The era of antibiotic growth promotion began in 1946 with the recognition of substantial growth responses to the inclusion of streptomycin in the feed of chickens. In 1949 it was shown that pigs and chickens consuming a diet supplemented with the dried mycelial mass recovered from the fermentation of Streptomyces aureofaciens had significantly improved daily gain in bodyweight. At a time when livestock management was changing rapidly from low-performance, high-morbidity, free-range farming to more controlled and intensive husbandry, and when post-war demands on increased food production were high, the discovery of an unexpected way to accelerate growth was received with enormous interest
and enthusiasm by scientists and the public. In April 1950 it was front page news in New
York and London.
http://www.animalhealthalliance.org.au/files/animalhealth/information/The%20Role%20of%20enteric%20antibiotics%20in%20livestock%20production.pdf
05langston Modern Meat: Synthetic Hormones, Livestock, and Consumers in the Post-WWII Era Nancy Langston UW...
Antibiotics and the Animal Industry
Industrial farms have been mixing antibiotics into livestock feed since 1946, when studies showed that the drugs cause animals to grow faster and put on weight more efficiently, increasing meat producers' profits.6 Today antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock, poultry, and fish on industrial farms to promote faster growth and to compensate for the unsanitary conditions in which they are raised.7
It’s no secret that America has a drug problem—so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that our livestock have one as well. Antibiotics are a major part of the conventional meat industry, and the drugs aren’t just used to treat sick animals—they’re also given regularly in feed to help growth promotion of pigs, chickens and cattle. According to a recent study by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some 80% of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in farm animals, not in human beings, and 90% of that amount is dispensed through feed or water. All those drugs can help lead to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and those hard to treat bugs in turn can infect human beings. Some 100,000 Americans die each year from hospital-acquired infections that are resistant to most antibiotics. Antibiotics are a limited resource—the more they’re used, the faster bacteria will evolve to beat them—and by using so many of our drugs on farms rather than the hospital, we may be wasting them.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took long-overdue steps yesterday to curb the overuse of antibiotics in food producing animals which has been definitively linked to the crisis of antibiotic resistance in humans by numerous health organizations worldwide.
Laura Rogers, the director of the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, told me that “[t]his is the most sweeping action the agency has undertaken in this area, as this covers all antibiotics used in meat and poultry production that are important to human health.” Evidence linking antibiotic resistance in humans to overuse of antibiotics in animal farms primarily to promote animal growth — not to treat illness — has been mounting for decades. The FDA recognized the problem more than four decades ago, attempted to address it in 1977, but ultimately took little definitive action.
So public health advocates have been pushing for years to get the government to restrict the use of human antibiotics in farm animals—at least for non-therapeutic purposes. But the meat industry has long opposed any regulations on drug use, claiming that antibiotic-resistant bacteria have far more to do with overuse in human beings than on the farm. Given the political power of the ag lobby, it shouldn’t be surprising that they’ve usually won those battles.
But the tide may be turning. On January 4, the FDA announced that farmers and ranchers had to restrict their use of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins—commonly used in humans to treat strep throat and bronchitis—in cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys because those habits may have helped lead to the rise of resistant bacteria.
rBGH
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, also called recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST). This is a genetically engineered hormone that is injected into dairy cows to increase their milk production. Cows injected with rBGH have shorter life spans and are much more likely to suffer from udder infections. rBGH is only legal in three countries: the United States, South Africa, and Mexico. RBGH has been banned in Canada, the European Union and elsewhere because of inadequate testing and some evidence that it leads to cancer.See the rBGH page in the Issues section for more information.
rBGH-Free or rBST-Free
rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) is a genetically engineered growth hormone that is injected into dairy cows to artificially increase their milk production. The hormone has not been properly tested for safety. Milk labeled “rBGH-Free” is produced by dairy cows that never received injections of this hormone. Organic milk is rBGH free. (rBST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin.) See the rBGH page in the Issues section for more information.
.
Addicted to Antibiotics
It's no secret that factory farms use unconscionable amounts of antibiotics when fattening up animals for market. In Germany, however, veterinarians play a crucial role in the abuse. Many are getting rich in the process, but the risks to both human and animals are many
When Almera the cow suffers from twisted bowel or Avatar the llama shows signs of tuberculosis, Björn Seelig is on the scene. He is a veterinarian in the Taunus Mountains, north of Frankfurt, and one of Germany's best-known veterinarians. He demonstrates his dexterity in an afternoon television show on Germany's VOX channel.
The program, the name of which can be translated as "People, Animals and Doctors," depicts touchingly idyllic scenes of country veterinarians striding across springtime meadows in their rubber boots, hard at work next to grazing lambs. Strong medications are rarely used in this television world.
The idyllic scenes are deceptive. Many of Seelig's fellow veterinarians, with access to an entire battery of drugs on the shelves of their practices, take a completely different approach. In the past, veterinarians, including those in Seelig's practice, used these drugs in abundance and on a large scale. Indeed, a year and a half ago, three veterinarians in his practice were ordered to pay fines totalling €90,000 ($117,000).
They had sold huge quantities of drugs, some of which were not approved, and dispensed dozers of liters of medications to animals to which they should never have been administered. Investigators with the public prosecutor's office in the western city of Wiesbaden called the operation a "pharmacy on wheels." Antibiotics were allegedly stored on pallets. A former employee told investigators at the time that the veterinary clinic was essentially a mail-order operation for drugs, and that the pharmaceutical industry had expressed its gratitude by giving the clinic huge discounts.
'Bigger Profits than Cocaine Dealers'
"Some veterinarians' profit margins are bigger than those of cocaine dealers," says Nicki Schirm, who has been a veterinarian in the state of Hesse for more than 25 years. When a veterinarian finds a sick chick among 20,000 other chicks, he treats the discovery as justification to preventively treat the entire flock with antibiotics, says Rupert Ebner, a veterinarian from the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt. "Nowadays, flock or herd health monitoring is the code name for the generous administration of drugs," says Ebner. In many cases, he adds, fake diagnoses are used to provide a justification for the use of antibiotics.
In large veterinary practices, profits from the sale of drugs can account for up to 80 percent of revenues. This is mainly due to the volume discounts offered by the pharmaceutical industry and the sweet privilege known as the right to dispense -- a special provision for the pharmaceutical monopoly. For more than 150 years, veterinarians have been allowed to both prescribe and sell medications -- with almost no supervision whatsoever.
http://www.cspinet.org/ar/antibiotics_jeopardy.html
Q: Which foods are most likely to carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
A: Meat and poultry are the most likely candidates, because the animals are being fed the antibiotics and their meat can become contaminated with bacteria when they’re slaughtered.
In theory, resistant bacteria could also end up in any food, even fruits and vegetables, if the bacteria get into the environment through the animals’ waste, and the waste ends up in fertilizer.
Q: How likely is meat to harbor drug-resistant bacteria?
A: In October, a study by the Food and Drug Administration found that 20 percent of supermarket samples of ground beef, pork, chicken, and turkey were contaminated with Salmonella. Even more worrisome, 84 percent of the Salmonella were resistant to at least one antibiotic and half were resistant to at least three antibiotics. Sixteen percent were resistant to the drug of choice for treatingSalmonella infections in children.
So we not only have to worry about getting Salmonella poisoning from food if we don’t prepare it properly. We also have to worry that it would be harder to treat food poisoning because the Salmonella is antibiotic-resistant.
Risk profile on antimicrobial resistance transmissible from food animals to humans
Risk profile on antimicrobial resistance transmissible from food animals to humans
