Absolutely. It's just unbelievable that this has gone on as long as it has. A lot of human beings have died from resistant strains of bacteria that evolved due to overuse of antibiotics in animals.

I suspect this could be why so many people have developed allergies to antibiotics also! Now, if only they would outlaw the use of HORMONES, we would probably see a drop in the obesity phenomenon of Americans.

It's scary that close to 80% of all antibiotics used in U.S. each year are used on animals.

So when a virus does get through, it's near impossible to get rid of.

The farmers need to buckle down keep a clean environment and go natures way or it will be a lost cause.

It's not farmers. It's conglomerated farming and packing corporations forcing this stuff down our throats. Most meat these days comes from feed lots where the "farmer" is some guy at a controll station. As long as all this hormone and drugs crap produces a few more pounds of meat, it's use will continue.

It is VERY sad to read all these comments from so many uninformed "know it alls" who actually no nothing. FDA is rediculous most of the time. Farmers keep clean healthy environments just like you should do at home and NO farmer waists money by injecting expensive drugs into their animals for the "fun of it". Leave the farming to the farmers and lets keep all the nuts in the trees, not giving advise on what they no nothing about!

NYMike, antibiotics are ineffective against viruses. They are used by farmers to prevent bacterial infections in livestock.

About time. How about the hormones and fat producing products that they feed the animals and monosanto's genetically altered seeds and insecticides?

Antibiotics are not given to livestock preemptively to prevent infections. They are given at SUBTHERAPEUTIC doses because it has been noted that this accelerates the growth of animals. One can obtain a full size ox quicker if the animal is given subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics. As far as I recall, the mechanism for this is unknown, but the commercial advantage was not lost on "farmers."

The term farmer is really no longer applicable to the people raising livestock these days. They should be called CAFO operators, since that's what they are most of the time.

CAFO: confined animal feeding operation.

The use of antibiotics, that often get eliminated in the urine, with aninals that are brought up in large numbers and confined to tight spaces is an ideal environment for resistant organisms to emerge.

It amazes me how people can't think, most times. Ok, we put steroids in our animals to make them fat, so much so that chickens and turkeys can break their legs from the weight. Then, they process them. Next we EAT the meat that contains all those steroids and anti-biotics, and wonder why we are getting fat?

Yes, genetics is a key piece, but we must quit denying that this isn't happening. Just because some "Smart Scientist" tells you something, does not make it so. Maybe you should try buying seeds NOT made from Monsato, near impossible to find. WE are being genetically engineered by our government and Corporate Farms.

So when a virus does get through, it's near impossible to get rid of.

NYMike: Antibiotics are used to treat bacteria, not viruses....

@Farmer John Sr

NO farmer waists money by injecting expensive drugs into their animals for the "fun of it".

I am sad to see that you don't see the point of putting human lives over mass producing livestock. I don't see anyone arguing that farmers are doing it for the fun of it. I'm sure that they have sound BUSINESS reasons, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to essentially kill the usefulness of antibiotics for saving human life just to make the animals produced for food grow up faster. Just because there are sound business reasons for what they're doing doesn't mean that it's ethical, intelligent or that it should be legal.

Farmer John Sr

It is VERY sad to read all these comments from so many uninformed "know it alls" who actually no nothing. FDA is rediculous most of the time. Farmers keep clean healthy environments just like you should do at home and NO farmer waists money by injecting expensive drugs into their animals for the "fun of it". Leave the farming to the farmers and lets keep all the nuts in the trees, not giving advise on what they no nothing about!

I don't think most of us are disputing the fact that farmers trying to keep clean environments and that they mostly do. Most of the concerns being expressed here are based on sound science. The evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a VERY well established phenomenon. Many medical doctors will tell you that we are now seeing the appearance of bacterial strains that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. If this trend continues, we're all in big trouble.

This is why scientists and good doctors argue that antibiotics should be used only when absolutely necessary to treat HUMAN disease.

It's well known that farmers have been using antibiotics extensively in livestock. That's a bad idea.

As to the issue of giving hormones and other drugs to livestock, the problem is that there is often little scientific data to tell us what the effects are on humans that eat those animals. In my opinion, if you're going to do ANYTHING that involves a synthetic chemical entering MY body, the burden of proof should be upon you to demonstrate that it is safe.

Currently, anyone living in the United States is exposed to literally thousands of synthetic chemicals, very few of which have been tested for safety. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is ok.

This should have happened a long time ago....

Agree wholeheartedly with you Randilly. But the FDA sits idly by on other fronts of our food supply on a daily basis. IMPORTED seafood and fish from Asia, particularly China, Viet Nam and other places in the region, FARM much of the fish and shrimp sent to the U.S. A resent study conducted by a group of local fishermen along the Southeast and the Gulf purchased random supplies of "fresh" fish and shrimp produced in Asia from local stores and shipped it off to independent testing facilities. The laundry list of chemicals and antibiotics found in the samples was astounding! TO DATE, little to NOTHING has been done about it by the FDA. So, one would have to wonder WHY the FDA is clamping down on our food producers when the damn imported stocks contain antibiotics and the same chemicals found in Fish tanks to kill fungus and other rampant diseases caused when fish are raised in virtual CESS POOLS in China and elsewhere?

A lot of the problem for the FDA is the fact that Congress has cut a lot of the funding needed to staff and keep an eye on this crap coming from our "TRADING PARTNERS." The funding cuts of course were engineered by those members of Congress with close ties to their filthy friends in China and Southeast Asia.

Yes, I think reduced funding is part of it. Also the FDA can be blocked by other interests, particularly those that are making LOTS of money from whatever they want to ban or control. Of course then the FDA goes after the smaller things, like supplements. I understand that some supplements may be dangerous, but let people decide on their own. Give them the information and let them decide. Let us know about truly unsafe ones or ones that come from China that are contaminated. It is the things I can't control or do not know about that the FDA should worry about. Of course then there are the trial lawyers....again alla about MONEY.
I fear this ban may come too late. MRSA and other resistant bacateria are already out there. And who is going to police it? Who checks to see if a steer has been injected with antibiotics prior to being shipped? I have seen it happen. It may be illegal but we all know people continue to do things that are illegal.

I've been compaining about this for some time now but, I never thought the FDA would actually do something about it.

It may be too late now because their is a resistant strain of bacteria that is floating around this country that has hit over 40% of our population and 90% of the people don't know they have it.

About 6 months back their was a story ran on CNN about how you can get a staph infection just by touching these meats.
But, this wasn't all of the story because what they failed to tell you was the fact that this strain could be transmitted through the air and regular contact.

I can watch tv and literally point out individuals who have this strain just by looking at them.....

Itching....
bruising....
bumps...
scars....
skin that been raised

are just a few symptoms but there are many more.

It is everywhere too.....

the best thing to do to prevent it is to build up your immune systems with immune building foods.

People in congress and in high office have it too because I saw it!!!!
this is probably what caused them to put pressure on the FDA in this area.

But, things need to be done right or else don't do them at all.

However I do praise the FDA for taking this much needed step forward.

Oh Yeah, we need new thought leaders because currently that area has been overrun by money hungry nim-kum-poops who know nothing about harmony and longevity.

How to protect yourself....

manuka honey to place on your skin in order to pull out the toxins...
While at the same time taking black seed oil.
over time this will eliminate it if used correctly.

Im only here to help out as much as possible as well as to provide knowledge about what I know is happening.

Oh yeah, GOD BLESS ALL OF US THROUGH THESE SOON TO COME TURBULENT TIMES...

I bought me a juicer and everyday juice 3 times a day as well as organic foods only.
i knew things were getting bad when all of a sudden in the late 80's I couldn't drink milk anymore.

I tried organic milk last year and did not have any more issues with drinking milk.

From 1.10:

The term farmer is really no longer applicable to the people raising livestock these days. They should be called CAFO operators, since that's what they are most of the time.

CAFO: confined animal feeding operation.

You have just made a completely biased remark. I, along with every farmer I know, who raises livestock within 50 miles of me, does not use feed lots/confined feeding. Every cow, chicken, sheep has free range access. Yes, some of the chickens are confined at night to curtail coyote/raccoon predation - however, they are allowed to roam free all day.

While your comment may be meant to encompass the large scale corporate production facilities (note I did not say "farms" - as I agree with your "CAFO" designation in these cases), and some old school operations which DO use feed lots, please accept that there are those who do not engage such practices.

The use of antibiotics, that often get eliminated in the urine, with animals that are brought up in large numbers and confined to tight spaces is an ideal environment for resistant organisms to emerge.

This is true.

IMO, there should not be so much a ban on the usage of antibiotics, but a requirement that they be administered under the guidance of a veterinarian after a proven diagnosis of need for a limited period of time. Simply injecting every animal in a 1000 (picking a number which was flying by) "just in case" is irresponsible and, yes, leads to resistant strains. This is the practice which must be stopped.

Rock your comment that said "simply injecting every animal..." is what I think the article meant when it said "except in certain cases." While they didn't elaborate I had the feeling that their ban would not affect cases where there was a veteranary diagnosed malady in a heard of animals.

And yes I agree that implantation of subcutaneous time release mechanisms or indiscrimenent injecting for no reasons should be ceased and I am also in favor of stopping the use of steroids and growth hormones as well. This can be done within certain constraints but as my relatives in the business related to me many of the large corporate facilities simply ignored the manufacturer's guidelines for safe use simply because it was easier and could potentially get the last few extra pounds at slaughter. As for the testing by the FDA it is kind of like the drug testing done in the work place. They call you up and say you will be drug tested next month. With enough advance warning it is just a simple matter of having some test animals ready to test after they are slaughtered.

Funny thing about laws where money is involved. Kind of like our laws against drugs and prostitution. Where there is a demand there will be a supply no matter what the cost. Where there is a profit to be made there will be a profiteer waiting to glean that profit. As the old saying goes "business is business. Nothing personal." LOL

Don't worry there's still plenty of antibiotics injected into the animals that we eat, often done only preemptively even if the animal isn't sick... On top of that they do the growth hormones thing and feed them with genetically modified food. No wonder we basically invent new diseases such as "mad cow disease" and who knows what else will happen.

Antibiotics are routinely mixed in with the animals feed because it was found that they gain more weight this way. It's ALL about the money.

Chuckhale, humans did not invent mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE), nor was this disease spread through the use of antibiotics, growth hormone or genetically modified food. Although the truth as to how it became widespread is also pretty horrifying - it has nothing to do with the story.

Drugs are NOT "injected in the animal products we eat". They are used to try to stem infections in livestock that can run rampant and destroy a producer's operation. The shots are given to a live animal and USDA has long-established guidelines for how long after the use of any drugs that an animal can be slaughtered. Too bad FDA and USDA do not compare notes. This is probably a big waste of time and money.

Ya and if "these drugs" continue to be used for tens of thousands of animals they wont be able to be used for humans or animals eventually... because the bacteria will have done a kind of evolution and become immune or resistant to "these drugs". You dont understand that?? There needs to be limits on their use.. Damn the producers operation. From what i understand the whole medical field revolves around these antibiotics. If the antibiotics become useless (which is what is beginning to happen).. then even the simplest hospital surgical procedures become obsolete... Being able to successfully protect humans from bacteria is what allowed for our modern civilization. Things are changing and we have to modify our behaviors. Waste of time?? what background do you have that makes you an expert. Are you a scientist ... do you even have a degree??

If we fed the animal properly and provided a healthy environment, we might be able to avoid the antibiotics altogether.

Most likely, the antibiotics are metabolized before you would ever find the meat on your plate. I understand you concern, I have food allergies too, but study this out, I bet the antibiotics are not found in the meat you are consuming, even if they are treated.

Uh, actually hormones are found in the meat; that is the source of the concern over little girls growing breasts at the age of seven. The antibiotics are in there, too, they are everywhere and cannot be removed: the water at water treatment plants, the ground, our bodies, the animals who drink the water, etc., etc. They have tested people's blood for these substances and they show up, as well as other nasty things like teflon and rocket fuel.

These antibiotics are not used to stem infections, they are used to speed up growth and shorten the residence time of animals at the feedlot. Animals are given subtherapeutic doses, i.e. less than what is needed for treatment.

kthorne, ... you - - - SERIOUSLY needa go back to school. PLEASE take some notes too while you are there.

I don't have any food allergies or other allergies except for Cepholasporins. Lucky I made it to the hospital before my heart stopped beating. When you come too and there is a needle with atropine sticking out of your chest and it's your 40th birthday and the doctor says it's from that antibiotic then you too will be Scared to find out it might be in the food you are eating. I did not break out in hives. I went into cardiac arrest after taking the 3rd pill. I'd rather not take the chance of it happening again.

The reason there is no need to put warnings about the antibiotics (for purposes of allergies) is because the antibiotic given to the animal would be cleared from the animals system prior to consuming the animal. There is no concern for you to have an allergic reaction to the antibiotic if you were to consume the animal that had been given the antibiotic.

That said - it is a good thing to NOT give these animals these antibiotics because it does increase the risk of development of (more) antibiotic resistance.

The reason there is no need to put warnings about the antibiotics (for purposes of allergies) is because the antibiotic given to the animal would be cleared from the animals system prior to consuming the animal. There is no concern for you to have an allergic reaction to the antibiotic if you were to consume the animal that had been given the antibiotic.

That said - it is a good thing to NOT give these animals these antibiotics because it does increase the risk of development of (more) antibiotic resistance.

To motheroffour in your #3.1 those USDA guidelines that you mention are just that; guidelines and nothing more. Some of my family worked selling and distributing the livestock feeds that were heavily doctored with these antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormones. They said that they warned the producers about stopping the required time prior to going to slaughter however almost all of them ignored those warnings so as to maximize their market weights. Not surprisingly the worst offenders were the large corporate operations who produce much of our pork, beef, and poultry.

That is one big problem with our tendency to put all of our eggs in one basket. When you limit your resources to a few huge producers it is not real difficult for them to jointly agree to sort of ignore some of the rules and regulations. That is because they know that we really no longer have much choice. Buy their stuff or do without. LOL

A lot of what is done in the processing of our food supplies is touted as being a huge advancement in producing bigger heavier crop yields therefore making it possible to feed more people. However recent studies have determined that a lot of the hybridized produce, for example, has lost much of its nutrient value and I can personally verify that it has lost much of its flavor as well. :=(( Unfortunately more often than not the reasoning behind such actions is based more on profit motive than public well being. Remember that and you will understand their motives to a "T." It is kind of like the "great new packaging for your favorite product in the grocery." However when you look closely at the weights after you get home with it you discover that you have paid the same or higher price for less product under the guise of better packaging.

We are but the shearlings going to the shearing shed and the bounty of our wool shall make them rich. Unfortunately we are getting sheared way too often lately. LOL

As noted by another poster, the drugs are not only injected, they are routinely fed to the animals. Just check out any local feed store. Of course if you live in a big city that may be a tall order. Now that most people live in the city and buy food packaged and processed, the realities of what is going on with regard to how food gets to the local grocery seem to be lost knowledge.
You can buy meat from local small organic farms. You can also buy produce. Joint a CSA! CSA=Community Supported Agriculture. Of course if Big Agri-Business and other interests have their way you won't be able to and be forced to buy what they produce. I get a bad feeling that they don't want you to grow your own food.

When do they stop feeding antibiotic laced food to chickens and turkeys before they are sent to be slaughtered? It takes only a couple weeks to grow a chicken.

What makes the organs of the chickens turn yellow? And don't try to tell me it's because they ate corn. I'm a Boomer and ate chicken all my life and never saw a yellow liver or gizzard or heart until a few years ago. Most of the time I buy a chicken there are no giblets. Could it be because the yellow is a sign that the chickens have had too many antibiotics. Like a humans liver can turn yellow from too many medications?

It not just Chicken Livers... it almost all livers (beef included) and organ meats are no longer fit to eat.

I, as you revealed, also enjoyed Liver and onions, Kidneys and other offal (organ meats). About 10 - 15 years ago, I stopped buying and eating those meats due to its condition. The liver especially was too delicate to fry. When picked up it was closer to the consistency of "jello" than meat. More often than not it was unfit for cooking and if you were lucky (unlucky?) enough to find something fit to cook, it had a weird taste.

As you know, liver is the organ, filter for toxins. Steroid users, alcoholics, drug abusers all tend to suffer from liver problems or immune system disorders.

I eventually figure out that playing "Russian Roulette" with food was a thrill I no longer enjoy, so organ meats are 100% off limits at this point.

Even vegetarians are not off the hook anymore: they are using transgenic DNA to produce mutant vegetables and the chemicals and harvesting conditions seem to reward the "Health conscious" vegetarian with weekly updates about eColi and other bacteria being found and/or causing death for people eating leafy green vegetables --- and our favorite fruit Apples, are sprayed with a soup of chemicals to the point that even when well washed, you are still in jeopardy. I was fortunate enough to have planted a mini orchard on my property - so I can still look forward to bushels of apples which haven't be saturated with chemicals. Unfortunately as any fruit farmer knows ... its about boom or bust. By fall when when the apples ripen, they all come it at the same time. Can't seem to eat them or give them away fast enough.

The last apples I bought did not have any flavor. I know they picked them too soon. How's about sending me some of yours?

I grow my own veggies here and have orange and grapefruit trees. I don't eat chicken like I use to. It doesn't even taste like chicken.

It is getting so that most people who are actually old enough to remember what real food actually tasted like are dead and gone. I am 67 and grew up as part of an agricultural family on my father's side. I know what fresh beef, pork, poultry, and so on tastes like and, as you commented Fighting For Rights, most of the current food products available in the supermarkets is almost tasteless.

Besides being often genetically engineered we have been so indoctrinated about what healthful should look like that we even take out the bones and most of the fat. Now as any good Southern cook will tell you the bone marrow and the fat is where most of the flavor and moistness for meat products comes from. As I often remark under my breath in the supermarket "boneless, skinless, tasteless." On occasion others have heard me say that and they usually get a good laugh from it but they also mostly tend to agree. Supermarkets also often put dyes in their beef products to give it that nice red color that most think means it is fresh. The ironic part is that when they go to those really fancy restaurants and order a steak that is so tender that you can cut it with a fork in most cases the chef aged it for up to a week at 40 degrees until it turned a nice shade of grey. Then it is really tender. That is why I always avail myself of the marked down meats at my supermarket and then put it in the fridge for a few more days before cooking. It makes even bad cuts come out flavorful and tender.

I cook with lard, salt, real whole milk (although I have to put up with pasteurized and homogenized because that is the law - go figure), real salted butter, and nicely marbled beef and a decent amount of fat on my pork and skin and bone in my chicken. So far my cholesterol is normal, my weight is only slightly above what it should be because I eat too much and exercise too little and I am 67. My father lived to be 96 and a half and ate pretty much the same way. I grew up on fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy, and fresh garden veggies with the occasional bate of squirrel or rabbit thrown in for good measure. When fishin was good we had some bass, crappie, bluegill, or catfish fried in a cornmeal breading with some fried taters and onions now and again too. Most nutritionists would feint at my family's dietary habits but we just laugh at most of their nonsense.

They are constantly saying this or that is bad for you only to change their tunes a year or so later. It is now coming to light that much of the 'artificial' stuff (sweetners, butter substitutes, flavor additives, etc.) that was supposed to be so healthful for us are actually causing health problems. In my case I am already allergic to a particular butter substitute and have to be very careful when I eat out. I just don't use their butter concoction unless it is real butter. Also all of these so called diet or light food and beverage products are being found to actually cause weight gain because of how our bodies react to the fake stuff.

So the next time someone tells you that something is or is not good for you simply smile broadly and open your eyes real wide and say "well isn't that special" and then just ignore them completely. Chances are that your grandmother and Mother Nature knew better and these johnny come latelys will kill you with their chemical sets if you listen to them and let them misguide you.

As grandma always said moderation in all things. If you are too fat quit eatin so much and get off your dead arse. If your too skinny you ain't eatin enough so eat more. Don't waste your time or risk your health on pills, fad diets, or artificial food stuffs or genetically modified food products whether it is animal or plant. It ain't nice to fool Mother Nature. LOL

a little food for thought doggiemom. According to Montana State University, Hormones are naturally present in infinitesimal amounts in all meat, whether from implanted animals or not. The amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat. The human body produces hormones in quantities much greater than would ever be consumed by eating beef or other foods. Hormones in beef from implanted steers have no physiological significance for humans whatsoever. The estrogen level in a 3-oz. serving of beef from an implanted steer is 1.85 nanograms (a nanogram is a billionth of a gram); the level in the same
size portion of beef from a non-implanted steer is 1.3 nanograms. By comparison, a non-pregnant woman produces 480,000 nanograms of estrogen daily.

Hormone implants also increase the efficiency of beef production, thus alleviating energy, feed usage and environmental impacts, and improve overall quality and healthfulness of beef by reducing the amount of fat. The increased efficiency implants offer saves U.S. families hundreds of dollars each year by lowering the cost of retail beef by 20 cents to 30 cents per pound [IVD50 - 49].

Please educate yourself a little bit on livestock production practices before you jump to conclusions about meat products.

Here is food for thought, also. How come you cannot buy fresh beef? Bet you did not know that it has too actually rot, before it can be sold for human consumption. Even slaughterhouses will not process any beef and package same day, against FDA rules. Google Nevada farm+Bleach+FDA. It will make you sick! Long live Quail Hollow! (I grew up on a private farm with a "Registered and Certified Limousin Herd" in central Missouri.)

Sodak1... What a load of feedlot foot-trap that post is. Misinformation at it's worst. Did you get paid for that effort, or just donate your time?

Darrall, Can you point me in the direction of any Misinformations i supplied?

Well, a Cornell fact sheet has some pretty interesting conclusions:

Conclusions

Studies done so far do not provide evidence to state that hormone residues in meat or dairy products cause any human health effects. However, a conclusion on lack of human health effect can only be made after large-scale studies compare the health of people who eat meat or dairy products from hormone-treated animals, to people who eat a similar diet, but from untreated animals.

Where is more research needed?

Some of the consumer concerns in this fact sheet cannot be answered conclusively without further studies:

• Exposure to hormones in meat was suspected as the cause for early puberty in girls in Puerto Rico and Italy, but was never verified. To conclusively answer the question, large-scale epidemiological studies would be needed to compare the age of puberty in girls who eat meat from hormone-treated animals to those who eat meat from untreated animals. Such studies would need to make sure that other known influences that affect the age of puberty in girls are not playing a role.
• Short-term studies in laboratory rats have not indicated a concern about milk-related allergies or immune effects from exposure to rbGH or IGF-1 in milk or dairy products. However, short-term studies cannot be used to rule out all possibilities of any immune, or unexpected health effects after long-term exposure. Studies in laboratory animals on effects of life-long exposure to milk from rbGH-treated cows may help answer this question.

a little food for thought doggiemom. According to Montana State University, Hormones are naturally present in infinitesimal amounts in all meat, whether from implanted animals or not. The amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat. The human body produces hormones in quantities much greater than would ever be consumed by eating beef or other foods. Hormones in beef from implanted steers have no physiological significance for humans whatsoever. The estrogen level in a 3-oz. serving of beef from an implanted steer is 1.85 nanograms (a nanogram is a billionth of a gram); the level in the same...

Without getting into a "nit-picking" discussion. I'm positive that everyone was referring to synthetic Hormone and Synthetic steroids. A clue might be found in the mention of these enhancements being supplied through feed and injections.

The same could be applied to recent genetic manipulation of plants too. If the "enhanced" food items are so innocuous - why do this companies spend so much time, money and effort to disguise these products or infiltrate them into the food supply without mention of the source?

The for damn sure don't have a problem with mentioning every other "advancement" of New, improved, better change in their products. It might make a thinking or possibly paranoid person becomesuspicious when nothing but quiet cricket chirps are all you hear as our food items change from being raised on the hoof - to being bred in a petri dish under a chemical bath.

I heard the story too... High Fructrose corn syrup, Beet sugar is "exactly" the same as cane sugar but it sure don't act the same in our body; no matter what the scientist claim.

Hmmm, ... makes me wonder tho, ??? Who paid them to finally do the right thing???

Orrrrr wuz one of their own, ... stricken by some of this anti-bi-otic resistant strain stuff!!!

Rural, are you talking about antibacterial hand soap? Antibacterial and antibiotic are two different things.

low dose antibiotics in hand soap is the best way to create resistance, since it continually exposes bacteria on your hands to the same thing all the time, you develop resistance

I believe he has a point. You ever wonder why some many new, resistant diseases seem to be coming from (bred?) in hospitals and clinics.

They are fastitious about cleaning every thing to the "nth"... heat, steam, lazars... yet some of the worst resistant diseases which have surfaced seem to originate in the hyper-clean environment of hospitals.

Curious or inevitable - if you grow up in a hostile environment (man, beast, bacteria or virus!) you have to believe the ones that survive have a will to live and penchant for survival against all odds.

Tetracycline antibiotics are the kind placed in food to help prevent infections. These antibiotics have never been linked to any drug resistence in people. Please get your facts first!

The article is about a specific antibiotic. Cepholasporins. They use to use tetracycline probably because of the risk to people allergic to penicillin.

Also, for all the other comments above, there are laws regulating withhold times on medications between

You might want to do some research - try looking for the case of the chicken farmer who gave his chickens growth hormone and did not wait the specified length of time prior to slaughter. A doctor noticed that young boys in the community were growing breasts. Testing showed high levels of the hormone used in the chickens.

Point is - just because you haven't heard - doesn't mean it isn't already happening. In fact many drug resistant strains are showing up. Is that due to the way people take medicine or due to antibiotic use in animals? Have you done any research in order to distinguish between the two?

Thank you for posting a sound science-based answer and hopefully all those who are blowing smoke with a lot of nonsense will take note! It is pathetic the amount of misinformation people are told about farming practices and downright scary as to what they actually believe.

brickwall, if you try doing some research, you will find that the story of men growing breasts after eating chicken is nothing more than an urban legend. I'm not trying to disrespect you, but since you urge others to do research I think you should follow your own advice.

I am not advocating the use of hormones in livestock, but please make sure you argue against such use using facts, not tall tales.

Delight, I am so glad you wrote these facts. Now I don't have to write a long one. When my children were small we milked cows. and no Antibiotic was used unless the animal was sick, or had mastitis. We had to hand milk that cow and dump her milk until she was well and off medication for a certain length of time. Also we had inspectors come in at just anytime and check our barns and milk. Our pigs and chickens were not given antibiotics unless sick. a lot of time we were able to get young animals over diarrhea by cooking a rice gruel and given to them. Animals were kept clean fed good and no antibiotics unless needed and then were separated from other animals. The farmer takes care of their animals. I admit I have seen some big paces were they kept animals in Small places and in such conditions it looks dirty. But if you are worried about your meat or milk go to a small farm you will find clean conditions and well kept beef and pork. You can buy your meat take it to a place where they kill, cut and wrap it for you all you have to do is take it home and put in freezer. Farmers don't waist money on things not needed or will cause you harm. If animal has been sick can't be sold till well and off medication for a certain length of time. Read Delights blog, he is a vet. and gives you the whole story. Don't just dream up something stupid. Sometimes if animal has pneumonia they need a high power antibiotic. I am allergic to several antibiotic's, but have no fear of them being in the meat, as I know animals cannot be taken to sale for meat if have been on a antibiotic , till off of it for several days.

Yes, we have the safest in the world, yet no one was able to catch those truck loads of racid, rotten peanut butter the packager was rushing to sell to the school lunch program, just a few years back. Maybe he was "only" hoping to to unload the batch to the Feds. That way he would get his money out of it ... before it was discovered to be unfit for human consumption?

Not all Farmer/ranchers are above doing a little dirt to make that bank loan payment.

I've got nothing but pride in the average American Farmer - but they are men and men are flawed with pushed to the limit. 8 tons of good produce and a ton of something ... not so good. Its hard to accept $2 a bushel compared to $8.... after all the only difference it a couple of days and few blemishes.

Delight,

“I do not know of a single known case of a resistent microorganism in people coming from animals treated with antibiotics.”

A study conducted by Inge van Loo et al. shows that MRSA “from an animal reservoir has recently entered the human population and is now responsible for over 20% of all MRSA in the Netherlands” (“Emergence of Methicillin-Resistant Stapholocucoss aureus of Animal Origin in Humans”).

What about foodborne pathogens (for example, drug-resistant Salmonella)? According to Dr. Greger, MD, “In the United States…some strains of Salmonella are growing dangerously resistant to up to six major classes of antibiotics, due in large part to the irresponsible factory farming practice of feeding millions of pounds of antibiotics to animals every year as a crutch to combat the stressful and overcrowded conditions of intensive animal agriculture systems. This puts everyone at risk.”

-Dr. Greger, MD, An internationally recognized lecturer, he has presented at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, and was an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial. His recent scientific publications in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, and the International Journal of Food Safety, Nutrition, and Public Health explore the public health implications of industrialized animal agriculture.

First off without routine annual vacination programs you would be eating beef so full of parasites,worms, disease like black leg, tetanus, strangles you name it a bovine will get it. Cattle and Horses grazed on grass/hay and water will get this. These programs have been brought on by vets and scientists working in agriculture to better the overall health and safety of american beef herds over the last 50-60 years.

Unless you understand the production end and see what goes on you would not get it, but if your trying to judge and compare based on what you see at the supermarket you are way off the board. I doubt many people could look at two pieces of beef and tell a good one from a bad one.

Supermarket beef is mainly horrible, mishandled and dangerous. If its plastic or shrinkwrapped your not getting good beef.

I raise good healthy beef, I eat it myself and feed it to my family, but once the processors get a hold of it they ruin it before it gets to the market.

Ask any honest rancher or farmer. American agriculture produces the very best the world has to offer......then retailers and middlemen get it and ruin it before it lands on your table and you never even know it.

Buy your beef from a butcher, unfrozen, wrapped in paper and cut the way you like. Ask him for advice and education of different cuts of beef. Leave the walmart and supermarket beef alone.......I would not eat it and thats my honest opinion.