Are antibiotics in meat bad for humans?
Turkeys raised without the use of antibiotics are seen at David Martin's farm, in Lebanon, Pa. on April 11, 2012. / AP Photo/Matt Rourke
(AP) WASHINGTON - The bacon you had for breakfast is at the center of a 35-year debate over antibiotics.
That's because the same life-saving drugs that are prescribed to treat everything from ear infections to tuberculosis in humans also are used to fatten the animals that supply the chicken, beef and pork we eat every day.
Farmers say they have to feed the drugs to animals to keep them healthy and meet America's growing appetite for cheap meat. But public health advocates argue that the practice breeds antibiotic-resistant germs in animals that can cause deadly diseases in humans.
The U.S. government moved to ban the use of some of the drugs in animals in the 1970s, but the rule was never enforced. Then last week, the Food and Drug Administration outlined plans to phase out the use of antibiotics in farm animals for non-medical purposes over three years.
The U.S., the biggest global consumer of meat by far, follows Europe and other developed nations in restricting the use of penicillin and other antibiotics in animals. The issue has moved to the front burner as documentaries such as "Meet Your Meat" and "Food Inc." have led Americans to focus more on what goes into their food. Sales of antibiotic-free meat, for instance, are up 25 percent to $175 million in the past three years.
"Consumers are beginning to understand the cost of eating cheap meat," said Stephen McDonnell, CEO of Applegate Farms, which markets antibiotic-free meats and cheeses. "As people really understand what it takes to create a healthy animal they will probably eat less meat, but they are going to eat better meat."
The History
Antibiotics have been hailed as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the 20th century since their first use in humans in the 1940s. They've enabled doctors to cure deadly bacterial diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid fever and meningitis.
The FDA approved the use of antibiotics in livestock in the 1950s after studies showed that animals that got the drugs in their feed put on more weight in less time than animals on a traditional diet. For example, pigs that got an antibiotic were shown to need 10 to 15 percent less feed to reach the same weight as pigs on regular diets.
Since feed can account for as much as 70 percent of total animal production costs, the discovery was a windfall for farmers. It meant they could produce more meat for less money, resulting in fatter profits.
But by the 1970s, researchers began warning regulators that routine use of antibiotics was contributing to a surge in drug-resistant germs, or superbugs, that render antibiotics powerless against deadly infections. Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University conducted the first study in 1976 showing highly-resistant e. coli E. coli bacteria could pass from chickens to farm workers who worked with the animals in just a few weeks.
The study contributed to the FDA's decision to ban nonmedical use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals a year later. But farmers and drugmakers pushed back, and the FDA rule was never enforced.
"Why did no one act on it? Because there was a strong lobby," said Levy, who is co-founder and president of the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors restrictions on the drugs. "They said, `Well, show us the deaths. Show us the real problem. Otherwise, this isn't so terrible."
But it's difficult to link the overuse of antibiotics to deaths. It's tough to find the source of bacteria-resistant germs, which can spread from animals to humans through a number of ways, including undercooked meat and drinking water contaminated by animal waste. And bacteria mutate when passing between species, meaning that the same strain of drug-resistant bacteria in chicken can take on a different form once it enters the human body.
The Debate
While the issue mostly was tabled in the U.S., it was gaining momentum elsewhere in the world.
In 1999, the European Union backed a ban on penicillin and other human antibiotics for growth in farm animals. Within four years, the use of antibiotics on animals fell 36 percent in Denmark, 45 percent in Norway and 69 percent in Sweden.
Levy, the Tufts University professor, and his colleagues had hoped that the EU's ban would bolster the case for restricting the use of antibiotics in the U.S. But instead, the data has been used to argue both sides of the issue.
U.S. farmers have seized on reports that cases of diarrhea among young pigs increased in the first year after the EU ban, suggesting that animal health had declined. But public health advocates say that the outbreaks among pigs decreased once farmers improved the sanitary conditions by cleaning feedlots more frequently and giving animals more space.
U.S. groups like the National Chicken Council warn that restricting use of antibiotics will result in sicker animals, increasing costs for farmers -- and the price of meat and poultry for consumers. Some industry groups have projected costs for farmers would rise by $1 billion over 10 years, though those estimates have not been backed by outside groups.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Health
- Flesh-eating disease victim gets bionic hands
- Controversial update to psychiatry manual, DSM-5, arrives
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Shocking study: Math skills improved by electric stimulus
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- Handbags have more germs than toilet seats, study finds Play Video
- CDC: One in five U.S. kids has mental health disorder
Physicians should certainly be more thoughtful in using antibiotics with patients (no more automatic prescriptions for colds or sinus infections). But the last statistic I saw indicated that 75% of all antibiotics used in the U.S. every year are administered, not to people, but to animals, primarily otherwise healthy meat animals. Yes, if they didn't have easy-to-get antibiotics, many farmers would have to improve (and clean frequently) their animal facilities. But the impact of those upgrades on the price of meat would be a small price to pay to preserve the effectiveness of life-saving drugs!
My son raises chickens ,He is an award winning farmer who is at the top of his game for quality,knowledge and producing a quality product.
However chicken like many animals we eat has a cost involved
The birds are switched to a different diet prior to shipping to market and have evolved into a bird much larger than the original
My point is this ,Cattle ,Chicken,fish you name it are beig fed modified plants
We do not know the subtleties being played out in this type of genetic tampering
There is a Cost to Everthing
Antibiotics are not the same as hormones, or steroids, but the popular fear and hysteria centers on belief that they are.
Passing fear and paranoia to the debate audience is poor public service. Many self-serving who debate for and against this have market share to gain or lose in the meat production and distribution industry.
The pasteurization process of milk is a good example of where some realities are never disclosed. For example, in Mexico, some milk producers sell milk at room temperature that can be stored that way for up to 4 weeks. In other parts, it is always sold in chilled temperatures under 50 degrees and has a short life of one week, just like in the USA. In some parts of the USA, milk will remain good for two weeks. I know some mothers who fear the spoilage of a gallon of milk just purchased and drive home to store it in their home refrigerators within 30 minutes.
One argument that favors the continued use of antibiotics in meat grown domestically is that the intestinal and vaginal flora bacteria in humans seem to be unaffected. Bacterial flora is present in our bodies to aid in digestion and resist infections.
Long live our ruling kings in black robes.
Most Americans burn up that much money in their Suburban or pickup truck on the way to the McDonalds every day! I'll take the restriction!