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 Instead of acting upon the proposal, the FDA has now withdrawn it.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."

Comments

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wow

[fredrated]

I think the problem is that the FDA has lost it's resistance to corporate sponsored corruption.

Re:Wow

[jythie]

The FDA does what congress tells them to do, and getting (re)elected requires massive amounts of capital.

Re:Wow

[ravenshrike]

Also, the phrase "corporate sponsored corruption" has 2 too many words.

Follow the Money

[blackpaw]

Bet you it leads back to Industry.

Re:Follow the Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet you it leads back to Industry.

That or the FDA doesn't have the resources/funds to enforce new legislation.

Re:Follow the Money

[anagama]

The FDA is part of the _executive_ branch, you know, that branch run by a president who talks like a liberal and acts like GWB.

This is an experiment right?

[Deus.1.01]

Trying to dissprove the concept of "tragedy of the commons"?

Greed

[GoooF]

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..

Re:Greed

[xyzzy42]

which is vastly healthier than not eating meat

This is not true. There is nothing inherently superior nutritionally in eating meat. Eating low quality meat scraps, such as hamburger and highly processed meats, is demonstrably worse. Beans are a high quality source of protein, but not complete. However, combined with the protein found in grains, together they provide complete protein. Cultures all around the world have figured out how to get complete protein with available products.

Re:Greed

[geekmux]

Another consequence of that greed : just about every poor person in America gets meat daily, which is vastly healthier than not eating meat . Just look to your southern neighbor, Mexico, where the poor get beans on a tortilla with maybe a piece of chicken leg on sunday. The further south, the worse it gets.

It's painfully obvious as we watch those same poor Americans waddle around that we have absolutely NO right whatsoever to use the words "vastly healthier" when trying to defend anything related to our diet, including meat. Let's also not forget that we're here debating over the fact that meat isn't really meat anymore, and the artificial influences inflicted upon it really tend to question the overall benefit. This ain't your Grandpas chicken anymore.

And "vastly healthier" could be scientifically argued and proven wrong within the vegetarian community...not that you really need to when a simple visual comparison between the two groups is obvious enough.

Re:Greed

[crmarvin42]

You are only slightly wrong and this is why:

Animals (including humans) have a requirement for amino acids, and for simplicity/convenience this is usually described as a need for protein (a product consisting almost entirely of amino acids). The relative ratio of the nutritionaly essential amino acids is important, becuase if one (or more than one) amino acid is deficient in the overall diet then the utilization of the other amino acids will be necessarily limited. This scenario usually leads to increased conversion of the amino acids that cannot be utilized for protein synthesis into lipid for storage, making the animal fatter. This fattening effect also can happen when all amino acids are present in the correct ratios, but there is too much protein consumed relative to requirement.

The key point that makes your statement wrong is that the relative ratios of amino acids in animal derived protein (including hamburger and "Meat scraps") is far closer to ideal than that in grains, including beans. Plants, including beans such as soy or lentils, are notoriously low in Lysine relative to the other amino acids. As an animal nutritionist I almost never formulate a livestock ration for a growing animal that is devoid of a concentrated Lysine supplement (usually Lysine Hydrochloride). That's not to say that you cannot satisfy a persons nutritional requirement for all essential amino acids without using meat, you most definitely can. However, it is more difficult and more expensive because you need to procure a wider variety of foods. There is also the issue of availability of nutrients, with meat derived protein being almost completely available for absorption and plant derived protein being less digestible. But of course cooking and other processing can make plant derived protein much more available.

While one source is not categorically "Better" than the other, meat is a more EFFICIENT source of amino acids. The ratios are closer to ideal, they are more available for absorption, and require less dietary variety. These qualities are not as important for most people in western society because we spend a small fraction of our total income on procuring food, and so the vegetarian/vegan diet becomes more practical as your economic status increases. In parts of the world where economics/climate/culture/etc. FORCE a primarily vegetarian diet on people, they are usually much shorter than westerners of similar ethnic background because of their poorer/less consistent access to all of the essential amino acids required for meeting their potential for maximum growth during adolescence.

You know how to tell if someone is a vegetarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how to tell if someone is a vegetarian?

They will tell you.

Re:As a vegtarian:

[Hatta]

Meat gets antibiotics. Vegetables get synthetic fertilizer. No food source can feed the planet without modern agriculture techniques.

4 part series on antibiotics in livestock

[wesborgmandvm]

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

Blatant trolling

[RobinEggs]

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.

Re:good

[jimbolauski]

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.

Nice Try

[RobinEggs]

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.

Re:American obesity

[Johnny Loves Linux]

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.

Meat "not required"

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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.

Re:Meat "not required"

[Vegan Cyclist]

How did this trash get modded up? There are cultures that have existed for millennium without eating meat: take a look at India. I guess my card must be up, as i've been vegan since 1990.

The position of the ADA (and Canadian mirror agency) state: vegan diets are appropriate for people at all stages of the life cycle -- even people at crucial stages, such as growing children, pregnant or lactating women, and highly active athletes.

I know of third generation vegans (their grandparents became vegan, had children who remained vegan, and their children in turn are vegan.)

What nonsense.. 20 years...?? And of all thing: scurvy on a vegan diet? You understand Vitamin C comes from plants, and is not found in any animal products? Most meat-eaters are found to be LOW on the intake of Vitamin C, and thus at more risk of scurvy than most vegans.

I don't mind if people have legitimate issues against veganism, but this is ridiculous and patently ignorant.

Re:Meat "not required"

[osvenskan]

There is so much in your post that's incorrect that it's hard to know where to start making corrections. I'll just choose a few items.

As to the idea that a vegan eschewing supplements would "[die] from the most basic of food diseases, scurvy, after 2-3 months" -- scurvy a deficiency of vitamin C which is abundant in certain fruits and vegetables. Someone eating a plant-based diet would be pretty much the last person to get scurvy.

...plants do not contain all 9 of the essential amino acids

That's false. Quoth Wikipedia, "Nearly all foods contain all twenty amino acids in some quantity." Plant foods often don't supply a lot of the essential amino acids (esp. lysine) but they provide some. Citing Wikipedia again, "...amaranth,...buckwheat, hempseed, meat, poultry, Salvia hispanica, soybeans, quinoa, seafood, and spirulina also are complete protein foods".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein

In fact, tempeh (soybeans + mushroom) does pretty well at supplying essential amino acids.

There is one substance that contains all required nutrients for a human being : meat (raw meat).

This dramatically oversimplifies human nutritional requirements. You get to work on that 100% raw meat diet and let us know how that works for you.

Please get actual facts.

[geekoid]

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'.

Re:good

[Mathinker]

You think you have it bad --- my doctor told me I had to stop posting comments on Slashdot!