As the health care debate rages across the country, a different kind of health issue is cropping up with livestock: the widespread use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic uses such as growth and disease prevention. And the possibility that it's rendering those antibiotics less effective for people.
Washington Post writer Ezra Klein makes the point that we are encouraging the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by eating animals that contain low doses of antibiotics. His argument is based in part on the startling statistic from a 2001 study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists: 70 percent of all the antibiotics used in the United States are used for animal production.
Klein talks to U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who is advocating for the passage of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009. As she tells Klein:
"The bill preserves the seven most effective classes of antibiotics for human use only. They can be used to treat sick animals, but they can't be used to simply raise animals."
But the measures are too extreme, according to the members of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Ranchers Association, who feel that restricting the use of antibiotics would handcuff ranchers:
"Proposalslike the Preservation of Antibiotics for Animal Treatment Act would
actually leave American beef producers with very few options to prevent
and control diseases within their cattle herds," said TSCRA President
Dave Scott.
The idea that the meat we eat could be slowly eroding our ability to
prevent infectious diseases is disconcerting. But the truth is nobody
knows the exact amount of antibiotics being used to treat animals
today. And also, there has not been a direction connection
established between giving animals antibiotics and the development of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans. The really scary day will be when someone finds that connection.
[Image via Flickr: Cushing Memorial Library and Archives]
Comments (0)