FDA to require prescription for antibiotics in livestock

[XNavyNuke]

This is how they run the little guy out of business..

The factory farms can hire a vet to work on-site and administer the anti-biotics to as many animals as they want.

The small farmer has to pay exorbitant amounts for legitimate use of anti-biotics on their farm animals.

+1 rep for you Danno. This is what the ruling is all about. That is why agribusiness and AVMA have lobbied so hard for the regulation. Acute use of antibiotics is not where resistant strains are created, rather it is the continuous use of low levels as a prophylactic in entire herds. This is needed because the animals are raised in an environment where they are continuously exposed to vectors. Can you say CAFO's? Big companies have vets on staff. This affects them not one bit. Just another piece of paperwork in the pile that they are already pushing. It exclusively affects those of us who have to call out a private vet for diagnosis and treatment. The only thing this is designed to do is push medium producers into the hands of the megacorps with veterinary staffs. Small producers risk going out of business or operating outside the law, aka criminalization.

Is antibiotics resistance a health issue? Of course. Will this make a significant difference on a per-animal basis of those receiving treatment? No - and thats the problem! The issue is being used as an economic weapon that all the do-gooders can jump on board with. Bait and switch. The same way we've lost all of the freedoms. Slick talked out of them. Congrats!

XNN

[tttppp]

+1 rep for you Danno. This is what the ruling is all about. That is why agribusiness and AVMA have lobbied so hard for the regulation. Acute use of antibiotics is not where resistant strains are created, rather it is the continuous use of low levels as a prophylactic in entire herds. This is needed because the animals are raised in an environment where they are continuously exposed to vectors. Can you say CAFO's? Big companies have vets on staff. This affects them not one bit. Just another piece of paperwork in the pile that they are already pushing. It exclusively affects those of us who have to call out a private vet for diagnosis and treatment. The only thing this is designed to do is push medium producers into the hands of the megacorps with veterinary staffs. Small producers risk going out of business or operating outside the law, aka criminalization.

Is antibiotics resistance a health issue? Of course. Will this make a significant difference on a per-animal basis of those receiving treatment? No - and thats the problem! The issue is being used as an economic weapon that all the do-gooders can jump on board with. Bait and switch. The same way we've lost all of the freedoms. Slick talked out of them. Congrats!

XNN

If thats the case, farmers shouldn't be allowed to get the prescription from a vet on their payroll. But thats hard to regulate. As I said before, there are much better ways to get antibiotics, growth hormones, and all the other fake crap out of our food.

[tod evans]

These people writing "laws" need to be stopped!

Listen to Ron Paul............Start by repealing several thousand laws...

[r3volution]

If I was the kind of guy that put out of context quotes in my sig line in a lame attempt to try and embarrass people, that one would be a killer.

But I'm not that kind of guy.

burn

[Brett85]

There is a difference between someone who likes a couple of regulations than someone who wants to overregulate everything to death.

What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to pass regulations? I guess there's a few specific types of regulations that are authorized by the Constitution, such as bankruptcy laws. But, I certainly don't see how a law like this could be considered Constitutional for anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment.

[tttppp]

What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to pass regulations? I guess there's a few specific types of regulations that are authorized by the Constitution, such as bankruptcy laws. But, I certainly don't see how a law like this could be considered Constitutional for anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment.

I'm not the constitutional expert, so you tell me. If its not constitutional, you can always change the constitution and make it legal. What makes it right for food manufacturers to sucker people into unknowingly buy tainted food? There are many ways the government could insure the safety of our food without placing any burdensome regulations on people. The government could actually eliminate thousands of regulations and still be able to insure the safety of our food.

I believe in only having a few regulations that create a tremendous amount of benefit, and placing a system that motivates companies to do the right thing. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

WOW! I didn't think this thread would take off, so should have checked back earlier. You peeps have hit some good points, but missed one of my main points completely: "THE NOOSE TIGHTENS!". Denial of access to medical care and medicine has historically been used by repressive regimes to control the population. Right now, the only access to antibiotics without a prescription is via vet meds. For the 4 most common ones, they come off the same production lines as the Rx/prescription ones for "human" drugs.

This is how they run the little guy out of business..

The factory farms can hire a vet to work on-site and administer the anti-biotics to as many animals as they want.

The small farmer has to pay exorbitant amounts for legitimate use of anti-biotics on their farm animals.

BINGO!

McDonalds wouldn't have as big an edge on local burger places because they wouldn't have access to extra-low priced meat that is heavily subsidized, and the local burger places would more likely get the quality meat because the decision will not affect the bottom line as much. Also it might help them keep customers.

...

If I don't need a prescription for medicine, why should animals?

Micky D's and similar get their meat from overseas where these regulations have no effect.

You almost got my main point...

will this be the death blow for the dollar menu?

No, again they get their meat from other countries where the lack of regulatory burden makes the meat affordable.

how exactly do you expect farmers to farm without using herbicides and pesticides?

There was not much in the way of herbicides and pesticides 100 years ago, beyond companion planting. Outside of sulfa drugs, (and a number of native american poultices that have never been properly creditied that are much older) antibiotics didn't really exist prior to WWII.

Something else to take into consideration is that antibiotics are a medicine that will pass out of your/the animals system in a fairly short period of time. It's not like you were feeding the chickens lead pain and having it build up in their muscle mass.

-t

[Acala]

If you don't want anti-biotics in your beef, buy organic, grass fed beef. I do.

But here is an angle you may not have considered - prudent folks preparing for the inevitable collapse of the American economy "might" want to have a stock of broad-spectrum antibiotics on hand for emergencies. Guess what the best source is for cheap, pure anti-biotics without a prescription? Vet meds. Guess what cuts off that source?

THIS FREAKING LAW!!!!

edit: I see that tangent did post on this. I got impatient with the thread and skipped to the end. I would have posted sooner but I was busy buying some cipro