Duane A. Lienemann UNL Extension Educator,
Webster County June 3, 2011 Edition
It is interesting to me that just over two years ago several anti-animal livestock groups lobbied senators in California to introduce a bill to restrict antibiotic use in animal agriculture. While it seems like a lot of “farm unfriendly” rules, regulations and bills seem to start in that state (look at Prop 2 that was pushed by HSUS), I was more concerned that it would sweep across the nation and particularly reach the Federal level. It did just that in March of 2009 when U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, introduced legislation that would require drug manufacturers to go through a new approval process to ensure that antibiotics used in farm animals don't pose a danger to human health. Slaughter said at the time that mounting evidence showed that routine antibiotic use in “factory farms” was leading to drug resistance in humans. She used the premise that many medical professionals fear the development of a so-called lethal "superbug" resistant to treatment. Unfortunately this was based on emotion rather than science and didn’t get too far. She is at it again.
Senator Slaughter has constantly brought up this “farm use of antibiotic” topic over the last two years and now has found an alliance of several environmental and public health groups who filed a suit against the Food and Drug Administration just this past week to try to force the government to stop farmers from routinely adding antibiotics to livestock feed to help animals grow faster. Rep. Slaughter has filed new legislation that would ban the use of seven antibiotic classes unless animals or herds are ill, or drug companies can prove their use does not harm human health.
The groups say widespread agricultural antibiotic use and the FDA’s allowance of the practice are compounding a public health crisis: the increasing prevalence of “superbugs” that infect people and do not respond to antibiotics. The longer we use these drugs, the less effective the arsenal is the main premise that is stated over and over again by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which filed the complaint in federal court with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animals Concern Trust and Public Citizen.
I was curious on these partners of Senator Slaughter that are pushing this agenda so did some investigating. It was not surprising, but is troubling to me in that each and every one of these groups has a background that people should look at before really buying into their hype. Let’s start with the Union of Concerned Scientists. That sounds pretty impressive and academic, but let’s look at this first one a little closer. I found rather easily that UCS is a highly partisan liberal operation that is well funded by left-leaning foundations and Hollywood celebrities and notorious in ignoring established scientific methodologies for its own purpose. The group has a long history of being just plain wrong on many scientific issues, and its current agenda conforms to the extremes of environmentalist ideology. Moreover, UCS is neither representative of the scientific community at large nor is it a gathering of top scientists. Instead, a cadre of senior staff whose credentials are steeped more in Washington policy-making than in scientific research rides herd over a grassroots membership from all walks of life. You too can be a Concerned Scientist for a new member fee of $35!
One of its partners in this endeavor is the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is labeled as a “liberal consumer advocacy organization”. I thought that group sounded familiar, and the reason why is that it is the very group that sued McDonald's over the toys in the happy meals amongst other activities, including blaming obesity on the price of ag commodities, subsidies and the Farm Bill. Another liberal consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. Boy does that bring back some memories. The Natural Resources Defense Council is well known as a radical liberal environmental group. I found it interesting that John Bryson, who is just now being appointed to the White House Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. Why is that important? Well, at the beginning of his career he founded the Natural Resources Defense Council. I wonder if that is just pure coincidence. Now the last partner should not be a surprise at all. The Animals Concern Trust is an anti-factory farm, animal rights/welfare group. Hmmmm, I wonder what their agenda is? I have found that they all constantly use the term “Factory Farm” when referencing producers as well.
Anti-modern livestock-production groups are trying to compel the FDA to ban antibiotics used to prevent animals from getting sick because those groups have a belief — not scientific evidence — that such FDA-approved animal health products are causing antibiotic resistance in people. Debate has raged for at least 30 years about using antibiotics in animal feed, so this is not new. The agricultural and pharmaceutical industries have pushed against similar efforts in the past and contend that antibiotics are a necessary part of good farm management and that the health risk is minimal. They point out that the ones currently being used in animals are “old” antibiotics. They've been used for 50 years, and if the 'superbug' was going to develop, it would have developed already. Most producers will tell you that those uses are justified, and I doubt you will find much evidence showing a link between animal antibiotic use and resistance in humans. I think one of the biggest problems is a disconnect between urban and rural entities, and once again a push from fringe animal rights and Vegan groups who try every trick in the book to bring down the meat producing industry. I really think that many urban people don't understand that on the farm we want to prevent disease and have vested interest in the welfare and well being of our animals. By the way, what is a “factory farm”? Most producers I know are family farmers.
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: www.webster.unl.edu/home
No comments:
Post a Comment