Antibiotics and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Meat: Not Getting Better

Yea. How about going back to the idea that we should eat more other stuff, and less meat instead of the "I want all the meat on my plate right now for pennies on the pound" ideal that people seem to currently have.

Based on the recent horsemeat scandal, it appears there are a lot of "cheaters" when it comes to the EU meat supply. How is the ban enforced?

That 10% may not be accurate.

In any case, the EU actually only banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, but not as 'preventative medicine'. Furthermore, the level of reporting on actual EU antibiotic use is somewhat spotty - especially given the multinational nature of it all. At best, the ban on growth promotion resulted in an ~10% decrease in antibiotic use. The massive scale on which preventative antibiotic use is applied likely minimized any negative impacts the removal of growth promotion had on actual growth rates.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2011/a/ant...

This is pretty outdated http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/swine/swineday/sday96/psd10-96.ht... but it indicates but antibiotics are not directly involved in that process.

If antibiotics are not directly correlated here, Im wondering if they already tried to measure "sweet spot" of such treatment use (they are able to get the best effect of antibiotics paying as low as possible for them).

I'm also wondering about those numbers, they are clearly stable in 3 years row (using data from last 6 years) there might be some methodology that is applied between food companies, like mean 3 years average ?

Your argument would be stronger if you didn't have such disrespect for the people you don't agree with. The argument wouldn't be that everyone would test foods with handheld chemo whatever's, but rather that private analogs to the FDA would exist. Think consumer reports for health/nutrition vs product quality. The thinking is that one of the problems with the FDA is that since it is a government agency, it reacts to these things slowly and is prone to corruption. Most people say "I can eat anything on the shelf because the government has taken the time to make sure its not bad for me, they always go on and on about the success of the FDA after all". The problem is that oftentimes there are problems with things even if they are approved. If you instead had independent agencies doing this, there is a possibility that we would have a culture that leaned more towards research and discussion (the same way people ask all the time about which computer to buy). I'm sure you'll argue that corruption would happen here too, but the idea is that having multiple agencies, all of which are reasonably legally liable (unlike a government agency where if they make a mistake its particularly difficult to punish them), allows competition so its harder to buy out everyone when you create an interest in an upstart showing how you were wrong in your analysis. With the FDA, there may be opposing sides (e.g. let's say the "organic" lobby and the "farmers" lobby that could potentially try to convince the FDA of one thing or another), but at the end one decision is made.

I am in no way arguing that this point of view is correct, however essentially calling people with opposing viewpoints idiots doesn't convince anyone of your side, it makes you appear like you have not actually taken the time to listen to those arguments, and thus will at best only preach to the choir. Of course if this was only meant to be a rant, then carry on.

EDIT: This article shows what I was referring to in terms of "binary decisions": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-...

The FDA has been hesitant to tackle this in the past because it feels it hasn't had sufficient evidence. This is why we perhaps need a gradient instead of approved/disapproved. With multiple competing agencies, some would be much more conservative and be willing to speak up sooner. The point I'm trying to make is that people who disagree with you look at the current situation with antibiotics and say "see, here we have the FDA and this is still happening". Whereas you say "See, this is happening and why we need the FDA".

I never had the view that 'die young' was a good way to go when I was as a teenager, but I did generally have the idea that being old sucked because you'd inevitably get bogged down by diseases and ailments.

That was until I met my neighbor, who's in his late 70s. He is simply the smartest person I know (a biomedical engineer, with knowledge of nearly everything you can bring up)... it seems as if he's still at the height of his intellect. My perception of things since meeting him has changed -- if you take good care of yourself now, exercise, take your vitamins, etc. you can really genuinely enjoy life when you're older. The guy spends the morning of every other day at the gym for about an hour. He can lift more weight more comfortably than I can -- he's almost 80, I'm in my mid-20s.

Also see William Shatner: http://www.reddit.com/user/williamshatner

The guy is 81 years old and so very astute and smart.

Right, but the response to that argument is that most diet based health problems are slow-burning, chronic and painful.

Yes. But the human numbers gives something like 8 million pounds of antibiotics over something like 300 million people, or something like 0.03 pounds per person per year. By weight, there are something around... 8-10 people in a cow.

Remember what the antibiotics are being used for here. It's not just 'oh, we're not sure if the animals are getting sick cause we have so many of them so we'll just give them antibiotics in case', it's 'oh hey, if we give them antibiotics, they gain weight faster'. The level of antibiotic use (along with nearly all business practices in large scale animal farming) is almost directly dictated by consumer demand for cheap meat. There's simply no way around that - and this comes from a lover of meat.

We really need to adjust our expectations of our food supply.

Yeah, I've never understood why people automatically make this argument.

Industrial meat != meat

It's like saying that because most restaurants are unhealthy (e.g. fast food) you should zealously avoid all restaurants.

I buy much of my meat and eggs now from Hidden Villa in Los Altos Hills. Selection is very limited, and their prices are 2x-4x the cost of similar items in a supermarket, but their farm is literally down the street from my house and their livestock is pastured and well cared for. Money doesn't grow on trees, I eat a lot less meat than I used to, but I find that I enjoy my meals a lot more now.

If you eat healthy, you'll also feel better. As you get used to different foods, you'll find your tastes shift and that things you previously found unappetizing are actually really delicious. The only real downsides to improving your diet are completely temporary.