FDA Denies Petition to ban widespread antibiotics use on large factory farms

[The Straight Story]

(MONROE, WA) -- Some scientists and a number of consumer and sustainable agriculture advocates are stunned and dismayed that the FDA this week rejected two long standing petitions to ban the use of certain antibiotics used in the commercial mass production of animal food on large “factory farms.”

The petitions date back to 1995 and 2005 and were filed by various consumer, scientist and sustainable agriculture groups who have long been concerned that the ongoing routine use of these drugs in livestock to promote growth and prevent disease in cramped, unsanitary conditions contributes to the development of dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans.

The FDA issued its decision on Wednesday.

The petitions had been filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Union of Concerned Scientists among other groups.

They had requested the FDA withdraw its approval of certain antimicrobial drugs used in large scale animal food production that are considered important for human medicine, like penicillins, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, streptogramins, macrolides, lincomycin and sulfonamides.

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/FDA-DENIES-PETITIONS-TO-BAN-CERTAIN-ANTIBIOTICS-IN-FOOD-PRODUCTION-BR-Says-reason-is-not-based-on-science-822208

[CreekDog]

1. terrible

:wtf:

[RKP5637]

2. Probably another case of "follow the money trail." If it conflicts with profits it's

out the window, "we the people" be damned.

[Vincardog]

3. Probably?

[gateley]

4. Stuff like this just baffles me. They have to read the research/results/reports

on what this is doing to us, and these people eat all the same stuff too -- aren't they concerned for themselves and their families?

[Vincardog]

6. They are pragmatists. If they did not have the DRUGS the animals would DIE. IF the Animals died they

would not make as much money. Pity the poor factory farmer and his $250,000/yr. subsidy

[gateley]

7. Or (I was thinking) they CHOOSE to believe the pro-antibiotic

spin and in that way reassure themselves?

I know too many people who think "well the government wouldn't let the companies do this unless it was safe" and so are unlikely to change anything on their own. This is a tough battle. ALL battles against the huge industries are. :(

[Vincardog]

8. I know some of them and they do not pretend to believe anything other than what benefits themselves

[saras]

9. and worst of all, if they didn't make that much they'd have to eat the same food we eat

[jeff47]

13. What those research/results/reports say is not necessarily as clear as you imply

If they use an antibiotic in livestock that is not given to humans due to widespread resistance, they're not causing any harm.

[nc4bo]

5. I guess it's cheaper to try to kill the results of unsanitary conditions

then to actually prevent and stop them.

Up is down, down is up and antibiotics will always have the ability to kill nasty viruses. We all know germs can never develop immunity.

[SpiralHawk]

10. Crappy corporate (R) mutant chem 'food' product

will make you sick -- in the long run -- in body, mind and spirit.

Eschew crappy corporo-chemo cruddy 'food' product.

[kestrel91316]

11. FDA is run by Big Pharma's lackeys. Selling antibiotics for use in Big Ag is

highly profitable, and we can't interfere with that.

We need to clean house in that place. We actually need to get corporations OUT OF GOVERNMENT ALTOGETHER, but then you already knew that.

Occupy Farming.

[jeff47]

12. It really depends on the antibiotic.

For example, you will never be prescribed the original penicillin. Too many disease-causing bacteria are already resistant to it. Instead, you'll receive penicillin-G (or something completely different). So using the original penicillin in livestock doesn't cause a resistance problem for humans.

Unfortunately, in the coverage on this issue I can't find anything spelling out exactly which antibiotics are being used.