Minimize Antibiotics
Editorial

Minimize Antibiotics


By BDN Staff
BDN Staff

Although major food buyers, including national chain restaurants, have stopped buying meat from farms where antibiotics are routinely used or asked such farms to reduce their use, the routine administration of these drugs remains too widespread. Rather than leaving it up to individual companies, Congress should adopt a national policy to limit antibiotic use.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 70 percent of antibiotics used annually on livestock is not for medical treatment. Instead, the drugs are used to promote growth and to combat the effects of cramped, dirty conditions at some farms.

The problem is that such routine use of antibiotics in animals can lead to the natural development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria, which can harm humans and animals.

Last year, a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, also known as flesh-eating bacteria, was discovered in the United States. A University of Iowa researcher studied two large hog farms in that state and found the bacteria in nearly half the pigs and 45 percent of the farmers there. This showed a close link between animal and human health.

Others studies in the U.S. and other countries found MRSA in pork and beef headed for consumers.

Denmark is one of the countries that has banned the use of antibiotics on animals that are not sick. This has reduced antibiotic resistance in pigs and chickens by more than 90 percent, according to a report by the World Health Organization.

This summer, for the first time, the Food and Drug Administration said it would move to ban the use of antibiotics in farm animals.

A way to do this already is before Congress. For years, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act has languished. The bill, co-sponsored by Olympia Snowe in the Senate, would require the FDA to withdraw the approval of nontherapeutic use of seven classes of antibiotics within two years. It would also require the manufacturers of animal drugs and medicated feed to make their records available to the CDC so it will be better able to track use and resistance trends. The bill also authorizes the secretary of agriculture to make payments to defray the costs of farms transitioning away from the medicines with a priority given to small and family farms.

The House, this summer, held a hearing on the bill. The use of antibiotics for “purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health” is not “judicious,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner for food and drugs at the FDA, said in written testimony. “Eliminating these uses will not compromise the safety of food,” he added.

The routine use of antibiotics in livestock is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the animals and the humans who work with and eat them. The practice is slowly being phased out by market demand and government action. Federal legislation would accomplish this even more quickly.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
14 comments on this item

Do what I'm doing; study the math for Islamic and Buddhism and don't eat meat. After eliminating all eggs and meat (except Tuna and Swordfish) since 1988 in my diet, I'm in top physical and mental health. I have absolutely no ancillary poor health effects, no heart/pulmonary problems, perfect blood-pressure, no muscle/skeletal conditions and maintain a diet of vegetables, yogurt and whole grains. At 67 years old, I actually look and feel like I'm only 35-something. Original teeth, light brown/blond hair, muscular.

For scientific reasons, more people are vegetarians. Dr. G S Huntington of Columbia University said in an essay that mankind should be vegetarians. This needs to be studied, as the information is interesting, but important; plus, meat of any kind contains urokinase protien and urea, which is a burden on kidneys of humans. Cancers are abundant. The contents of the fat, create additional burdens on humans and their cardiovascular and heart, as it targets these organs (TOE; Target Organ Effect). Burnt or roasted meat produces Methylcholanthrene, a powerful carcinogen, causing bone cancer, tumors, cancer of the blood cells and stomach, etc. Even the animal feed contains byproducts of animals sent to slaughterhouses; then incorporated into feed for the animals.

Jesus taught; and this is Biblical; "People who have animals' flesh, become their own tombs. The man who kills will be killed. The man who kills living things and eats their meat is eating the meat of the dead." Indian, Hindu, Chinese Zen, Islamic religions all state, "eating flesh of any kind, dead animals, and blood is forbidden. Western religions do not have these precepts embedded in their structure. So many people, and these are SOME of the famous ones we have heard of are vegetarians...Shakyamuni Buddha, Jesus Christ, Princess Diana, Prince Charles, Paul Newman, Einstein, Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, Shakespeare, Ovid, Petrach, Da Vinci, Darwin, Emerson, Zola, Russell, poet Shelly, Tolstoy, Ghandi, Schweitzer and more prescribe to this principal.

With a non-violent death of meat products, delivered by the killing of animals for our food supply, this "bad" karma is thus delivered directly to the consumer of the meat. The article points out additives to the animal when alive to make their meat have better color, texture, and taste. Preservatives are produced from nitrates and are highly toxic. On July 18th 1971 (I still have the report) the New York Times reported, "The great hidden danger to the health of meat-eaters are the invisible pollutants in meat...remnants of pesticides, preservatives, hormones, antibiotics and other chemical additives, injections of vaccines which remain in the flesh of the consumer, which results in deformed fetuses, other birth defects, cancers and participating diseases."

The article above is absolutely spot-on! Thanks BDN staff for printing this one, although I doubt if it will change the eating habits of most people.

Last paragraph from the bottom linea should have said..."With a violent death....". Sorry for error.

Cre8: I do not eat much red meat at all....prefer fish, some turkey....a lot of vegetables and fruits. Other than for religious reasons,etc., what is wrong with eating some eggs? I realize you can get your protein in other foods, and eggs can be a bit high in cholesterol (the yolk part) but other than that, what is wrong with them? Just wondering.....

What it is about Denmark! They were the first country to ban the use of antibiotics on animals that are not sick. They seem like smart people over there. In many studies, Denmark was found to have the highest percentage of contented citizens.......happy with their lives and their country; better health than in the majority of countries,etc. Interesting......and there certainly are countries that have more sunshine during the year, so no correlation there.

Cre8: Tuna and sardines are excellent foods. Swordfish is really good (as far as I am concerned) but not eaten every day of course, as it has high rates of mercury. But really no worry there, as one would have to eat copious amounts of it every week!!

Those preservatives and additives in foods are a not healthy of course. Cre8: One could do a lot worse than to be on that list of people (you listed) who were vegetarians. Wow!

Denmark is the bomb!

Cre8 -- all those "Biblical" references were Old Testament, and I'm not sure they are correct, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt. You are still doing what you say the Bible is against; you are still eating tuna & swordfish. These two types of fish are not exempt from your Bible based diet, so you are still going against Jesus' teachings. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. . .

I've been a fan of the blood type diet which works well for me. I'm a type O and 'need" to eat meat protein. The author even states that he wished everyone could be a vegetarian, but had to admit, that in his studies of diet as it relates to blood type, the type O person does not do well on a vegan diet of plant protein. We are all different. I am a Christian and do not agree w/Cre8's interpretation of food guidelines for our modern world. This was old testament. With the new testament, Jesus released us from those archaic laws.

'Viper13'...and you are correct, but I failed to mention my fish intake of Tuna and Swordfish is taken about once or twice a year...which to me, is an insignificant amount of meat. But, if you remember right...and maybe you thought about this, but really did not mention it in the comment for the saake of argument, is that Jesus ate fish himself, and so did the population surrounding most of the Middle East at the time as their primary source of meat.

I also knew that the "O" blood type is needing the potien and other materials from read meat. With the emphasis nowadays in some quarters on red meat animals being "harvested" in controlled environments, this meat is most likely to be ore in quality-pure than animals raised on ordinary farm environments.

I'm a "B+" type myself. By the way, 'Viper13', I'm not referring at all to "Old Testament" practices. I'm referring to modern-day, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st Century line of thought and practice, brought back not from "Biblical" times, but by means of culture and ancient religions, that are not emphasized or recorded in the bible as we know it, or refer to it today. Jesus never released us to anything; and you may have been alluding to the OT rule of 'cloven hoof' animals and 'shellfish' diets. My comment went higher than that prescription.

Cher, mercury is found in shellfish and other aquatics consumed by humans which come from certain areas in the wold where high mecury contents are found in both salt and clear water. This is why we have to be careful where we know that the fish are caught. Denmark IS a very active country in analysis and technology in medical and other related fields. Their location is prime for both of their resources, land animal consumption and the fish consumption industries.

I mentioned once that my wife and son are Islamic, and never eat meat of any kind; although sometimes, like me, (once or twice a year) we eat a small portion of Tuna or Swordfish. I also, for 'Viper13"'s bnefit, have studied Eastern religions for the past 6 years, an really know what I'm talking about...and I'm not speaking about the Christian bible writs since the church Jesus Christ devised, the Christian Church, we can call it, evolved.

Doesn't matter how often the intake is according to your "belief" about Biblical teachings and meat/fish intake. Bottom line, you're still eating meat. BTW, I only eat organic meat, mostly from Maine farms that is raised humanely and fed organic feed and living a good life. Not hormone laden, caged animals. I feel very good about my meat intake. Also, if you agree that type O needs the animal protein, how would I (being a type O) justify eating meat if it were the only source of protein that sustained my health, if I believed as you do? Also, I am in disagreement about your interpretations of Jesus commandments, life, etc. It matter not to me that you have studied Eastern religons. Those have nothing to do w/the Bible. How do you "know" your comment went higher than that "prescription" ? What are you talking about?

Cre8: I think it is great you have studied Eastern religions! Great to know and study about other people, other cultures, other faiths. Great!

I do eat fish; a lot of protein there and healthier than some other options. Love those vegetables!! (esp the fresh ones during the summertime.)

Yes, yes...'Viper'...yes. Meat is meat, and my body does not have the intake of meat chemicals yours does, now, does it?

Now, to debate with you on your eating Maine-grown "organic" meat, this is fine. Meat is meat, isn't it, 'Viper'? Killing the animals are the same, though, and this is the end result as I'm speaking of. You can suppliment your "Type O" needs in other ways, but I'm not a dietary technician. I will get back to you later and discuss the rest of your comment, and to Cher as well. I have a call waiting and I promise to get back with you in a few hours.

I think it's great that cher thinks you're great!

Yay!

Okay, 'Viper13'...I'm back but have to run in about 15 minutes...

It is not I that agree that type "O" requires certain protiens, I feel personally that supplimental natural foods can also suppliment the intake of this necessary protien; but if it fits your need the way it is, go for it.

Allow me to simply make the same statement as above; whethr or not your meat is farm or quarry-raised, the result is the killing of the animal that brings on bad karma and the violent manner in which the animal dies is passed-on, into the consumer. This is religious thought, and so it is. I just believe that to my mind, for many, many reasons, I will not partake of eating meat. I will not kill or hurt anything in equal or lower life than myself, especially to eat it. Although we kill the plant, the karma is not the same.

Who said I have discord with Jesus' Commandments? It was not Jesus who made the Commandments, 'Viper13'. It was God Himself! The very fact that Eastern and Western religionistic thoughts can actually be compared to each other, 'Viper13'...they actually CAN be compared to each other. You cannot separate them. Mine is not "interpertation" as one would consider "interpertation" of the Bible say, to the Mormon's Doctrine and Covenant's (D&C) Book, equating the Bible. This is something interperted by Joseph Smith in this "Holy Grove", and Angel Gabriel and Saint John came to him and gave him the theories of the Mormon. You cannot care about my studies of religions, but it comes obvious within your statements.

Read my post here, and maybe you can understand what I'm speaking about. And, 'captainandy', I'm glad you are glad that Cher is glad she thinks I'm great. We happen to be cordial friends on this site, and although we share differences of opinions on some subjects, we remain nice, respectful and respectful to each other. I doubt that 'Viper13' comes-off as being rude to me in anyway...he or she just wants clarifications.

Have a great day! (Or great night, in your case).

Cre8: Interesting comments. It is informative to learn about the pros and cons of eating certain foods, for health reasons,etc. I found your post at 10:55 particularly thought provoking. However, I would not be so sure about a poster you allude to there that starts with a "v". Don't fool yourself...could say more, but will not.

There should be better reasons than Biblical for being vegetarian. Cre8 and others, abstaining from eggs deprives you of a perfect food, nearly 100% utilizable with balanced protein. If you don't overdo and don't have a cholesterol problem, you don't have to worry about the cholesterol in eggs. Those who go all the way--vegans--who avoid eggs and dairy don't get vitamin B12. They must use supplements. Bottom line: use wise, well infomred nutrition and realize that what's sauce for the goose is nt necessarily sauce for the gander (that is, all beneficial diets are personal).

Gopher: Good comments. Well, I think I eat a pretty good balanced diet but we can always do better. I love eggs and have read they are considered one of the healthy foods....and more recent studies have found that eggs are not to worry about as they were saying a few yrs ago.

You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.