Antibiotics as Growth Hormones in Meat Production - Research Paper Example

 Antibiotics as Growth Hormones in Meat Production Use of antibiotics as growth hormones in meet production is a practice in food production that has lasted for over fifty years. However, use of antibiotics is regulated by Food and Drug Administration, which regulates how antibiotics are applied in animal feeds for disease treatment, prevention and control in addition to promoting growth in food animals. Antibiotics control intestinal bacteria that inhibit maximum nutrient absorption leading to rapid growth in animals reared for meat production. The use of antibiotics as growth hormone has increased over the years due to increased focus on reduction of time taken for animals to be ready for the market due to rapid weight and size gain (Ratcliff, 1951, 282). Concern over then use of antibiotics in meat production is informed by recent statistics indicating approximately 80 % of all antibiotics produced and sold in the United States end up in livestock (Raymond, 2013). Many of the animals reared for meat are taken to the market with traces of these antibiotics or with resistance to certain bacteria (Aarestrup, 2012, 465-466). Consumption of the meat products therefore, predisposes consumers to the effects of the antibiotics. Given the effect of these antibiotics on the animals, there are fears that the widespread use of antibiotics in meat production is resulting in increased antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The development of antibiotics resistant bacteria in both animals and humans is a potential health risk, as it will lead to a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult to prevent and treat infections. Consequently, there is need for a scientific investigation into this problem to ensue such situation does not develop bearing in mind the implication it will have on public health. The next testimonies will address current public reservations that use of antibiotics in meat production was creating antibiotics resistance bacteria in humans and the public health implication of such outcomes. Testimony of Dr. John Owen, Biological Scientist That you Mr. Chairman and members of the congressional committee present today for giving me the opportunity to address you. My name is Dr. John Owen, biological scientists with great experience in the area of meat production especially based on a number of studies I have conducted on factory farming. Given my vast experience in factory farming, I will address the problem of antibiotics as growth hormones in meat production from this perspective. Factory farming is a food production and technology that focuses on high quality and quantity production of animals for food but at low cost. Antibiotics administered to the animals are meant to reduce the time to market by preventing diseases and stimulating faster growth, therefore creating food products that may or may not be suitable for human consumption. Therefore, my assessment of the situation leads to two areas of concern: firstly, the persistence in meat for human consumption of antibiotics used in animal treatment and feeds; secondly, the impact of these residue on health of consumers. These concerns are based on the increased perception that the antibiotics residue would lead to resistance of bacteria, which would in effect restrain the therapeutic impact of antibiotics in human medicine (Aarestrup, 2012, 465-466). However, one clarification to make on the use of antibiotics is that most of the antibiotics used in stimulating faster growth in animals for meat are not those in human use. However, appearance of the residues in meat products has led to concern over their impact on human health (Ratcliff, 1951, 282). The implication of rearing animals under factory conditions is that there are possible residuals of antibiotics in animals reared under such conditions, which leads to increased risk of infectious diseases and other negative health implications for consumers. Additionally, the residue might result in faster growth and excessive weight gain for human consumers (Taveise, 2012). Apart from the risk of developing cancer due to consumption of meat with residues of antibodies, there is increased evidence linking consumption of this food to a weak response of the immune system. Weak immune system leaves humans susceptible to multiple types of infections such as resistant urinary tract infections (Kennedy, 2013). The association of these conditions with meat treated with antibiotics is as on the fact that organisms carrying the diseases are often present in the meat. Additionally, it is increasingly difficult to treat the diseases when occurring in both the animals and humans since existing antibiotics cannot combat them due to development of resistance over time (Aarestrup, 2012, 465-466). The problem in monitoring and eliminating possible effects of antibodies used in meat production results from lack of effective program to monitor and test meat for substances that are harmful to human health. Even after report indicating the presence of over five hundred different chemicals in meat supply, United States Food and Administration has not taken steps to increase monitoring of the situation. Statistics obtained from manufacturers of antibiotics indicates a clear picture of the situation where over 80 percent of antibiotics available for sale in the United States end up in chickens, cattle and other animals produced for meat (Raymond, 2013). Therefore, the persistent use of antibiotics as growth hormones in meat production is because of leniency from government agencies established to oversee the level of such usage. There is a need for the agencies to introduce further limits to the level of antibiotics used in meat production to ensure the risk o consumers is as minimal as possible. However, any legislation in this area must also respond to the need for animals in factory farms to be protected and treated from different diseases. Animals allowed to range outside must also be protected from diseases that might be spread due to contact with other animals and birds in environment. Additionally, research indicating most of the antibiotics do not enter meat, but are found in tissues such as kidney and liver should also play into any legislative effort. This also raises the implication on point of entry of the antibiotics, especially when considering most of the antibiotics present in feeds are not absorbed through the gut walls and the intestine, which means they do not get into the meat. Therefore, although there has been calls for a blanket ban on the use of antibiotics as growth hormones in meat production this should not be the case as scientific analysis has shown different levels of contamination depending on aspects such as point of exposure and period of withdrawal before slaughter. Testimony from Randal Cremer, a farmer Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Randal Cremer and I am going to discuss the issue of antibiotics as growth hormones from my standpoint as a farmer to demystify a number of allegations. Antibiotics given administered through feeds or injection ensures farmers gain maximum profits from minimal input into the practice of meat production. Production of these animals under organic environment has proven to an inefficient procedure that cannot sustain the United States meat market since the animals take longer to achieve the necessary weight entering the market. Such animals also consume leading to a situation where available naturally grown animal feed cannot sustain the number of existing animals (Ratcliff, 1951, 282). Seen from this light, producing meet under special conditions become a must as the industry struggle to meet public demand for protein and other nutrients needed for a healthy population. There has been concern that existing antibiotics used as growth hormones have negative effects on the welfare of the animals. Such allegations have also been noted concerning the rapid growth of animals, especially birds to the extent of some suffering from broken legs due to ballooning weight. However, I want to make it clear that such situation is not as extensive as many who oppose the use of antibiotics as growth hormones will want people to believe. There are instances when some of the birds might have limbs that fail to support their weight. While such instances are not rampant, the few birds that might suffer such outcomes are usually separated from the rest and given special care as they continue to recuperate. As a farmer practicing in the United States, I want to reiterate the fact that the antibiotics available from veterinaries have passed the required test by both the CDC and Drug Administration, which means they are safe for use. Therefore, the accusation that farmers are not interested in addressing animal welfare or public health impact because of antibiotics use is not true. While having the target of achieving high profits from the bigger products that have also taken less time to be ready for market, farmers are also concerned with rules and regulations governing the use of antibiotics as growth hormones in meat ;production. Focus on bigger sizes is because farmers’ return from sales is pegged on pound of saleable meat produced. Therefore, it is easier for farmers to ignore condition under which the animals are reared as long as the return is high. Another ethical concern apart from animal welfare is the impact of antibiotics used as growth hormones in meat production. A number of researchers have produced reports indicating that these antibiotics might result in transfer of resistant bacteria from animals to humans and that it is important that focus shifts from the production benefits to implication on public health (Hansen, 2013). However, most of these studies have been conducted by persons sponsored by organizations that are already in opposition to the use of antibiotics as growth hormones. Such studies are therefore skewed and cannot be used as a basis for reaching conclusions on the best practices. Agencies that are have the mandate and act as custodians of public health such as the CDC and Drug Administration have already determined the level of antibiotics to be use in animals reared for meet. Farmers adhere to the regulations provided by these agencies, which are non-partisan in the issue of current concern (Ratcliff, 1951, 283). The debate on the use of antibiotics as growth hormones indicates genuine concerns by the public. There is need for the government through agencies such as CDC and Drug Administration to conduct further studies on safer use of available antibiotics. Results from these studies must be made public to ensure reservations held by consumers have been addressed. While there are a number of antibiotics that are safe for use, the agencies must also be increased jurisdiction to ensure rogue farmers who break existing rules and regulations are identified and their farms closed from further production. References Aarestrup, F. (2012). Get pigs off antibiotics. Nature, 465-466. Hansen, G. (2013). Antibiotics in Food Animal Production: Pew’s Response to Raymond Op-ed. Food Safety News. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/01/the-importance-of-monitoring-antibiotic-use-in-animals/#.VGEgLPmUc-c Raymond R. (2013). Antibiotics and Animals Raised for Food: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. Food Safety News. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/01/antibiotics-and-animals-raised-for-food-lies-damn-lies-and-statistics/#.VGEgwfmUc-c Ratcliff, J. D. (1951). Antibiotics for Poultry and Pigs. The Science News-Letter, 282-283. Taveise, S. (2012). Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny, New York Times, 3 September 2012. Kennedy, D. (2013). The threat from antibiotic use on the farm. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-threat-from-antibiotic-use-on-the-farm/2013/08/22/c407ed72-0ab2-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html Read More