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 Instead of acting upon the proposal, the FDA has now withdrawn it.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.
Bet you it leads back to Industry.
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.
You know how to tell if someone is a vegetarian?
They will tell you.
Meat gets antibiotics. Vegetables get synthetic fertilizer. No food source can feed the planet without modern agriculture techniques.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde