Food safety crusader Marion Nestle: Veterinary group is putting self-interest ahead of health

The issue of antibiotic use in farm animals has been in the news lately, as the Obama administration has sought restrictions on the non-therapeutic use of the drugs in agriculture.



Such use, which is generally intended to stimulate growth in food animals as well as compensate for some of the infectious disease risks of extreme confinement methods of raising livestock, may be to blame for the emergence of many drug-resistant strains of bacteria, many of which threaten human health.



The Washington Post wrote that a report issued by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the "'economies of scale' used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs." They continued:

Among those costs are human illnesses caused by drug-resistant bacteria associated with the rampant use of antibiotics on feedlots and the degradation of land, water and air quality caused by animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural processes.



Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests.

Among those interests? The American Veterinary Medical Association. From food safety crusader, author, and nutritionist Marion Nestle -- also a member of  the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production:

There is much fuss about this issue this week because the House is holding hearings on the Preservation for Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.  If passed, this will phase out the use of seven classes of antibiotics important to human health that are currently allowed to be used as growth promoters in animal agriculture.  The FDA testified in favor of the act.  So did members of the Pew Commission: Robert Martin, Fedele Baucio, and Bill and Nicolette Niman.



So who could possibly be opposed to such a good idea?  How about the American Veterinary Medical Association, for starters, apparently more worried about its members’ self interest than about sensible use of antibiotics.

Here's the rest.



AVMA: You're supposed to be about animal welfare and protecting human health. Let big ag look out for itself.

Comments

[Tiadora Anderson]

Great article. Unfortunately it seems people are more interested in making a quick buck rather than what makes sense.

[Christie Keith]

Sorry I didn't include the Dr. Patty link... late night posting, less brain power.



As for weight loss... I lost 187 pounds eating lots and lots of animal foods and very little plant foods. I think it depends very much on your own individual body type and physiology, what will work for someone. I eat meat and eggs -- sustainably raised, grass fed, pastured -- at every meal. I do also eat vegetables, far more so than I used to in my carb-crazy days in fact, but the majority of my calories come from fat. Healthiest I've ever been, and I've kept that weight off now for more than 6 years.

[Colorado Transplant]

The book, Food, Inc. tells about how the food industry is making us sicker, fatter and poorer and what you can do about it (a quote from the cover. It is edited by Karl Weber.



I am trying to eat much less processed food.



The agribiz and its enablers will win when we do nothing.

[Gina Spadafori]

Dr. Patty Khuly wrote about this over on Dolittler as well:



"After all, antibiotic use in animal agriculture makes sense primarily because of how we crowd and transport our creatures. Remove the antibiotics and more animals will surely get sick in the short term. But long-term, that only means that the animal agriculture industry will be forced to reform how it houses and ships its widgets."



Which reminds me that arguing that puppies aren't livestock in talking about puppy-mills doesn't mean that livestock deserve to be treated like widgets, either.



Concentrated animal feeding operations (a/k/a "factory farms") are bad for us (and to our pets who eat out of the same food supply), cruel to the livestock, use too much fossil fuel, turn excrement from a potential fertilizer into a lethal lagoon.



I'm not anti-meat. My dogs and cats are carnivores, and I'm an omnivore. But we have to stop thinking thinking cheap meat through environmentally unsustainable animal cruelty is our birthright.



"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants," says the author Michael Pollan. Good advice for us omnivores. Choose your "unplants" from sources that practice humane and sustainable animal husbandry and you'll be part of the solution, not a supporter of the problem.



Serious bonus: Since I started doing this some 18 months ago, I've lost 40 pounds and three sizes. And since I made the shift away from eating out and processed convenience food at the same time, I spend LESS on food overall. (Not to mention: The VERY occasional steak from sustainable and humane sources tastes even better, and not just because it DOES taste better when it's grass-fed, not corn- and antibiotic-stuffed.)



Screw corporate agribiz and its enablers. This is not an "elitist" "foodie" issue. This is about our health, animal welfare and the environment. Change your diet, change the world (and save money, too).