Anti-Antibiotic Action
Posted by Erin Rosas on Growers and Grocers
It began innocently enough. In 1953, just 10 years after penicillin became widely available, Lain Macleod, the then minister of Health, told the House of Commons in England that feeding antibiotics to farm animals to make them grow faster would have “no adverse effect whatever on human beings.” Government research had, in fact, only looked at the economic and practical aspects of using antibiotics in this way.
Questions posed on possible resistance and long-term consequences for animal and human health remained unanswered. Ten years later, the revelation that antibiotic resistance could be passed on from one bacterial species to another should have caused Parliament to repeal the legislation. It did not. In the United States, similar actions were taking place. Where are we today? This is just out: ScienceDaily (Feb. 22, 2008) — “It’s bad enough when pathogenic bacteria work their way into the animal food supply. Here’s a related problem that has recently attracted scientists’ attention: some of the pathogens may become resistant to the antimicrobials that are used to fight animal disease, and that might lead to more human resistance to the benefits of antibiotics.”
So the sign above is really an oxymoron. We’re getting all the free antibiotics we can handle. We don’t need, nor can our planet take, ANY MORE! We’ve eaten our way down a path of antibiotic resistance by allowing agriculture to pump us full of antibiotics in every conventional burger we eat, not to mention chicken and fish, yes, fish. Farm raised fish. Healthy right?
Here’s the fact. Farm raised means that the fish don’t get lots of swimming room, are prone to disease (and therefore fed antibiotics) and what’s worse is that we’re led to believe that a happy little fish farm somewhere is raising us healthy clean food. Hog Wash. Did someone say Hog? Oh yeah, I did. Here’s why. Since the early 1950s, antibiotics have been used at subtherapeutic1 levels to promote the growth and overall health of livestock (Zimmerman). There has been concern for many years, and there is now a growing concern among health officials, physicians, veterinarians, and the public at large, regarding the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine (Levy; Mazel and Davies; McEwen and Fedorka-Cray; World Health Organization Director-General). Many fear that the practice of administering antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels over the course of an animal’s production cycle contributes to the accelerated development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria (Levy; Teuber).
Resistant bacteria can cause an antibiotic-resistant disease directly or they can pass the genetic material associated with resistance to other bacteria (Mazel and Davies), thus increasing the problems in disease treatment for both humans and animals. Resistant Salmonella that could cause food-associated illness in people have been documented in pork (Farrington et al.), and salmonellosis is a costly condition in humans (Buzby et al.). Growth-promoting antibiotics are widely used in U.S. pork production. A 1995 survey conducted by the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) determined that over 91% of the operations surveyed reported using antibiotics as a disease preventive or growth promotant in feed (USDA/APHIS 1995). The extensive use of growth-promoting antibiotics by U.S. pork producers is summarized in Dewey et al. Using the NAHMS 1990 survey results, they described the use of in-feed antimicrobials across different stages of production. Of the 712 producers surveyed, 88% reported using antimicrobials in feeds. So, no problem. We just buy the food at the supermarket that says it doesn’t have added hormones and antibiotics. This isn’t just hog wash in some cases, its GREEN WASH.
Know your farmer, know your food. That’s your safest bet in this climate. With organic “vertically integrated” companies cannonballing into organics, we see information like this: Tyson initiated a $70 million campaign to promote their no antibiotic no added hormone and insists the ionophores they used in chicken production are not antibiotics: “[they] are not used in human medicine and do not contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance to important human drugs. They remain in the intestinal tract of the animal and do not carry over into the meat consumed by humans.” And they claim they are not considered antibiotics by the FDA. Yet the USDA does.
Wikipedia says this: Ionophores disrupt transmembrane ion concentration gradients, required for the proper functioning and survival of microorganisms, and thus have antibiotic properties. They are produced naturally by certain microbes and act as a defense against competing microbes. In laboratory research, ionophores are used to increase the permeability of biological membranes to certain ions. Additionally, some ionophores are used as antibiotics. For more shocking news, go to Who Owns Organic and see where your organic food is really coming from. Organics are a matter of trust. Always have been, always will be.
I know my farmer, I’m married to mine. Please get to know yours before you buy your food.
