounds which won't heal, usually in places like the corners of the mouth or between the fingers and toes. They won't heal. A little after that they will start to rip open merely because you move your body. A crust will form on them, time and again, but it will be unable to remain attached to your skin. These wounds will slowly grow in size. From that point on you will feel extremely bad and spend upwards of 14 hours in bed each day, you will lose interest in anything and everyting, complaining of a constant headache. And we're not even at ONE month yet. After a month you will lose the ability to breathe normally and have a constant sharp pain in your bones. Keep it up, and a few teeth will fall out, you will constantly have blood in your mouth, the result of large infected areas in your mouth, rendering you unable to eat or drink without extreme discomfort. Likewise, blood will leak from the other small wounds, which at this point won't be all that small anymore. After this, random internal bleeding will start occuring, making you look like a person who's gone 10 rounds against Mike Tyson, unsuccessfully. From this point on, if you're unlucky, it takes a few weeks for you to die. You will die from total loss of internal body cohesion : blood will literally leak everywhere, and at the autopsy if they break your skin without taking the pressure of first, it will gusher out.
Any other dietary suggestions ? Hint : best include the most basic of additives, vitamin C. It would also be great if you actually noticed that plants do not contain all 9 of the essential amino acids, and so you will have to include at least two non-plant lifeforms. And please note that children have 13 essential amino acids, so their dietary requirements (in the sense that they die if they don't get it) are more extensive. There are tons of special cases where additional nutrients are required either because of genetic predisposition or simple external factors ranging from contact with salt water to lack of sunlight.
There is one substance that contains all required nutrients for a human being : meat (raw meat). With fish being a close second (likewise raw), with only a few omissions. Pulverizing the bones and adding them to the meat itself makes both meat and fish much healthier (a feature ironically only part of "low-quality" meats).
Are they absolutely required ? No. But if you don't take them ... you get to puzzle everything together. Miss one piece and you will not like the result at all.
you know if my tax dollars are going to continue to be abused by supporting corporate bitches like the FDA (and others) I'll just have to stop paying taxes.
You first, cretin.
IMO... food has gotten significantly cheaper over the years, and people have been consuming more calories. More calories == more fat == more obesity.
But don't let that stop you from searching for that one evil ingredient that's making everyone fat. Just think, if we stop consuming fructose, we can all chow down on our daily serving of fast food without gaining a pound. McD for everyone!
(Personal example.. so feel free to ignore it entirely)
I consume 6-8 pieces of fruit/day (in my mostly vegetarian diet.. nothing against meat; fruits and veggies just taste better).
23g of sugar in an apple or orange
17g in a banana
15g in a peach
20g in a serving of grapes
That's around 150g of sugar/day (2/3rd of the sugar in fruit is fructose). Or 2x what the average person consumes (according to your video).
I'm 5'9", 165lbs, 14% body fat.
I guess I'll be obese any day now with a diet like that right?
What does this mean for the eventual consumption of Soylent Green?!?!
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Find a local farmer who doesn't use antibiotics - buy from them directly. In addition to my IT job, I have a small farm - we raise 45 - 60 pigs each year on open fields and without antibiotics in the food. We supplement the pigs grain with whey, acorns, and apples - the product we produce is of a much higher quality than is possible to find in a store, and by buying in bulk directly from the farmer I get more for my product and the end customer pays less.
There are good wholesome sustainable locally grown products almost wherever you are - find a small meat locker nearby and ask them or ask people at a local farmers market. If there is no one really close a lot of farms deliver - we sometimes drive up to three hours to deliver a pig (frozen and butchered) to a customer.
didn't mean, "IMO people are eating more". meant, IMO that's the cause. People are definitely eating more than they used to.
NP - we will also continue to self police using human sewage in agriculture as well.
And when the antibiotics from modern science stop working to defeat mutated bacteria the self police (aka plague) will self correct the problem.
No.
The give an extremely small amount of antibiotics. something like 1/100 th of a dose. 90% of which is peed out. This kills bugs in the animals gut. Then the animal absorbs more food.
There is NO TRACE in any meat when processed.
When an animal is sick, it is isolated, given proper doses, and has to be without antibiotics. If memory serves, 3 months isolation.
Isolation may also mean several animals who might be sick.
The dose is far too low to create a 'superbug'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You first - I pooped on your vegetables.
and I get to be sick at the +1 mod to stupid ignorant statements.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ask where the bacteria come from to begin with.
Most people dont know what happens to our waste once we flush the toilet.
Hint - EPA Title 40 Section 503 - Land application of Sewage Sludge.
Hint #2 - if it doesnt say USDA Certified Organic on label, the winning bet is human sewage was part of production cycle.
www.sludgefacts.org
www.sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com
www.deadlydeciet.com
Big problem in PA
Big problem in CA
Big problem in VA
I wholeheartedly agree. My doctor tells me not to smoke, drink, eat too much salt etc etc... If I do all that I can just as well kill myself because life isn't worth living then.
-- Cheers!
No doubt you can get fat eating too much of anything, but the thing about modern Western diets is that they are highly processed. They've added high-fructose corn syrup to everything and taken nearly all the fiber out of our grains.
Eating a banana provides fiber, is more filling, and more nutritious than drinking a bottle of flavored sugar water.
There's obviously bribery going on to interfere with this public health program. Either directly in cash or other things of value, or just the promise of career escalation after leaving the FDA to work for the meat industry and its support services.
If our news media weren't even more corrupt there'd be a news story about the bribery. Reporters have had 35 years to cover it.
--
make install -not war
If you read the links I posted as a reply to myself (CDC)... over the past 30 years, calorie intake has increased by 335 calories/day for women and 168 calories a day for men. That's 2lbs/month.
People are fat because they eat too much. Sorry it's not more complicated than that.
BTW.. my reply was specifically addressing those who say fructose is the sole problem. In the parents second video link, he says fructose is a poison. That's ridiculous.
I won't argue that things w/ fiber are more filling.. since I agree.
Also.. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50/50 fructose and glucose. HCFS is 55% fructose. Not a huge difference.. so it seems unlikely it's causing all the problems people want to attribute to it.
People who worry about antibiotic resistances shouldn't worry just about meat that has this. They need to worry about Triclosan and the family of antibacterials that are used in plastics and handwash formulas as well. There's no shortage of studies out that show using it promotes bacterial resistance to all antibiotics.
If you're that damn paranoid about germs, use 80-100% rubbing alcohol, or a iodine based antiseptic.
Om, nomnomnom...
There's a reason as stated in Lustig's presentation about why eating fruits as a source of sugar is NOT bad -- it's because the fruits don't just contain fructose, they also contain fiber, a substance which among other things inhibits the absorption of fructose through the intestines, unlike the sugar/fructose that's put into candy, salad dressings, junk food in general and soda which have NO FIBER. That's something you would have picked up *HAD YOU WATCHED EITHER VIDEO*. If it makes you feel any better, *I* appreciate you letting me know what kind of diet you are eating and the results you're getting. Based on Lustig's presentation and the South Beach diet I've managed to lose 50lbs. since September 1st just by ditching the junk food + sodas + any foods high in sugars (but with no fiber) or carbs such as potatos (which if you're not familiar are processed into sugars by the human body). I'm going to try switching to a higher fruit diet to see if I can get results similar to yours.
attention mods: MOD PARENT UP
And anyone reading this, also check the youtube video mentioned. It's informative and interesting at the same time. True, it's 1h30 long, but the guy isn't boring.
JigJag
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
I was recently informed that antibiotics are prevalent in the American beef industry solely due to the corn-based diet. Supposedly, cattle have evolved to subsist on a grass diet. Unfortunately, farming grass is nowhere near as efficient as farming corn when it comes to calories per acre. To cut costs, to maximize output, cows are fed a corn-based diet almost exclusively once they're old enough to survive it. But survival isn't quite the right word either, since the corn-based diet causes ulcers to develop in short order. Cattle would die prematurely on a regular basis due to infections directly attributable to this corn-based diet, but thankfully enough we have a slurry of antibiotics we can add to the feed. This makes it possible to sustain these ulcer-riddled cattle until they're ready to market. As so many other dietary quirks unique to the United States, this one too seems to be the result of corn subsidies that have gotten out of hand.
The self policing practice of using human sewage on farm land + the self policing of antiobiotics in farm animals seems like a win/win.
The self policing plage will self correct the ample over supply of humans in no time.
Low level antibiotics used in agriculture, self policing? Check. Heavy metals from sludge used in agriculture, self policing? Check. Human sewage sludge using in agriculture, self policing? Check. Keeping American citizens dumb to what is really going on within the Agriculture industry? Check. Fund biased research to prove Ecoli/MRSA/salmonella outbreaks unlinked to any of the above? Check.
Actually you are bolstering the argument of the GP. The presentation shows how fructose acts like an alcohol in the digestive system, but the negative aspects of that metabolism are ameliorated by the fiber contained in fruits. It's fructose without the fiber that is problematic.
I'm too burned out from the Mad Cow fear mongering to even care anymore.
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
You think you have it bad --- my doctor told me I had to stop posting comments on Slashdot!
That's why I don't eat meat in the US anymore.
In the parents second video link, he says fructose is a poison. That's ridiculous.
I watched the whole video, the 1.5 hour one on the first link, and he goes through how it's treated metabolically by the body, and in particular the liver, and he compares it to alcohol. If what he says is true, he makes a reasonable case. It's not the kind of poison that is going to kill you in one shot, but over time it does have harmful effects and can cause chronic illness.
I wouldn't write this guy off so quickly. In particular, the amount of sugar that's being dumped into our foods has been on a steady climb for decades. The simplest piece of advice he gives is to stop drinking sugared drinks like soda and fruit juices.
thanks... guess i'll have to watch the longer one.
congrats on the weight loss. About 6-7 years ago I cut nearly all of the junk food, lost 45 lbs. It's surprisingly difficult to gain weight without junk. 1 pint of ice cream == 10 apples or 30 tomatoes or 25 cucumbers or 1-1.5 loaves of bread or ~2.5 steaks (8oz).
How to know is somebody is an asshat? They will mock on explicitly marked personal statements, even if on-topic to compensate for something.
There's a good article from Gary Taubes that presents a good summary of the argument, along with some of the uncertainties:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all