Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
FDA Draws Criticism After U-Turn on Antibiotics in Animal Feed
Environmental groups dismayed after agency drops long-held plan to regulate use of human antibiotics fed to healthy animals
Environmental and consumer groups have condemned the US Food and Drug Administration's move to renege on its long-held policy to regulate the use of human antibiotics in animal feed.
A pig farm in northern Missouri. Critics say the reversal is at odds with its obligations to protect public health. (Photograph: Daniel Pepper/Getty Images) Last week, the agency quietly announced it was withdrawing its plan to limit the use of antibiotics fed to healthy livestock intended for human consumption.
Critics say the U-turn, which comes amid the FDA's own stated concerns over food safety, is at odds with its obligations to protect the public.
The groups also criticized the timing of the announcement, which was made during the holiday season and disclosed only in the federal register.
The use of low doses of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed contributes to drug-resistant superbugs, according to food and health experts.
One leading food policy writer described the policy reversal as "pathetic" and "dismaying."
"It's dismaying, and obviously something they felt sheepish about, otherwise it wouldn't have been released this week," Michael Pollan, author of the Onmivore's Dilemma and Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, told the Guardian.
"When Margaret Hamburg became the head of the FDA, she indicated this was a high priority for them and that she realized how much of a problem the profligate use of antibiotics was. She said she was going to treat this issue as if her hair was on fire. This isn't the way someone acts when their hair is on fire."
Pollan said there was "no question" that meat could be produced without human antibiotics, as the EU has already banned them.
The FDA first acknowledged in 1977 that the overuse of antibiotics in healthy livestock for growth promotion and disease prevention was unsafe and could promote antibiotic resistant bacteria that could infect people. An advisory committee at the time recommended that the FDA immediately withdraw approval for two drugs, penicillin and tetracycline, for subtherapeutic uses of the drugs in livestock.
Last week, in a statement in the Federal Register, the FDA says it plans instead to allow the industry to self-regulate and "focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health".
The problem, said Pollan, boils down to a lack of political will in the face of powerful industry interests. "There's a lot of corporate money in politics these days," he said. "Here you're going up against not just one powerful industry, but two. This administration has had enough trouble going after individual powerful industries. That they would prevail against two of them joined together was too much to hope for."
Livestock consume about 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US.
The FDA's decision comes after a number of high profile meat recalls. In August, 36m lbs of turkey meat were found to have been contaminated with drug-resistant salmonella that caused one death and 76 people to become ill.
When approached by the Guardian, a spokesman for the FDA could not provide anyone for comment.
A statement, taken from the Federal Register, said: "FDA continues to view antimicrobial resistance as a significant public health issue. Today's action should not be interpreted as a sign that FDA no longer has safety concerns about the use of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals, or that FDA will not consider re-proposing withdrawal proceedings in the future if necessary."
But Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), described the move as a "step backwards" for the FDA.
Kar believes the move is an attempt to get around a lawsuit filed by the NRDC to force the FDA to withdraw approval for the practice of mixing human antibiotics into animal feed. The lawsuit, filed in May, asked the court to declare that the FDA had violated federal law by failing to withdraw approval of using penicillin and tetracycline in animal feed when animal health is not at stake.
"This action by the FDA is a response to our lawsuit" said Kar. "The findings in 1977 were included in the notice for opportunity for a hearing, and they think they can get around the lawsuit by withdrawing the notices for opportunities for a hearing. But we will not allow the FDA to ignore public health."
In response to the FDA's reliance on voluntary regulations, Kar said: "We don't believe that the industry will voluntarily regulate itself, because for the last 33 years the approach has been voluntary and the use of antibiotics in livestock has not gone down but – based on estimates – has gone up."
"The science has only gotten stronger."
Stephen Roach, of the Food Animals Concern Trust, a group also involved in the lawsuit against the FDA, said he believed the FDA was putting public health at risk.
"It is totally at odds with their mission to protect the public. This month we had a salmonella outbreak in the north-east that was resistant to penicillin and the drug that replaced penicillin, cephalosporin. We are going to continue to have multi-drug resistant salmonella outbreaks and E.coli drug-resistant outbreaks."
Roach said the use of low doses of antibiotics in animals over a long period of time created the ideal conditions for bacteria to develop drug resistance.
A growing number of scientific and medical institutions have urged action on antibiotic resistance. The World Health Organization devoted a WHO day to microbial resistance.
In September, several institutions, including the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, wrote a letter to Congress, calling for them to to reiterate the link between antibiotic resistance and the overuse of antibiotics in food animals. Some of the same health groups took ads out in Politico and The Hill.
"Hundreds of scientific studies conducted over four decades have shown that feeding low doses of antibiotics to healthy food animals leads to drug-resistant infections in people," they wrote in the ad. "In fact, America's leading medical, scientific and public health organizations have been warning of the danger for years."
Politicians also expressed dismay at the FDA's move.
In a statement on her website, Democratic congresswoman Louise Slaughter, the author of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), a legislative framework aimed at tackling antibiotic resistance, said: "Every year, 100,000 Americans die from bacterial infections acquired in the hospital and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Seventy percent of these infections are resistant to drugs commonly used to treat them. I wonder how many lives could have been saved if these proposals were adopted in 1977 as they should have been.
"We need to get our head out of the sand and start taking public health advice from scientists rather than industry lobbyists."
57 Comments so far
Show AllMoney talks, the 99% can walk. Profits over health, profits over everything. Profits uber alles!
And only a newspaper in a city across an ocean, 3500 miles from where I live, provides me with this information.
Yes, indeed. It is surprising how much you can learn about what is taking place in our country by reading the U.K. Guardian -- news our corporate media does not want us to know about.
It isn't surprising. The US has ~300 million English readers, compared to ~60 million in the UK. The Guardian is deliberately positioning itself to attract American readers.
Well, they mustn't be doing a very good job.
I brought this article up amongst a number of my co-workers (professional engineers) and not one had ever heard of the Guardian.
About as many USAns have head of the Guardian as have heard of "Democracy Now".
Yeah they aren't, but they are clearly trying, for example they have started covering (poorly, I must say) US sports like, MLB, NFL, NBA. They have several reporters covering / writing on America, they have a Comments is Free (their online discussion section) section specifically for America.
If you hang out on the Guardian's website, you will notice some (UK) posters complaining pretty regularly about the "obsession" that the Guardian has with the US, and why the Guardian pays so much attention to the US, instead of say, China, or Germany.
Corporate Socialism = Fascism
Wrong.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." ...
Benito Mussolini.
Fascism is state directed CAPITALISM
What corporate socialism? The FDA is deciding to promote "free markets" by not regulating them.
I thought that corporate "socialism" was all about "socialism" for the corporations and disaster "capitalism" against small businesses. The FDA has a double standard on regulation. They gag and choke small farmers and natural medicine with over-regulation while exempting Big Pharma/Agri from most of those same "regulations". calling that "free".
Natural medicine, is in truth, barely / hardly regulated.
Except for pot. But that will change as soon as Wall Street figures out a way to profit more from selling it than from prohibiting.
Well, then explain this.
FBI, FDA, and the IRS Raid Natural Medicine Cabinet
http://www.naturalfoodlist.com/5854/fbi-fda-and-the-irs-raid-natural-medicine-cabinet/
And there are plenty more "unexpected" raids just like them. In fact, unlike most nations in Europe that ban dangerous Big Pharma chemicals, the FDA takes until eternity to even consider any action against them. And if not the FDA, the DEA is there to enforce all the gags against as many natural medicine products as possible.
Explain what? That the fda raided a supplement manufacturer does not disprove my assertion that the natural medicine industry is barely regulated. If the sec raids a stock broker, it does not disprove the claim that wall street is minimally regulated. The reality is that the natural food and natural medicine industry can and does make a lot of claims about the efficacy of natural foods and medicines, claims that are often not substantiated by any kind of evidence.
another issue is that natural / herbal companies can claim that their products contain a substance, without any evidence that the product actually does contain that substance. There is minimal regulation of this.
the natural / herbal medicine industry is also capitalist, people involved in the industry are also in it for profit. In some cases big pharma actually owns some natural / hdrbal medicine companies.
as for Europe, in some western eu countries, supplements, herbal or not, are regulated far far more tightly than they are in the us. Supplement that can be easily bought at a health food store or just at a supermarket, in the us, cannot be bought so easily in some western eu countries. America actually adopts a pretty laissez faire approach to the regulation of supplements.
don't get me wrong, i don't like the fda, in my opinion the fda is hugely problematic and flawed, but for the most part the natural /herbal medicine industry is barely regulated.
You're
Good response. I always thought that there were laws against fraud - yet we have these herbalist quacks and homeopathy charlatans, quack-ro-practers and quack-u-puncturists who freely sell expensive crap and treatments with claims of cures for which there is ZERO evidence of efficacy, and some may even be harmful. Yes, the FDA should clamp down on them.
My wife is an addict to this quackery and it is consuming all our income and driving us to the poorhouse! I try to tell her it is nonsense, but all that results is a violent argument. My $70,000 a year income is going down the drain feeding it.
However, Jennifer does have a point. In the US, government regulatory compliance does fall unfairly hard on small businesses compared to large corporations who can afford the consultants and lawyers needed to get the permits. Thus regulation ends up having the effect of increasing the already considerable advantage that big businesses have over small ones. This is not be an argument against regulation, just that enforcement need to be done in fairer way. Europe seems to have a healthier small business environment, yet tougher regulations. How are they doing things differently than the US?
Honest response pjd412 !!
My compliments - luck to all of us.
Mike
====
First, as to the article, this comes as no surprise as politics is merely an arm of the corporate state. It has been so practically from the inception of this nation. Done and done.
Secondly, as to the supplement industry - we have to be careful about the double-edge of regulation. While there is a good amount of puffery and snake-oil-sales, quite a bit of it is perfectly valid and useful. Humans (as well as other animals) have used herbs and other treatments for millennia and there is a useful application for them still. When we invite the government into our medicine cabinets and kitchens (along with the pharma industry) we are giving over control over what we consume. Not good! That's like having the USDA poke its nose into the organics industry. While regulation is necessary, the government/industry typically want more. They want control. A very slippery slope and we have to be vigilant.
pjd412, I feel for you. While I do take supplements, I know that a lot of money is mis-spent on them. But then, a lot of money is mis-spent on needless pharmaceuticals and other medical interventions. If all of this were being done purely on the basis of good health, there would be much less quackery. Unfortunately, money trumps most things and it matters little whether those making the big bucks are wearing vitamin logos or white lab coats. As always, caveat emptor...and let the people decide.
Ted and pjd, somewhere I think that there is a connection between Big Pharma and the fake "naturals" as I believe that Big Pharma wants to discredit natural medicine to keep their profits "safe" at all costs.
I am well aware of the negatives of regulation.
Despite my response to Jennifer, I actually generally favour the laissez faire attitude to how supplements are regulated, not because I am against regulation in principle, but because I have absolutely no confidence that the FDA will not make things even worse. The FDA is pretty much irredeemably corrupt.
I take supplements too, and have been following the supplement industry closely for a number of years. It is why I do not have an idealistic romaticised view of it. As you say, it is about money. People involved in alternative medicine are not saints.
"People involved in alternative medicine are not saints."
Agreed. Who is?
I agree with you and Jennifer about how regulation is often structured to crush small businesess, with very high costs for complying with that regulation. I made a similar point about a week ago, in an argument in the thread about the farmer who was in trouble for selling surplus milk from his one cow. I was arguing that applying the same regulation to him as that applied on some industrialised dairy farm with thousands of cows kept in dirty cramped conditions, pumped full of antibiotics and hormones, is ridiculous.
As to the quackery, it is somewhat complicated. Some of the stuff is clearly quackery. Chiro is pretty much quackery. OTOH, people turn to chiro because most (conventional) doctors are completely, utterly useless at treating (low) back pain. The default is some pain killing medication + bed rest. For an acute, one time minor back injury, that will work, the body heals itself. But, for a chronic back problem that does not work. And then what happens is that the doctor doubts the patient, if a basic MRI / x ray does not immediately reveal a problem: the doctor stars assuming that the patient is malingering (ie faking the pain to get off work) or that the pain is psychosomatic (ie, it is all in your mind). There are doctors who are capable of treating back injuries, typically those with sports medicine backgrounds, or some kind of athletic background of their own, but there aren't many of such doctors. So, unsurprisingly, people who are in unpleasant pain, turn to whatever alternative that they can find
Most chiros are definitely lying quacks, but there are a few that will admit the flaws and weaknesses of chiro, and try to look at the back problem systematically, and not immediately fall into the default position of trying to "adjust" the sufferer's spine. But, generally chiros are quacks.
But. That doesn't necessarily mean that all / most "alternative" "medicine" is necessarily quackery. Take massage. Popular and much used worldwide, throughout most of human history, used in many cultures. The scientific evidence, ie scientific studies, on massage, whether for pain reduction, relaxation, promotion of physical recovery (after sports / athletic activity) is divided. There are some studies that show benefits (ie, the benefit of massage intervention compared to no treatment is statistically significant), there are some studies that show no benefits (ie, no benefit at all, or whatever benefit is not statistically significant). Yet, people all over the world use it. More, athletes, high level athletes, WR holders, and their coaches, use massage. So is it quackery? The science evidence from scientific studies is unsure, whereas many people swear by it. Why? It could possibly that whether a massage intervention works depends on the skill of the practitioner, and also the receptivity of the patient. For example, I personally am (very) sensitive to touch, especially on some parts of my body. A level of pressure that is comfortable, even relaxing, on massage, for most people, causes me pain, or at the least discomfort, makes me grit my teeth, grab the massage bed, and struggle not to jump off the bed in pain. A skilled / experienced practitioner will notice this immediately, a less skilled /experience one, won't, especially since a less skilled one will assume that someone lean / muscular like me will be "tough" and be able to handle a high level of pressure on massage. Stuff like this is difficult to control for in a clinical trial. There are also a whole bunch of other complications that are difficult to test in a standard clinical trial. There is some Russian research that show WHEN the massage was conducted, affects its efficacy, ie immediately after athletic activity, 3 hours after, 6 hours after, etc.
As for acupuncture, the general consensus seems to be that while the (traditional) explanation of how it works is, basically wrong, it might, might have effects for other reasons. There was a recent study that showed that it lowers a stress protein, in, note RATS, not humans:
Acupuncture at ST36 prevents chronic stress-induced increases in neuropeptide Y in rat
http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/early/2011/12/06/ebm.2011.011224.abstract
http://www.georgetown.edu/news/acupuncture-stress-reduction-study.html
http://nhs.georgetown.edu/259986.html
As for quackery in general, personally, I favour the more laissez faire attitude used. As long as the quackery isn't causing active harm, for example, by promising the ability to cure cancer / aids, or by promising immunity aids, I personally don't agree with banning. If the patient gets satisfaction, even if only via the placebo effect, then so be it. Some people like me spend money on music and books. Some people spend it on quackery..
Regarding fraud, yes, there are laws obviously, but it isn't easy for your average person to prove so. Let's say you buy a supplement, a powder or a pill, that CLAIMS to have herb A, extract B, and ingredient C; but in truth, it is only is made of maltodextrin, or sugar, or some similar filler. Would you have the capability of taking the supplement to a lab to get it tested? How many people have such a capability? So, the result is asshole fly by night companies lying, not just about what their supplements can do, but what they actually contain.
The situation with some EU countries vis supplements isn't necessarily better. In some cases, they are too tightly regulated, even things like vitamins are regulated. That is overkill, that is way to far in the other direction.
I suggestion is that you don't argue with your wife, but get her to read up / look up the scientific evidence.
When business uses the word "free", they mean free from constraints ie: regulation, unions, anything that deminishes monetary profit.
"The use of low doses of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed contributes to drug-resistant superbugs, according to food and health experts."
Finally, someone is talking about this, and trying to do something about this. The rise of superbugs isn't so much due to the much blamed (wrongly) overprescription of antibiotics to human patients. Compared to the use of antibiotics in industralised farming, that is a minor problem. But, too many people, including doctors and scientists, don't have the courage to talk about the issue publicly, to address the problems of industrialised farming of animals.
U-Turn ??? Oh please ! The FDA has always sided with Big Agri and has a history of turning a blind eye while Big Agri rapes Mother Earth day and night.. Just look close at how the FDA goes after small farmers while turning a blind eye to Monsanto.
Jennifer,
I don't think that the FDA is deliberately and maliciously going after small farmers, it is just the burden of regulatory compliance fall more heavily on small business and farmers because it imposes a constant cost that is small for a big firm but big for a small firm. This one of those "all too convenient" problems that never get resolved because of corporate influence.
But then again, I do have first hand experience of how one particular person at
There was a local organic sprout producer near where i lived - "Mung Dynasty" who grew sprouts for local small grocers and retails sale from an operation in a part of the old Duquesne Brewery. But then there was that 2006 e-coli outbreak in spinach, and the FDA imposed new, needed regulations. (This is a serious ongoing issue. Earlier this year, 50 Germans died eating e-coli tainted sprouts.) Shortly after, Mung Dynasty closed up shop. The shop owner claimed that he would have had to have had to hire a full-time microbiologist to comply with the new regulations. Whether this is hyperbole or not I don't know.
But, having written the above, as someone who works in government regulation, I do often find that small business people can be hard-headed about learning what is actually required to meet regulations by actually reading the regulations, and often greatly inflate the paperwork burden in their heads. Contrary to what people think, (with the exception of the IRS), the language in the code of Federal Regulations is usually in pretty plain language - and the internet allows one to look up a regulation in minutes.
Speaking of e-coli, when corporate farms are caught with their products containing e-coli, the FDA never goes hard on them. Tysons, for example, can pretend that it was an "accident" and the FDA would go "easy" on them. In sharp contrast, I have read cases and even witness cases not too far from where I live where the FDA would torture small farmers similar to how GITMO detainees were tortured.
Replying to what you said about small business owners, yes I have seen some who are rude to those of us trying to help them kindly. I would never know what their deal was until I would see some paper work or stumble across a meeting between them and their corporate partners. Despite their hostility, I still believe that they are frustrated like the rest of us that good people get punished while bad people get away so they fall for caving in to "too big to fail" in hopes of getting even.
Most federal regulations might not be complicated in language and I trust that you know them better. However, I have seen cases of small business owners getting pushed into litigation hell even to the point of bankruptcy despite abiding by the regulations.
"Livestock consume about 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US." , first that seems quite substantial usage of antibiotic for Livestock, if true.
Also, other big red flag is that 80% of antibiotic is being consumed ultimately by population, those eating meat. These antibiotic is being consumed by those eating meat without even being prescribed to them !!
McVeigh sez: "Critics say the U-turn ... is at odds with (FDA's) obligations to protect the public.
***
The FDA has not been "obligated" to protect the public for years now. Any more than POTUS and other federal elected officials are obligated to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
I was reading about the Roman empire recently and found a really interesting bit. Towards the end, things were so bad, inflation, unemployment, prices and taxes were so high that the population of Rome at large took to bartering and the Empire was no longer paid taxes something which is estimated to have contributed greatly to their fall. I see the same thing happening in the USA. The greed of the corporations imposed on the masses thru the long arm of their government will leave the population no choice but to turn to bartering when there is no longer any work or money left, in fact I do this myself already as often as I can. It's a great way of getting what you need while providing others with what they need and you have. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
In reading some of these interesting posts I noticed that perhaps some had failed to notice that Mr. Obama is running for re-election? An expensive business that requires the "re-thinking" of some of your decisions.
"This isn't the way someone acts when their hair is on fire."
...........Threatened, bought out or what? With the name Hamburg, you would think food safety would be Margaret's first priority.
...........Your panties are burning, Margaret!
It is easy to find animal items from animals that were never given any antibiotics. There are thousands of micro farms in this country producing great food. Where you put your food dollars has the most effect.
Big ag needs antibiotics to minimize labor, space, and use cheaper food (yeah, the cow you're eating has eaten sawdust and sewer sludge).
Agree 100%. I would never buy meat or poultry from a "regular supermarket" because I do not want to eat products with antibotics or what ever else they feed animals these days. Here in Santa Fe there are very good options for natural and organic meat and poultry; yes, it is more expensive but how much does your health and well-being mean to you ? Because of the higher prices for superior products we just eat less which is something we need to do anyway as we get older. I do not trust the FDA or any government agency in the US - why would I ?
Corporations Rule! Government will force compliance on the masses. Obey!
Read as 'citizens united', which by any other name is still influence peddling which is a crime. The ring wraiths ride in black.
speaking about regulation:
http://fairewinds.com/content/tepco-believes-mission-accomplished-regulators-allow-radioactive-dumping-tokyo-bay
From the article: "When approached by the Guardian, a spokesman for the FDA could not provide anyone for comment."
...... This is a complicated business. One person who has covered it is Laurie Garrett, in her seminal book, "The Coming Plague, ..."
...... Antibiotics are substituted in animal feed for actual NUTRITION. Trace elements are lacking. It is NOT (as an earlier post suggested) that we are eating the antibiotics fed to the animals, as they are metabolized. It IS that the total nutritional value of edible animal protein has been decreasing due to market forces. And overpopulation.
...... The use of antibiotics in animal "husbandry" is a Double Whammy. It substitutes for Nutrition of the animal while also building resistance to antibiotics on the part of potentially lethal micro-organisms, which tend to "evolve" far more rapidly than do our immune systems.
...... One reason that the FDA does not "regulate" the Supplements Business is that the so-called "science" here is an absolute nightmare. E.G., some claims are based on fact, but no "authority" exists; other claims are marketing scams, but no authority exists. Meanwhile, the FDA has been rendered political and no longer scientifically reliable.
...... The result: You're On Yore Own (YOYO). One small example: soy is good for you, but it also tends to feminize males and may interfere with reproduction. But is this effect intrinsic to soybeans, or to how they are raised?
...... But, but, but! Too many competing liars. Each posing on a small portion of truth.
...... "First, Cause No Harm."
...... -30-
I became a vegetarian in 1999...for primarily ethical reasons. The extreme use of antibiotics and growth hormones in factory-farmed animals was heartily going on before then, with few regulations and no public conversation to speak of. But, the info was readily available...to anyone who really dug for it or, like me, was reading everything I could find on factory farming (with its nearly absent ethics or morality), vegetarianism, and all the health issues amongst meat eaters...and the lack of them in vegetarians.
Other than a few ailments (and a couple of chronic life-long ones that may actually be contributed to by still consuming wheat and gluten) I have been healthier and freer of 'bugs', 'viruses', and the dreaded 'flu' (if you don't count the two adverse reactions to the only two flu shots I've ever gotten) the entire time I have been meat free.
I don't have the facts and figures right in front of me, but my past research indicated that a sizable percentage of ALL stomach flues, the classic 12 to 24 hour bugs that almost everyone gets, and several other intestinal ailments are directly caused by some degree of food poisoning...usually from meat. Although, very poor food handling practices seem to be giving us an inordinate number of food poisoning outbreaks from vegetables now, as well...but that is another whole issue.
I'm no longer on my "everyone with any sense would be a vegetarian" soapbox, but I do still like to point out that if one consumes ANY factory farmed meats, poultry or vegetables they are surely running a considerably higher risk of contracting food-born illnesses than those who eat a plant-based diet...all organic if possible. Otherwise all advantages will likely be nullified by the chemicals, pesticides and herbicides used or built into the seeds to produce the picture-perfect, unblemished, nutrient deficient GMO vegetables produced by farmers owned or controlled by Monsanto and friends.
If you just have to eat meat, do your very best to get it from local organic farmers...same as produce. I don't know about other areas, but where I live there are quite a few organic farms and coops that make getting fresh organic produce and meat very easy...at typically higher cost, though much bartering goes on. And consume your meat in moderation, as a side-dish. To do otherwise IS pretty much guaranteed to adversely effect your health and well-being...not to mention the torture Mother earth is subjected to...the depletion of water, clear-cutting of forests and resulting loss or displacement of all creatures inhabiting them, along with the decimation of fertile soil by factory-farming methods.
Two of the very worst Industrial Age creations we are plagued with is the modern factory farm....and packaged processed pretend food. That so many foods consumed in the US are nothing more than spiced and seasoned lab concoctions should be something everyone would actively work to change or at least bring to the level of nationwide public debate.
However, based upon what I have seen of the eating public during my years as a vegetarian, I don't hold out much hope that enough people will give up their burgers, steaks or fast food to send the kind of message to our so called food producers that will alter the way so many of them are doing business.
On another note, if anyone with knowledge or information would like to engage in a side discussion about the fact that soy lecithin is added to almost everything (I noticed just this morning that it is in most all of the varieties of tea that are in my cabinet...why oh why????), I would be most interested.
Thanks, bon appetit!
My guess is that some project in the "food design" business has determined that people like the texture or flavor provided by lecithin. Good post fedup2, by the way.
And I suspect soy lecithin has addictive properties similar to those found in MSG. What, if anything, did we add in the past to improve consistency or flavor? And why is 'flavor enhancement' or 'conditioning' needed if the food is already flavorful and nutritious? Is it only about appearances...making the food look better than it really is?
I have believed for a long time that the presence of unpronounceable, seemingly unnecessary 'additives' in packaged and processed food has a much more sinister explanation than the industries who foist them on us will ever willingly admit to.
Sugar in all its various forms is also added in large quantities to most processed foods, including even salt sometimes. I believe in this case, it is addictive (empty calories that leave the body feeling deprived) and meant to train the palate away from good but more expensive and delicate ingredients such as herbs and nutritious foods with bitter, savory, mild or pungent flavors. I had not thought of lecithin in this way, but it is possible.
Sugar IS addictive, simply because sugar, or any highly glcycaemic food, will produce a quick rise in blood sugar. And yes, that it is added to pretty much ANY processed / prepared food, even savoury foods, is problematic.
Like politicians, bacteria and viruses mutate very quickly. Sometime soon there will be an outbreak of some disease that is resistant to antibiotics. It already happens in hospitals and among TB patients. That alone is a reason for pediatricians and other health care professionals, including the CDC, to object to massive prophylactic use of antibiotics on food animals. Many physicians have cut back on excessive use of antibiotics with their own patients to stave off the development of resistant strains. They need to start making the connection with the practices of factory farming. Talk to your doctor, as they say on TV.
There is another reason - the antibiotics are used in a short term effort to keep food animals alive in horrible conditions of crowding, poor food, lack of exercise, sunshine and fresh air. Here we have an example of how mistreatment of the natural world comes back to bite humans. We are all interconnected.
We need to talk to our neighbors and local stores about how our food is raised and appeal either to their self-interest or their concern about animals. We also need to either cut out eating meat, even chickens, or demand organic meats raised in decent conditions. The food industry fights tooth and claw against labeling requirements, so it is not always easy to find such goods.
It's not easy to raise a billion dollars for re-election. Plus billions more for the corporate fascists incumbents in Congress.
Why antibiotics? Because it leads to fast growth and higher profits. Meat produced by this process has to contain significant amounts of antibiotics of which some are concentrated in fat and organs like the kidney and liver. How does antibiotic use lead to weight gain? Animals eaten and humans who eat them have bacteria in their intestines necessary for the breakdown of carbohydrates and proteins into simple building blocks more easily used by the animals. Sugars are consumed by both bacteria and animals. Antibiotics weaken bacteria and allow humans to consume more of this fat producer. Now I'll make the connection if you haven't done so already "Obesity Epidemic". Something Obama's USDA is being paid huge amounts to keep under cover, I believe. Hot dogs anyone?
No not really. The antiobiotics are because in industrialised farming, the animals are raised in dirty inhumane conditions. Without those antibiotics, they would be dying left and right of infections.
Antibiotics in animal feed is only one way we are harming ourselves and nature. Consider all the drugs we consume and eliminate in our waste. The wastewater treatment systems we have do not have the ability to remove these drugs and the effluent discharged into our streams and rivers is impacting all life that depends on these waters. Heck, we don't even test the effluent for these constituents and there are no standards either. These issues do not get the attention needed. Thank you Common Dreams for such important info. Keep up the good work.
It is important also to discard unused drugs in a way that they do not get into the water supply. After the death of a relative, the nurse wanted to throw all the unused medication down the toilet. Instead, I asked her to wet the pills so they could not be used and put them in the trash. Not perfect, but better.
From what I can tell, as oil becomes much more expensive over the next couple of decades, meat consumption will decrease over time. I've "led horses to water" many times, but most people just want their comfort food (ie. compromised animal food).
As I gave up eating cows, pigs & sheep in 1976 (...bad college cafeteria meat & inspiration from none other than The Beatles!), & all other animals (except for a little bit of sea animals.... I know, I know...) in 1987, I am continually appalled at the way most food is grown and consumed in our "developed" societies. And I continue to be appalled at factory farming, genetic engineering of food crops,food grown with the overuse of pesticides & herbicides, fast food, bad food, drugged food, adulterated food, etc. etc. etc.
While it would be nice to just be able to vote (or write your Senator!) on these issues and change the situation, I think that, unfortunately, it'll only happen as more & more individuals wake up to reality (& oil becomes too expensive to maintain all this). I'm not holding my breath.
Many people I know are taking blood thinner medicines, loads of acid blockers, hypertension drugs, ineffective & costly supplements ( I don't take any...) etc. etc. etc........ but not me! And man, do I eat some tasty dishes! Ya'll c'mon over...
No one has commented on the deplorable lives of the pigs pictured? or what is in store for them after enduring such nightmarish lives?
Somehow, we as a species are simply going to have to recognize how completely self-centered and insular we have become, including those who think of themselves as progressives.
Animals are certainly not a natural or healthy food for humans (http:allinharmony.org), laced with antibiotics or not! but, blind, ignorant, desensitized humans are having a disastrous affect on the lives of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of animals!
Think you can be healthy eating animal foods? Read what will undoubtedly be rated the most important book of this century, The China Study (thechinastudy.com) by the most esteemed US epidemiologist, T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University.