Yes! I already pay more for food that comes from animals who are I think are at least treated humanely. It would be fine with me to have the minimum standards of care cost more and be better for animals. Heck yeah. And I don't make a lot of money either.

Sheyna July 15th, 2009 10:10:32 AM

I have to disagree with so many points here...

Antibiotics are used as a substitute for a lack of space, cleanliness and proper food (cows can't digest corn, their staple diet in feedlots).  Their use can NOT be good for us, or them. 

Regarding Denmark, antibiotic residues are found in 19,000 - 22,000 samples annually.  Antibiotic use still exists - after all, it's a country, not a fish tank.

In addition, I have to question the conclusion that because antibiotic resistant bacteria are appearing in Denmark the removal of antibiotics from the (legal) feedlots was a failure. 

"For example, Denmark began phasing out additives in the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2001, antibiotic use in the Danish meat production industry decreased 54%.21 During the same period, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus was virtually eliminated from the Danish poultry industry with no change in the price of meat (Figure 4)."

"A 2006 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases found that bacteria from conventional chicken and from people who ate the chicken became resistant to Synercid, a strong antibiotic used to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In essence, it can cause resistance to the last lines of defense currently available in the modern medicine cabinet. It also found that it was rare to find resistant bacteria among antibiotic-free chicken, while the majority of bacterial isolates from conventional poultry were resistant."

"Denmark has shown that banning the use of antibiotics to promote growth brings results. The country began the phase-out in 1999. Since then, total antibiotic usage has decreased by more than 50% while the number of animals produced has held steady. "The important finding in Denmark is that if you reduce antibiotic use, you reduce the levels of resistant bacteria in meat, on the farm and in animal waste. That means that Denmark is reducing the flow of resistant bacteria into the food supply and the environment, thus reducing the likelihood of people coming into contact with resistant bugs," said Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense expert on antibiotic resistance."

"Boswell, a member of the Agriculture Committee, referred to hearings at which witnesses said the FDA already puts antibiotics through a rigorous and expensive approval process. These witnesses also testified that when Denmark banned non-therapeutic antibiotic use in the late 1990s, it led to decreases in swine health and had no major impact on public health, Boswell said. This conclusion ran counter to a World Health Organization study cited by several committee members and witnesses. The study said that swine health was not affected in Denmark and that the number of resistant bacteria decreased dramatically after the ban."

I strongly disagree with the AVMA that antibiotic use in livestock does not promote antibiotic resistant bacteria.  I also strongly disagree with the idea that antibiotic free meat costs "double or triple" what antibiotic/hormone filled, feedlot produced meat does.

While I certainly pay more for some of my organic products, some of them I get from local suppliers cheaper than conventional items from the grocery store.  The increased cost has more to do with the marketing genius than it does with the actual cost.

Kim July 15th, 2009 10:27:52 AM

I'm glad you wrote about this. I saw the news story from VIN News Service and just sighed at the AVMA's position, which involves putting its collective head so far up its collective fanny as to be nearly anatomically impossible.

Gina Spadafori July 15th, 2009 10:38:34 AM

It's easy for me because I don't eat meat.

What a unique idea - treating only the diseased animals! If this means better living conditions for feed animals, I say go for it! Healthier food can only mean healthier humans (and pets, I hope).

I think that Gina stated very succintly my opinion of the AVMA!

dottie July 15th, 2009 11:02:34 AM

I raise livestock for my own food as well as sale.  Quality meat, the kind I want to eat and what I produce for my customers (both human and canine), does not come from animals so overcrowded and badly kept they need routine antibiotics as preventatives.

It does cost more.  But wouldn't we all be better if we ate less meat, of better quality, in the long run?

This sort of directive actually appears to have several wins in the long run.  A better meat supply (healthier, safer), better animal care, and support of the environments best to provide healthy animal care - smaller privately run farms with more natural forages and slower more natural growth animals.

I'm sure we can screw this up somehow - it's the American way.  But right now...I'm think this is a good thing

Wendy July 15th, 2009 11:45:27 AM

Business as usual at the AVMA.

Heif July 15th, 2009 11:47:11 AM

I'd Pay.

I already do pay more for my organic free range eggs and meat etc.

Sarah July 15th, 2009 11:54:11 AM

If there's no evidence, per the AVMA, that lifelong sub-clinical ingestion of antibiotics causes resistance in one class of organisms (food animals), then I guess we should all stop taking our pills as soon as we feel better, and split them to save money, and take a few of the leftovers whenever we get a cold.

No?  Why ever not?

And Dottie, not eating meat doesn't mean that you are protected from exposure to the organisms that get cooked up in factory farms.  You can catch the resistant cootie from another person.

When I got chicks, I was told that I was crazy for not giving them "medicated feed."  They would all get the runs and die.

One year later, still have the sixteen original chickens, seven of their offspring, twenty purchased replacements, NO LOSSES to disease, and no morbidity.

When I got broiler chicks, I was told I was crazy for not giving them medicated feed.  "What worked for your layers doesn't apply to broilers, they're all going to get sick ..."

They're in the freezer now after 12 weeks of healthy life, NO LOSSES to disease, one animal that was ill for a short time (no symptoms of infectious diseases) out of 106.

When I got goat kids, had to search high and low for nonmedicated feed -- Oh, this stuff only has a little medication in it -- because they would get sick and die.  No medication, goats are fine and healthy and gaining weight well.

When I got turkeys ... well, you get the idea.  They are still here as well.

None of my animals are crowded.

Who'da thunk it was possible?

H. Houlahan July 15th, 2009 11:55:20 AM

Kim: I think it's inevitable that animal protein will cost more if it's grown like this. I don't use that as MY argument against it, merely as our culture's (God forbid we should actually have to think about whether to eat a 12-ounce steak or a vegetarian lasagna). Ultimately, however, the savings to society through a healthier diet and a working arsenal of antibiotics would be tremendous. It's just hard to quantify and therefore not so easy to sell at the policy level. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 15th, 2009 12:03:38 PM

I will see if I can find the study, but I saw a news release in the late winter regarding the testing of meat samples from various grocery stores for antibiotic-resistant bacteria- including the feared MRSA.  They found antibiotic resistant bacteria in all but one sample.  Additionally, MRSA was found.  They recommended that raw meat not be handled without gloves.

I have to see if I can find the study they were pulling the data from.

The large-scale use of antibiotics in agriculture scares me.  I live in an area with large scale ag production- both of grains (think of thousands of acres of wheat), hay (we export as well as use it here for the feedlots) and of beef (thousands of acres of rangelands and some of the largest feedlots in the northwest). 

We also happen to have large populations of migratory waterfowl, and bird hunting is a big deal here- or it used to be.  My boss used to hunt for duck and geese every year but stopped because the meat was fowl and riddled with small, white worms.  The birds spend some time in the pools of standing water from runoff from the feedlots, when they aren't out near the waterways, and lord knows what else they pick up.

Jen July 15th, 2009 12:09:44 PM

Medicated feed is NOT for me. I bought one bag for my first batch of chicks because it was "highly recommended" and quickly realized my error. A new bag and no more unnecessary coccidiastats. I guess it's a lot harder to check a fecal sample on occasion and treat when necessary than to just feed the medication prophylactically.

Good thing it doesn't matter much to me whether my birds grow bigger faster and my eggs begin to arrive two weeks earlier or not. Yet another reason to raise your own.

Now, if only I can get my neighbors to stop spraying lawn chemicals. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 15th, 2009 12:19:26 PM

Sorry to be the politically incorrect one here, but while those of us with the luxury of paying more for meat and poultry and eggs, or raising our own, might be "okay with" a doubling in price, what happens to the people who are struggling to pay their grocery bills now? What do they feed their kids? Are we going to force them into a vegetarian diet? Who will educate them on how to provide themselves and their children with sufficient protein?

I am all for humane conditions for farm animals, but my first priority is providing affordable food. If we can't establish that the antibiotics create a health hazard for human consumers, then now certainly is not the time to double the price of meat. I can't get behind that.

Susan July 15th, 2009 12:34:24 PM

Dr. Patty - in the last paragraph of this post you stated that meat prices could double or triple.  I was not saying that quality meat does not generally cost more, just that I think it is somewhat irresponsible to repeat the assertion that these products cost "double or triple" what conventional meat does.

Susan's reply is a perfect example. 

Susan - I don't eat a lot of meat.  I am NOT a vegetarian, nor will I ever be.  Personally, I don't believe that an all-veggie diet is biologically appropriate, plus... I loves me a good steak.  :O)

However, our culture eats WAY too many animal products currently.  We are not talking about diets with insufficient amounts of protein.  In fact, consumers today eat FAR more protein than is required.  We eat meat at almost every meal (as a nation) as opposed to the way we probably should be eating it - as a side dish.

Protein requirements for children are higher than protein requirements for adults.  Ages 1-3 should receive 0.81g/lb of body weight.  Ages 4-6 = 0.68g/lb and ages 7-10 0.55/lb.  Healthy adults between 0.36 and 0.45/lb.

To put this into perspective, I would need about 47-59g of protein daily.  This can be achieved easily - A single 6oz piece of chicken or beef provides me with about 42-48g of protein.  Three ounces of tuna is about 27g of protein.  A single eight ounce can will provide me with my daily requirement.

What the nation IS deficient in - the vitamins and antioxidants contained within fruits and vegetables. 

Incidentally, President's Choice has the BEST vegetarian lasagna I have ever had - and I'm not a lasagna fan.  For what it's worth, a single serving contains 22g of protein.  Protein deficient we are not.

Kim July 15th, 2009 12:57:03 PM

I just re=looked at the date on the AVMA's release...this was from *last* year?  June 24, 2008.  So this has been floating around for over a year and no one really paid much attention.

Heif July 15th, 2009 01:04:27 PM

I was one of 5 kids, and while my parents didn't struggle to find money to feed us, they still thought money was better spent on other things.  My dad says my mom used to manage to feed us at $.65/person/meal.  We very rarely ate meat.  We had a lot of good food, with nuts, cheese, or beans in many meals, just not a lot of meat.  No big deal.  I still eat mostly non-meat meals, though that's because I'm not a very inspired cook :) 

I don't think it would hurt other families to eat this way.  Meat is hardly something we need to be eating every day, in huge amounts.  I'm all for meat that's more expensive but much more healthy.  I think having to improve the conditions in which the animals are kept can't help but make the meat overall more healthy, and probably make those conditions more humane for the animals during their lifetimes.

Galadriel July 15th, 2009 01:12:50 PM

Remember that eggs and dairy products would be part of the deal here, too. We're not just talking about meat.

Susan July 15th, 2009 01:55:52 PM

Heif: That was a press release on the AVMA's testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension from last June (yes, in 2008). As I explained, this issue has been in the works for a while. And the AVMA has held fast to its position throughout. In fact, during my brief stint lobbying for the AVMA's Government Relations Division in DC (back in 1994!) I attended a sort-of "closed door" meeting at the FDA on this subject. Though I was there just to take notes, the AVMA's position was definitely on the side of US beef. 

btw, I especially like this 2008 reference because it's pretty descriptive of the AVMA's position. It also demonstrates that even the AVMA uses the word "mollifying" to describe how it approached its own position in addressing the Senate.

And no, the position of the AVMA has not changed over the past year. That's obvious from the other AVMA reference I included in my post. It includes the recent position statement I quoted. This statement was written specifically in response to S.619/H.R.1549, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009. I don't know when it went up on the site but it's safe to say that it was sometime within the past few months.

Dr. Patty Khuly July 15th, 2009 02:26:51 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, Dr. Khuly.

Heif July 15th, 2009 02:31:16 PM

Susan: I agree with Galadriel. I'm sure the amount of money I spend on food is comparable with what most people spend. And yet I eat what most people in the US think of as "very expensive cuisine." I just happen to eat a lot less milk, meat, and egg products than others do. And I cook everything at home--no prepared foods, no plastic containers, no preservatives. Nothing but ingredients. 

We desperately need to get back to this home ec kind of teaching and living where nothing's wasted and everything's used. A bag of beans a leftover ham hock and a bunch of cheap greens can make the best meal ever. And it's way cheaper to feed a family like this than to go to Burger King. We don't need to subsidize. We need to teach. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 15th, 2009 02:35:16 PM

I spent a good deal of time researching this issue last semester, as my capstone (animal science) group was selected to debate *against* the use of subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics in animals intended for consumption.  Boy were we in an awkward position - here I am, sitting in a classroom full of farm kids (which I am not), arguing that they've got no business dumping antibiotics willy-nilly into their feed.  It didn't go well for our side, obviously, but what was disappointing were the counter-arguments: "Ohmygod, you can't take away our antibiotics or all our animals will get sick and die!"..."Ohmygod, you can't take away our antibiotics because then we'll just have to shoot all the sick animals (hello - there's a difference between therapeutic an subtherapeutic usage!)..."Ohmygod, you can't take away our antibiotics because it'll take forever for the animals to grow to market weight and we'll get put out of business"..."Ohmygod, you can't take away our antibiotics, or we'll be forced to charge triple for our product and the children of America will starve!"...and so on.  In the end, though, their main concern was money...and I've found that to be true, at least on campus with regards to agricultural issues.  They don't want country-of-origin labeling because it'll cost money, and drive the smaller farmers out of business...they don't want regulated antibiotic use, because production will (allegedly) become more expensive, and drive the smaller farmers out of business...etc.  Sorry, but when you're talking something as real and troublesome as antibiotic resistance, even if the link is difficult to prove (as I admit it is), human health should win out.    And I think, in the end, that those who adapt the best will have no time staying in business, and those who won't or can't adapt, won't.  That's how business is.

anna July 15th, 2009 02:37:43 PM

sorry...that should've read, "...those who adapt the best will have no problem staying in business..."

anna July 15th, 2009 02:40:19 PM

I am ok with the price of meat going up, but for different reasons.  I cannot say that I believe use of antibiotics in farming is the sole cause, primary cause, or contributing cause of antibiotic resistant strains in humans -- I don't know.  But I do know that if the conditions for these animals were improved, there would not be such a "need" to feed them all these antibiotics.  Of course if you are stuffed like sardines into a small area and standing in your own feces, something is going to need to be done.  The way animals are raised now is unsustainable (and cruel, and immoral).  Would I pay more for animals raised more humanely?  Yes.  I don't eat any beef or pork so it's really about chicken for me, and the biggest impact for me would be the cost of cat food.  Would I pay more for a cleaner conscience?  Yes. 

Can everyone afford to do that? No. 

Could they afford to do that IF more humane farming became more widely supported -- that is, people who can afford to pay more give the humane farmers enough business that they have the volume so that economies of scale allow them to lower their prices some -- capturing another rung of the market? Would that bring it into the range of others?  I don't know.

But if that doesn't happen, I fear the day will come when we can't come up with a drug to get us out of the trouble we will be in.  We've had a preview of it with mad cow and bird flu and swine flue etc.   We just need to be looking at ways to change direction.

I am never convinced what the true motives are for the AVMA making a statement about "animal suffering" because all too often economic interests of patrons are best served by the position as well.  All the same, no doubt, if you yanked antibiotics today, animals would suffer and die, but as it is, they suffer and live, till they die.  We are only filling them with antibiotics to allow them to continue miserables existences in cruel conditions.  It seems that sustaining the practice of pumping them full of antibiotics misses the point, the true root of the problem -- just allows us to continue avoiding doing somethign about the problem.

Stefani July 15th, 2009 06:05:01 PM

I read an interesting article in"Inc." magazine about Bill Niman who started selling humanely raised beef.  The beef was only sold to high end restaurants until he was bought out -- it was MANY times the price of "regular" beef.  According to the article, everyone raved about how it tasted.  Majority shares in his company were then bought and he was subsequently  squeezed out of leadership because he took issue with practices he saw going on that were designed to "increase efficiency."  He also complained about animal mistreatment he witnessed.  He is no longer involved with the company that bears his name.   It underscores that yes, it does cost more to raise animals humanely, and yes, some consumers are willing to pay for this, and as soon as profit motives become more important than ethics, the price goes down and the treatment of the animals begins to degrade.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090701/bill-nimans-next-move.html

I am not holding him out as an example -- I don't know how he treated his cattle and based on the article it sounds like his turkeys don't have the greatest living conditions now so, who knows?  I also don't think the article addresses antibiotics although it does say his raised them hormone free.

Just an interesting article related to the cost and "business model" of humanely raised beef.

Stefani July 15th, 2009 06:17:48 PM

    Since most meat contamination seems to occur during processing, giving cattle, pigs, and poultry subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics probably doesn't really protect the public much. I would bet that until processing plants are better controlled, a ban on antibiotics in feed would not make a noticeable difference in disease transmission. As for the Denmark studies, animals in western Europe are raised under stricter rules (I've lived in Europe several times) and the farms still tend to be smaller. I guess all those farm subsidies have a positive effect besides maintaining the viability of smaller farms.

   If it meant that the animals were handled in a more humane manner, I'd pay more. But then I don't cook a lot of meat, though I've never been able to stop eating some meat without becoming sick. I also cook and avoid processed and prepared food (I even cook pizza -  a bread machine makes it easy and cheap!). I've also found that total vegetable diets left me always hungry. This is what my Hindu friends have also said; to make up for it they eat a lot of fatty sweets and oily foods, with the subsequent health problems these foods cause.

   And let's not forget the corn lobby. Most of the feed that the antibiotics are added to are corn based. How much of all of this is due to an over-production of corn?

Heather in Miami July 15th, 2009 06:29:38 PM

"antimicrobial resistance in humans continues unabated"  I wonder when they'll finally figure out that the cause of this is giving humans too little antibiotics; just enough to drive the bug sub-clinical and into the mode to become a superbug.  It'a a total red herring to attempt to link the use of antibiotics in animals to the superbugs we are creating within ourselves.  When a doctor admonishes me to take "all" the pills, I respond with a request that he/she actually provide enough of them to get the job done.  (The dosage of antibiotics in humans is based on incredibly little science but mostly the dose that "appears" to work and that by standards set a very long time ago.  Wonder if the same is true for animals.)

I'd like to see livestock better and more humanely treated, just generally.  However, I have no objection to the prophilactic use of antibiotics and I think that, if they adopt this "use only after visible illness" method, we will then see the same expansion of antimicrobial resistance in animals that we've seen in humans since they started getting stingy with our antibiotics.

PJBoosinger July 15th, 2009 07:03:31 PM

sadly antibiotic laced food is only the tip of a very large ice berg and Obama's plans will have little efficacy in the long run if he doesn't address all of the issues with our food production. The added hormones, the % of feces allowed in the product, the waste..the list goes on. As well as farming and slaughtering conditions...then there is the issue of veggies/beans found contaminated with meat type microbes....these issues are part and parcel to the bigger picture.

I think people need to seriously reevaluate their personal need to run to the dr. for every sniffle as well. Before the anthrax scares a few years ago, you rarely saw something like cipro prescribed, now it's doled out like candy.

I suppose an upside is that real penicillin is so rarely used now that that eventually chances are it will once again work effectively.

I personally have only taken antibiotics once (strept throat) in 3 years. My kids not in as long if not longer...I think we are all healthier for it.

LorriM July 16th, 2009 04:45:50 AM

Lorri M: How to eat an elephant? You know the rest... And no, I can't remember the last time I took antibiotics. My son? Strep throat, too. Me? In 1996 I think. But you're right. One of my receptionists takes a Z-pack every time she gets sick. Which is a whole lot more often than I do, I can assure you. Connections? I happen to think so. The research? Fuzzy. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 16th, 2009 08:18:52 AM

Heather in Miami: Yes, processing is the place where bacteria tends to get distributed, but if there's more bacteria to go around, contamination will be more widespread. That's the argument and I happen to buy it. But it also comes down to Stefani's assertion, which is that animals standing around in their feces and feedlotted in close quarters are exposed to far more bacteria. They require antibiotics to survive under these conditions.

From what I've seen in the dairy industry, the small producers are the least likely to practice "cow comfort" and are more likely to foster overcrowded conditions due to the economic pressures they face as the price of milk drops to obscene lows (so we can grant subsidies and otherwise adjust the free market so we can feed people more fatty foods they don't need). They just don't have the money to build better facilities.

If you saw some of these dairy farms you too would start to wonder about the viability of our older small farms as they currently exist in the US. I don't think they would survive without the antibiotics. And maybe that's a good thing. Saving small farms isn't necessarily what should drive policy, though it's a MAJOR issue for our legislators. The romantic notion of the small dairy farmer is alive and well. Too bad it's so often NOT a romance novel. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 16th, 2009 08:29:23 AM

Oops...forgot to mention, Heather, that you should read Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. He recently spoke in Miami (your 'hood and mine) at temple Beth Am in Coral Gables. He's sooo interesting. You should read his books. And they still have some signed copies left at Books and Books on Aragon Ave in Coral Gables. 

Dr. Patty Khuly July 16th, 2009 08:31:20 AM

Sorry for going on and on with this topic but I can't resist. Stefani reminded me of a point I wanted to make on the issue of pet food. If we do start down this road (which I sincerely hope we do), I wonder what the consequences will be for our pets. There will be plenty of infected, downer-cow leftovers on the chopping block for dogs and cats to consume. It may not be fit for human consumption but for animals, the rendering plants will go into overdrive.

Will it drop our pet food costs? In the short term, at least, I think so. But will those prices hold once better farming practices take hold? I think not. Will pet food be subject to higher bacterial counts as well? And what would these higher bacterial counts in the animals mean for our pets' health? For human health for those handling their diets? Interesting issue. 

PS for Heather: I recommended Pollan's book specifically for you because you raised the issue of corn. The entire first chapter is dedicated to corn as an industry. You'll find it fascinating.

Dr. Patty Khuly July 16th, 2009 08:38:21 AM

Subsidized agriculture actually benefits these large megafarming corporations. 

Also, just to put together some interesting connections for you.....

One of the huge megafarming corporations, AgriNorthwest, is owned by the Mormon church.  The Mormon church put millions of dollars into getting gay marriage banned in CA.  You can smell the Agrinorthwest feedlots for miles. 

I agree with the poster that pointed out that our mega serving sizes and massive overconsumption of meat are enhanced by our artificially low meat prices.  Think about it.  Some cuts of meat are actually less expensive by the pound than veggies.  We would be better off if we were forced, by cost, to a diet of less animal protein and more vegetables and veggie based protein.  You can get all the amino acids you can get from meat by eating grains and legumes in the same meal.

jen July 16th, 2009 11:56:35 AM

So far, I am paying for houses for people who can't afford them, wages for carmakers who can't afford to pay them, health care for people who can't afford to pay for it, ...

The Obama plan for everything else is:  If you can't afford it, the Gov't will give it to you free and bill it to me.

So I think I am for anything that will drive the price up so much I can't afford it.

Bob Jones July 16th, 2009 04:11:48 PM

"The research? Fuzzy."  We've already sacrificed quite a few humans by making antibiotics more difficult to obtain.  Might we do the research before repeating that with animals?

PJBoosinger July 16th, 2009 06:07:54 PM

I go out of my way to purchase meat from local farmers who do not use antibiotics on their livestock.  I am allergic to just about every kind of antibiotic available for humans.  Meat from large scale meat production has made me sick for several years now.  I do not have facts but I have suspucions. 

Whatever the reason, I have found that meat from the smaller farms do not make me sick.  Eggs from the locals do not make me sick either.  So now I win because I can enjoy certain foods again and the local farmers win because I purchase from them.  For folks who care about "going green," the environment wins too since these farmers are my neighbors and the fuel costs for them to provide the supply does not go very high.

Another good point: the meat and eggs from my neighbors tastes like meat and eggs are supposed to.  What I'm saying is, it has flavor.

Kathleen July 19th, 2009 07:25:38 PM

Thanks for this article Docter. Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa

Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa November 8th, 2009 12:16:00 PM

UGG Classic Cardy

Discount Uggs Boots On Sale

Ugg Classic Tall Boots

Ugg Boots Cheap

Ugg New Styles

ugg boots on link November 13th, 2009 11:05:24 AM