On March 8 a writer named Pagan Kennedy penned a fact-filled opinion piece for the New York Times about how “a group of medical investigators have begun to wonder whether antibiotics might cause the same growth promotion in humans. New evidence shows that America’s obesity epidemic may be connected to our high consumption of these drugs.”
Please excuse me why I do a little “I told you so” dance to the beat of my own drummer while humming the song of my people.
*sounds of ululation and thumping*
Thank you. That was great.
Moreover, I need to point out that I heart the heart out of the name Pagan Kennedy. That is either her pen name and I want to be her new best friend, or her parents were that awesome -- in which case I want to be their best friend too.
Now, back to topic.
This is yet more proof that all “factory” farming is of the Devil and that livestock factory farms are the worst of the lot. All that treating animals like “units of production” does is create problems from the pollution and overcrowding which then has to be solved by more human intervention with unknown consequences. I don’t want the default setting to be “prove it hurts you” either. I want these asshats to prove it DOES NOT hurt me before they are allowed to do something willy-nilly, such as giving animals antibiotics and thereby fostering the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria at the very least.
Why would the antibiotics that saturate the food most of us eat cause a problem? It probably has something to do with the fact your gut bacteria has a lot to do with how fat your ass is. Kill the good microbes with too many antibiotics, or disturb the intestinal environment with too many antibiotics, and the Fat Fairy may come to visit.
Although fat should be the least of our worries. The Danish, acting on the scientific reality that antibiotic resistant shit will kill the Fokk out of humans sooner rather than later, moved to ban and restrict antibiotics on their farms back in 1999. Yes, fifteen years ago. This is not new info. And what has happened in those fifteen years, pray tell?
“Although theU.S. food animal production and animal drug industries often claim that the ban was costly and ineffective, the World Health Organization (WHO) found that the Danish ban reduced human health risk without significantly harming animal health or farmers’ incomes. In fact, Danish government and industry data show that livestock and poultry production has increased since the ban, while antibiotic resistance has declined on farms and in meat.”
The reason the U.S.A is fighting it so hard? Well, there is a lot of money to be made in factory farms and producing the antibiotics for them. It just so happens that “the US meat industry uses 29 million pounds of antibiotics every year. To put that number in perspective, consider that we humans in the United States—in all of our prescription fill-ups and hospital stays combined—use just over 7 million pounds per year. Thus the vast bulk of antibiotics consumed in this country, some 80 percent, goes to factory animal farms.”
Why doesn’t the FDA do anything about this? Anyone with enough integrity to try to do the right thing pays for it with their career. “
In 2009, Josh Sharfstein, then deputy commissioner of the FDA, delivered damning testimony before the US House of Representatives. He opined that routine use of antibiotics on farm animals should be severely restricted—banned outright for non-medical uses like growth promotion and used only "under the supervision of a veterinarian" to treat sicknesses. But by January of , Sharfstein had resigned from his post. The FDA maintains its official stance that antibiotics should be used "judiciously" on factory farms, and it leaves it to the industry to define what that means.
Mammon worship is killing us and his disciples and puppets don’t give a rat’s newly-enlarged ass.
More from health