Happenings on the Ranch

Our Nation’s largest commercial livestock and poultry groups recently hosted briefings in Washington, D.C. to share what they consider to be the facts about using antibiotics in raising animals used for food.

The “informational” sessions were put on by the Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Chicken Council, Pork Producers Council, Milk Producers Federation, Turkey Federation, American Meat Institute and National Meat Association, according to a news release. The briefings were held in cooperation with several U.S. Representatives, including Missouri Republican Roy Blunt.  The information was presented by the commercial industries’ top livestock and poultry health experts.

“Prompt and judicious use of efficacious antibiotics is critical for the successful treatment and, at times, control of specific bacterial diseases in cattle,” said Guy Loneragan, an epidemiologist and associate professor at West Texas A&M University.

At times?  That’s understating it a bit.  The broad use of antibiotics is regular and prevalent in most large cattle feedlots and commercial pork and poultry operations.  The antibiotics are routinely used for three purposes: to treat cases of obvious illness, to prevent the occurance of potential illness, and as a growth promoter.

Meat producers have fed growth-promoting antibiotics for years.  Most of us know scientists are concerned that regular use of low-level antibiotics in these animals may lead to health risks for people by building up our antibiotic tolerance, rendering them useless when we truly need them.   The industry maintains that banning the use of these drugs would greatly reduce the efficiency of the meat industry, driving up the cost of meat.

Honestly, it’s a little disturbing to me that these commercial producers think that Americans would rather be sick but able to eat meat five nights a week than have the antiobiotics work when we need them and have meat go back to being a special occasion or Sunday dinner menu item.  That’s part of the problem in this country.  Many low-income families maintain that it’s cheaper for them to buy a fast-food meal for their family than to buy fruits and vegetables.  Not only is their health suffering from the antibiotics they’re consuming, but from the increased amount of fats, fillers and sugars these foods contain.  That doesn’t even mention their expanding waist lines.  Fresh fruits and vegetables, the healthy stuff, shouldn’t cost more than greasy, unhealthy fast food.  So, if the mass production of meat gets more expensive and makes it so fast food once again becomes a luxury, maybe people will go back to making healthy, fresh choices for their families.

Many in the industry believe that evidence linking “sub-therapeutic” use of antibiotics in food animals to drug-resistant illnesses in people is too inconclusive and does not justify banning their use.  There also isn’t any substantial proof that many of the additives put into processed foods causes cancer and other health problems in humans, and not just lab mice, but I don’t want to ingest those either.

I have a choice and I choose to exercise it.  It might cost me more but I would much rather pay more for my food than pay more for my health care.  If more Americans made that choice I have no doubt we would see more producers changing over to systems that don’t employ the broad use of antibiotics on any level and a healther nation, overall.