The use of antibiotics in healthy food animals has been an ongoing concern for many scientists and medical personnel. A scientific study began by Dr. Frederick J. Angulo that started in 1969 and continues today titled, Antibiotic Resistance and Food Animal Production: A Bibliography of Scientific Studies, concerns “the contribution of routine antibiotic use in food animals to the growing public health crisis of human antibiotic resistance” (PEW Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming). For some time, corporate farmers have been using the same antibiotics humans use to prevent illness for their food animals to promote sanitary conditions and increase animal population. As much as 70% of antibiotics in the United States go to these corporate farmers. Though leading medical groups has warned the practice will endanger human health, corporate farmers seem to believe their concerns for the practice is enough to continue on without listening to the effects. Industrial farmers’ concerns has them overuse antibiotics in food animals- from improving unsanitary and overcrowded conditions to speeding animal growth- the risk of antibiotic use in healthy food animals outweigh the benefits and ultimately the practice should be prohibited.
Proponents of the industrial farming world are right to argue that the use of antibiotics in these healthy food animals improves the unsanitary and overcrowding conditions of these farms, but they are missing the even bigger picture- antibiotic use in these animals can create new strains of dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are potentially fatal in humans. Many of the antibiotics used in industrial farming range from tetracycline, sulfonamides, to penicillin that are used for health problems like the flu, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and chlamydia (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Try to imagine a world in which these popular health concerns in humans are untreatable. The bacteria and fungi that create these health problems are resistant to these antibiotics that are prescribed to humans. It seems industrial farmers are unaware of the health risks or maybe they do not care. Perhaps we can conclude from their ignorance of human health that they just do not get sick and never needed an antibiotic. It may be reasonable to conclude that the industrial farmers feel because a strand of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has yet to be derived from their practices, they are just going to continue until there is an outcry in society for the ban of antibiotic use in food animals.
How is it that you can give an animal that is being prepared for slaughter a drug that ultimately keeps it healthy- hence healthy food animals- but turn around and give this same antibiotic to a person who you expect to live out a healthy life? Is this a way in stating antibiotics are meaningless and death is for sure to come to every person? This may be the case for industrial farmers. Since death is certain in all persons, the controversy over the potential risks of this practice should be ignored. Industrial farmers may argue that the practice has other benefits that the people should keep in mind when going off of this issue like who would not want to eat a healthy animal; this is the deception they want people to fall under. That it is healthy, so it is good for you. When actually eating antibiotic grown food animals could potentially produce a strand of bacteria in your body that no antibiotic prescribed could rid you of, the bacteria is resistant.
Ultimately, what is at stake here is people’s health. The Food and Drug Administration should take extra precautions before they allow a practice that can produce fatal consequences on a global level. The government should worry more about what is in the people’s food and what are the pros and cons of it. The people should also take more of an initiative to get educated on the foods we buy and eat. Start by asking questions and reading labels on the foods you buy. Ban the use of antibiotics in healthy food animals to ultimately prevent the world of producing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Proponents of the industrial farming world are right to argue that the use of antibiotics in these healthy food animals improves the unsanitary and overcrowding conditions of these farms, but they are missing the even bigger picture- antibiotic use in these animals can create new strains of dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are potentially fatal in humans. Many of the antibiotics used in industrial farming range from tetracycline, sulfonamides, to penicillin that are used for health problems like the flu, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and chlamydia (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Try to imagine a world in which these popular health concerns in humans are untreatable. The bacteria and fungi that create these health problems are resistant to these antibiotics that are prescribed to humans. It seems industrial farmers are unaware of the health risks or maybe they do not care. Perhaps we can conclude from their ignorance of human health that they just do not get sick and never needed an antibiotic. It may be reasonable to conclude that the industrial farmers feel because a strand of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has yet to be derived from their practices, they are just going to continue until there is an outcry in society for the ban of antibiotic use in food animals.
How is it that you can give an animal that is being prepared for slaughter a drug that ultimately keeps it healthy- hence healthy food animals- but turn around and give this same antibiotic to a person who you expect to live out a healthy life? Is this a way in stating antibiotics are meaningless and death is for sure to come to every person? This may be the case for industrial farmers. Since death is certain in all persons, the controversy over the potential risks of this practice should be ignored. Industrial farmers may argue that the practice has other benefits that the people should keep in mind when going off of this issue like who would not want to eat a healthy animal; this is the deception they want people to fall under. That it is healthy, so it is good for you. When actually eating antibiotic grown food animals could potentially produce a strand of bacteria in your body that no antibiotic prescribed could rid you of, the bacteria is resistant.
Ultimately, what is at stake here is people’s health. The Food and Drug Administration should take extra precautions before they allow a practice that can produce fatal consequences on a global level. The government should worry more about what is in the people’s food and what are the pros and cons of it. The people should also take more of an initiative to get educated on the foods we buy and eat. Start by asking questions and reading labels on the foods you buy. Ban the use of antibiotics in healthy food animals to ultimately prevent the world of producing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.