FDA to require prescription for antibiotics in livestock

[tangent4ronpaul]

Farmers and ranchers will for the first time need a prescription from a veterinarian before using antibiotics in farm animals, in hopes that more judicious use of the drugs will reduce the tens of thousands of human deaths that result each year from the drugs' overuse.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the new rules Wednesday after trying for more than 35 years to stop farmers and ranchers from feeding antibiotics to cattle, pigs, chickens and other animals simply to help the animals grow larger. Using small amounts of antibiotics over long periods of time leads to the growth of bacteria that are resistant to the drugs' effects, endangering humans who become infected but cannot be treated with routine antibiotic therapy.

More at link...

The noose tightens...

-t

[angelatc]

You know, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I hate the government, but I hate the farmers that are putting that antibiotics in the cattle. I'm not convinced that they're causing tens of thousands of deaths though.

[leonster]

You know, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I hate the government, but I hate the farmers that are putting that antibiotics in the cattle. I'm not convinced that they're causing tens of thousands of deaths though.

One of those situations with no good guys....

[dannno]

One of those situations with no good guys....

Not really.. If a free range cattle got bit by a snake or cut itself some how there could be a legitimate use for anti-biotics.

The problem is that in the factory farms they feed the animals massive amounts of hormones to make them grow bigger and faster or to allow milking cows to milk all year long. This along with being in close quarters with relatively filthy conditions leads to udder infections in the milking cows, broken bones, cancers and other injuries in the other animals that requires a lot of anti-biotics.

[Lishy]

You know, I MIGHT agree with this, if I understand it correctly. A farmer should require a prescription from a Vet before giving medicine to his animals? What's the catch?

[angelatc]

You know, I MIGHT agree with this, if I understand it correctly. A farmer should require a prescription from a Vet before giving medicine to his animals? What's the catch?

Well, for starts, most of us aren't convinced that we should need a prescription for anything.

[tttppp]

I'll bet there are better ways to solve this problem. However, if this law is actually enforced, it could be positive. If it prevents farmers from pumping up its animals with a bunch of drugs, then thats great. I'd much rather have REAL food.

[angelatc]

I'll bet there are better ways to solve this problem. However, if this law is actually enforced, it could be positive. If it prevents farmers from pumping up its animals with a bunch of drugs, then thats great. I'd much rather have REAL food.

But why can't the market decide? I'd rather have cheaper beef - I don't really care about the antibiotics in my beef as long as it's cheaper.

[tttppp]

But why can't the market decide? I'd rather have cheaper beef - I don't really care about the antibiotics in my beef as long as it's cheaper.

Like I said, there are better ways to do this. I have an idea that would motivate the market to eliminate fake food by themselves, without regulations. That would be the best solution.

However, as a consumer, I would appreciate being able to pick up any piece of meat and know its mostly healthy. Meat with crap in it may be cheaper, but it will cost you more in medical expenses in the long run.

Be creative. I'm sure there are many other ways too where you could eliminate garbage in your food. Another idea would be to have better disclosure. And hold companies accountable for it. There are plenty of companies which advertise their meat as antibiotic free, however I know they are full of $#@!, and nobody does anything about it.

[angelatc]

Like I said, there are better ways to do this. I have an idea that would motivate the market to eliminate fake food by themselves, without regulations. That would be the best solution.

However, as a consumer, I would appreciate being able to pick up any piece of meat and know its mostly healthy. Meat with crap in it may be cheaper, but it will cost you more in medical expenses in the long run. .

I don't believe the propaganda about medical costs. Again, Americans are living longer now than at any point in history, including the era in time when 85% of the population farmed their own food. Anecdotal evidence supports my case, not yours. I think that preservatives and antibiotics make the odds of meat being contaminated smaller, not bigger.

But more importantly, you're saying here is that when it really comes down to it, you don't really mind if the government takes away choices in the market, as long as you think society is better off as a result, using criteria weighed as you believe they should be weighed.

This is definitely the liberal infestation. When it comes down to it, they believe they are smarter than the rest of the population, and therefore it's ok to use government to do things their way. After all, it's for the common good.

[tttppp]

I don't believe the propaganda about medical costs. Again, Americans are living longer now than at any point in history, including the era in time when 85% of the population farmed their own food. Anecdotal evidence supports my case, not yours. I think that preservatives and antibiotics make the odds of meat being contaminated smaller, not bigger.

But more importantly, you're saying here is that when it really comes down to it, you don't really mind if the government takes away choices in the market, as long as you think society is better off as a result, using criteria weighed as you believe they should be weighed.

This is definitely the liberal infestation. When it comes down to it, they believe they are smarter than the rest of the population, and therefore it's ok to use government to do things their way. After all, it's for the common good.

People may be living longer now, but medical costs have gone way up. This is because people are eating unhealthier food and the medical industry only covers up the problems, it doesn't cure anything. The facts support my case, not yours.

Eating meat with antibiotics is roughly the same as getting a shot of antibiotics. If you required a shot of antibiotics to eat meat, I'm sure you would prefer to eat something else.

Also, what is wrong with my idea of eliminating all regulations and putting in a system that will motivate farmers to produce real food without any regulations?

[puppetmaster]

But why can't the market decide? I'd rather have cheaper beef - I don't really care about the antibiotics in my beef as long as it's cheaper.

I agree let the market decide, like they decided in the pink slime debate. I raise my own so it is a non issue with me but many would be taken aback if they were informed of how their food is grown and processed.

[angelatc]

I agree let the market decide, like they decided in the pink slime debate. I raise my own so it is a non issue with me but many would be taken aback if they were informed of how their food is grown and processed.

They didn't decide anything in the pink slime fiasco. That was nothing but a baseless liberal slam job by the media who know how exactly to manipulate people with emotion over fact.

And yes, most people don't want to see their beef slaughtered. They'd rather not clean out their own septic tanks, too. They pay other people to handle the nastier bits of life for them. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

[dannno]

But why can't the market decide? I'd rather have cheaper beef - I don't really care about the antibiotics in my beef as long as it's cheaper.

That's rather short-sighted.

What if you or one of your kids got an infection that the hospital couldn't treat properly because of the anti-biotics in the cheap meat you buy and it ended up costing hundreds of thousands in medical bills, or worse, if it caused death?

I mean, I think you should be free to put whatever you want in your body and damage you and your kids however you want, but does that mean it is the best decision?

[Brett85]

I'll bet there are better ways to solve this problem. However, if this law is actually enforced, it could be positive. If it prevents farmers from pumping up its animals with a bunch of drugs, then thats great. I'd much rather have REAL food.

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

[angelatc]

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

I am so happy to see all of us here in a single thread, finally.

[tfurrh]

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

+REP. I was thinking the same thing. How can the 1st 10 comments on this page give more gov't regulation the benefit of a doubt? BLEW MY MIND.

edit: After reading more comments. I am taken aback completely.....COME ON PEOPLE. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR LIBERTY. Thread fail

[craezie]

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

Most farmers these days only care about making a buck, and are destroying the biodiversity of nature by planting genetically modified plants which spread into the natural gene pool, destroying the environment through over-use of toxic pesticides and herbicides, and creating deadly super-bacteria through irresponsible livestock management.

I am in no way a "liberal", and I don't even 100% agree with RP on foreign policy or drugs. People should be free to manage their time, bodies and property in any way they see fit so long as it does not harm others rights. There are those, however, who would exploit the environment, health and lives of others to make a buck. I'm sorry, but factory farmers fit in that category, and are doing it on taxpayers' dimes to boot. Food supply is the very cornerstone of our individual lives and corporate society. When it is allowed to be destroyed in ways that are irreversible, the only people that win are Monsanto and government power brokers.

[dannno]

Most farmers these days only care about making a buck, and are destroying the biodiversity of nature by planting genetically modified plants which spread into the natural gene pool, destroying the environment through over-use of toxic pesticides and herbicides, and creating deadly super-bacteria through irresponsible livestock management.

I am in no way a "liberal", and I don't even 100% agree with RP on foreign policy or drugs. People should be free to manage their time, bodies and property in any way they see fit so long as it does not harm others rights. There are those, however, who would exploit the environment, health and lives of others to make a buck. I'm sorry, but factory farmers fit in that category, and are doing it on taxpayers' dimes to boot. Food supply is the very cornerstone of our individual lives and corporate society. When it is allowed to be destroyed in ways that are irreversible, the only people that win are Monsanto and government power brokers.

What would you say if you found out that this law was actually written by Monsanto for the benefit of large corporate factory farms to the detriment of small and medium sized farms? You are ignoring the fact that a large factory farm has no issue hiring a full-time vet to go from site to site and write prescriptions, but that it is very expensive for smaller and medium sized farms.

So logically, the only solution is to take the government power away from the brokers.

[craezie]

What would you say if you found out that this law was actually written by Monsanto for the benefit of large corporate factory farms to the detriment of small and medium sized farms? You are ignoring the fact that a large factory farm has no issue hiring a full-time vet to go from site to site and write prescriptions, but that it is very expensive for smaller and medium sized farms.

So logically, the only solution is to take the government power away from the brokers.

You are right, there is no solution to any of this so long as 1. Monsanto and other corporate interests are allowed to manipulate government regulators and laws to their own whims and 2. the travesty that is government farm subsidies (mostly received by large factory farms) exists

However, I still maintain that regulating antibiotic use (and GMOs for that matter) is an appropriate use of government authority because of the greater danger to public health and the environment. In my belief, it is 100% necessary to protecting my rights to life and property.

The fact that our government cannot do any of its appropriate roles correctly, due to extreme corruption, is another issue.

[tfurrh]

Most farmers these days only care about making a buck

As opposed to the olden days where farmers farmed for naught? I miss those good ole days when farmers became hopelessly impoverished.

the first priority of any business is to profit. And besides, you've got everything backwards.

[angelatc]

People should be free to manage their time, bodies and property in any way they see fit so long as it does not harm others rights. There are those, however, who would exploit the environment, health and lives of others to make a buck. I'm sorry, but factory farmers fit in that category, and are doing it on taxpayers' dimes to boot. Food supply is the very cornerstone of our individual lives and corporate society. When it is allowed to be destroyed in ways that are irreversible, the only people that win are Monsanto and government power brokers.

Do you see what you did there?

[Brett85]

Most farmers these days only care about making a buck, and are destroying the biodiversity of nature by planting genetically modified plants which spread into the natural gene pool, destroying the environment through over-use of toxic pesticides and herbicides, and creating deadly super-bacteria through irresponsible livestock management.

I am in no way a "liberal", and I don't even 100% agree with RP on foreign policy or drugs. People should be free to manage their time, bodies and property in any way they see fit so long as it does not harm others rights. There are those, however, who would exploit the environment, health and lives of others to make a buck. I'm sorry, but factory farmers fit in that category, and are doing it on taxpayers' dimes to boot. Food supply is the very cornerstone of our individual lives and corporate society. When it is allowed to be destroyed in ways that are irreversible, the only people that win are Monsanto and government power brokers.

Most farmers care about making enough money to support their families. Hardly anyone gets rich from farming, except for a few big corporate farmers. A law like this will only hurt the small farmers, not the big corporate farmers. Even going beyond this particular law, where is the Constitutional authority for the FDA to even exist? I didn't see that when I read through article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Where is the Constitutional authority for the EPA? The EPA has no authority to regulate herbicides and pesticides, because the EPA has no authority to even exist. Also, how exactly do you expect farmers to farm without using herbicides and pesticides?

[tttppp]

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

Maybe you missed my post where I said you can motivate farmers to produce real food without the use of any regulations. I don't see how this isn't consistent with Ron Paul.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's official...this forum has been over run with liberals who only support Ron because of his position on foreign policy and the war on drugs. I grew up on a family farm, and I can tell you that the government doesn't have the right to tell us how to farm, period! Government sucks.

Except for when it regulates abortion, marriage, a massive military costing hundreds of billions a year, police, a secret prison system where alleged terrorists are tortured and often killed, and the Intelligence State, a court system, intellectual property...

[Brett85]

Except for when it regulates abortion, marriage, a massive military costing hundreds of billions a year, police, a secret prison system where alleged terrorists are tortured and often killed, and the Intelligence State, a court system, intellectual property...

Even Ron Paul supports regulating some of those things, such as abortion and marriage. He believes that we should have a strong military, local police, intelligence agencies, a court system, and intellectual property. He doesn't support secret prisons, and neither do I. But, even though I'm not an anarchist, I'm still more libertarian than most of the people posting in this thread and the minimum wage thread. How exactly can these people arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage call themselves "libertarians" in any way?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Even Ron Paul supports regulating some of those things, such as abortion and marriage. He believes that we should have a strong military, local police, intelligence agencies, a court system, and intellectual property. He doesn't support secret prisons, and neither do I. But, even though I'm not an anarchist, I'm still more libertarian than most of the people posting in this thread and the minimum wage thread. How exactly can these people arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage call themselves "libertarians" in any way?

Just exhibiting the macho flash. You're right, though, the approval of the FDA regulations in this thread is appalling.

And I'm happy to see that you've changed your position on Gitmo. For liberty!

[tttppp]

Even Ron Paul supports regulating some of those things, such as abortion and marriage. He believes that we should have a strong military, local police, intelligence agencies, a court system, and intellectual property. He doesn't support secret prisons, and neither do I. But, even though I'm not an anarchist, I'm still more libertarian than most of the people posting in this thread and the minimum wage thread. How exactly can these people arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage call themselves "libertarians" in any way?

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

[Keith and stuff]

This new regulation is going to increase the cost of meat and eggs. For example

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...estock-630927/

Christine Hoang of the American Veterinary Medical Association said her organization supported the new rules, although she said some remote or small farmers might have trouble abiding by the rules, since there are fewer than 10,000 large-animal veterinarians in the United States.

But R.C. Hunt, president of the National Pork Producers Council, said small farmers and ranchers would have a hard time following the new rules, which "could eliminate antibiotics uses that are extremely important to the health of animals."

[luctor-et-emergo]

Well one of the main reasons why antibiotics stop working...
Is people put antibiotics in anything that doesn't look 100% okay.

So from this point of view it's very interesting. Although it would be better if the public could simply choose to buy their meat from a responsible farmer. There was some antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken meat here in Europe.. Nearly all chickens that were non-organic had this bacteria in them (those are fed antibiotics on default), this was over 90%. In organic raised chickens, it was under 5% that carried this bacteria.

From my perspective, any reduction in the use of antibiotics is good. The more we use them, the more likely they are to stop working. And then we have to find another antibiotic again...

But this is one thing the government certainly does NOT have to do. In the Netherlands/Europe they found a semi-fascist way to resolve this problem. There's a member funded regulator called 'SKAL', although they receive their rules and authority from the European union, the actual organization is funded by the farmers that want to use the 'SKAL' label(organic equivalent). So I'm glad something like this exists, although some of the rules are just making the whole 'organic' thing mega expensive. One example, a chicken that's raised organically can't get antibiotics or hormones, it has to eat 100% organic varied foods and has to have around 10sqft indoor space and 40sqft outdoor space, about 60 times as much as a factory farmed chicken. But it's only 4 times as expensive in the end... (and for some weird reason the farmer also makes more).

Anyways, the only thing that appears to be missing over here, is competition in labels. So the market and the people can choose. I definitely see people interested in where their food comes from again.. Which is a good thing.