Monthly Archives: March 2012

Antibiotics in Food Animals and the Slippery Slope of Resistance

Posted by foodstate on

In a ruling handed down Thursday by a federal court in New York, the FDA will be required to begin pulling approvals for antimicrobial drugs currently employed in the production of food animals until their manufacturers can prove them safe for the public.

In dispute are penicillin and tetracyclines, which are used widely in America’s food animal production system as a non-therapeutic growth stimulator. These two antibiotics are constantly given to food animals in their water thereby increasing the efficiency of the feed.  The producers who employ these antibiotics also provide for their animals less than ideal living conditions, which lead to increased illness among the herds.  Without this constant stream of antibiotics, food producers would be forced to provide better living conditions for their animals.

Advocacy and public health groups have long been concerned with the effects such practices could have on public health, and have linked the overuse of these antibiotics in animal husbandry to an increased rise in antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.  It has also been well documented that these resistant strains can be transferred from animal to animal and from animal to person.  This can cause infections which are difficult to treat due to the reduction of the effectiveness of antibacterial therapies in both humans and animals.

On the other side of the aisle, producers claim that the health effects are negligible while the increased cost to them could cripple their operations.  Cases such as the so-called “Danish Experiment” show this is simply not true.

A picture of a Hereford bull. Taken by the US ...

A Hereford Bull (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 1999, the Danish Government banned the use of growth promoting antimicrobials.  Since then, several epidemiological studies, most notably from the World Health Organization (WHO), found no serious negative side effects from the the elimination of such products in animal husbandry.  Instead, they found a significant decrease in resistant bacterial strains, thus reducing the threat of resistance in people and improving overall health to the animals and the population.

Of course, without antibiotics as a growth enhancer the producer must use more feed and pass that cost onto the consumer.  The average cost per year: just $15 a household.  With one study estimating the health costs of treating drug resistant strains of bacteria at $26 billion a year, I would say the benefits to public health well justify $1.25 per month more.

It has been said again and again that antibiotics are miracle drugs.  I couldn’t agree more.  They have saved countless lives since their discovery.  It is well documented, however, that their over-prescription leads to serious threats to public health through decreased effectiveness.  If the animals we eat are consuming these antibiotics every day it is sure to produce negative side effects for the treatment of illness in both the animals and the people who eat them.

This latest ruling forcing the FDA to reconsider its policies regarding the use of antibiotics as growth promoters is a substantial gain in the safety of the food we eat and could have significant impacts on the public health systems in America and the health of the public at large.  Though this latest decision is not a firm ban on non-therapeutic antibiotics as a growth promoter, the burden of proof has fallen to the drug manufacturers to show that the use of these drugs in this way is not harmful to public health.  These substances have already been banned widely across the world to little negative impact on the production of food animals and great benefits to the public sector.

The drug companies have had free reign for many decades to market their product to food producers a quick fix, without being responsible for the damage it has caused.  If we have the sense of rest of the developed world, where non-therapeutic use has been banned for some time, we will end the unregulated use of these wonder drugs and reserve their abilities for when they are truly needed.

Another Blow to Organic and non-GMO farmers

Posted by foodstate on

Feb. 24, 2012 saw yet another blow to organic and non-GMO farmers who along with the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association had brought suit against Monsanto to the Federal District Court in Manhattan which sought to provide protection to independent organic and non-GMO farmers and would have prevented Monsanto from bringing litigious actions against these farmers whose seed had been cross pollinated by Monsanto’s GMOs.  The suit also questioned Monsanto’s right to patent a life form.

Unfortunately Judge Naomi Buchwald did not find merit in the suit and ruled in favor of the agro-giant Monsanto. 

Under current law any farmers seed which is found to have been cross pollinated with Monsanto seed is could be seen as an infringement on Monsanto’s patent of that seed, leaving the farmer open to suit despite the fact that cross pollination is a natural and necessary process for seeds and crops to adapt and stay viable.  

While the fight to protect the interest of those farmers who wish to maintain autonomy from Monsanto and their seed continues, Judge Naomi Buchwald’s ruling of the case reveals a deeper concern for consumers wishing to buy organic products. In which she states “organic certification is a process based” and “if all aspects of the organic production or handling process were followed correctly, then the presence of a detectable residue from a genetically modified organism alone does not constitute a violation of this regulation.” 

So, a transgenic seed could then be used in organic farming? 

It would seem that way, and in fact a quick reading of the USDA’s standards for seed and planting stock in organic operations makes no mention of transgenic or GMO whatsoever.

Shamefully perhaps, especially as someone who works in an industry which places a huge emphasis on eating organics, this is news to me.

It would seem then, as a consumer wishing to eat non-GMO and organic foods my options are actually rather limited, that try as I might to est only organics they may not be everything I thought they where, and the emphasis then instead of focusing on fighting a major multinational corporation with nearly unlimited resources should rather be placed on informing consumers on the true nature of the food they are eating.

Fortunately, there are associations out there fighting for this very thing. The Non-GMO Project is working with retailers and producers across the country to certify foods as non-GMO while California this year will vote on a ballot initiative requiring that all food sold will be tested for the presence of transgenic traits and make mandatory all products with these traits be labeled clearly for the consumer.

While its important to keep fighting the ‘biotech bullies’, it seems the most important step in the fight should begin with the consumer not the producer.  By allowing the public to vote with their dollar about whether or not they want to consume genetically modified goods is an important first step in not only protecting the integrity of our food but also in showing the aggro-business giants like Monsanto that in fact not all of us want to buy what they are selling.