Does American Agriculture have a drug problem? Well, given the performance of the market, the actions of Mother Nature, and the beating agriculture is taking in Washington, farmers would be justified in harvesting some of that wacko weed from the back pasture and rolling a joint. But that is not what I am talking about.
I am referring to the seemingly sudden and spontaneous groundswell of public criticism over the use of antibiotics in livestock feed.
From the New York Times to Capitol Hill to organizations with official scientific names, this is the issue of the day - an issue that demands an immediate solution. But, hold on, before you push the panic button, you need to know it is all a hoax.
Contrary to what some people would have you believe, this is not a new issue. It has been around for years and there has been a great deal of research, professional and rational discussion, and considered regulation.
Several livestock organizations have adopted policies and best practices on the use of antibiotics with livestock. So, why the sudden uproar? It is all part of a well-orchestrated PR and political strategy.
This all started about a year ago when, in April 2008, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production called for stricter regulation of antibiotic use in large-scale animal operations. The Pew study made many other recommendations almost all critical of large scale modern agriculture.
Two weeks ago the New York Times published two “opinion” articles - not news articles - about antibiotic use in livestock production.
This was followed by a series of press releases by anti-livestock organizations, culminating the introduction of legislation by New York 28th District Congresswoman Louise Slaughter.
All these events are part of a well-coordinated and well-funded effort.
This contrived campaign has two main arguments. First, the misuse of antibiotics will harm human health by creating drug resistant super diseases; and, second, that somehow it is related to the transmission of MRSA to humans - an antibiotic-resistant staph infection.
As is typical with these attempts to mold public opinion, the use of phrases like “Human antibiotics are routinely misused on factory farms” and “Medical experts across the globe agree.”
If, of course, the latter statement were really true, they would not need this spin campaign to make changes.
“MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can be found anywhere in nature,” according to Paul Ebner, a livestock microbiologist at Purdue.
While he said there has been an increase in the number of these infections and that pigs and other animals can be carriers, the vast majority of infections come from skin-to-skin contact with infected humans.
Making assumptions based on limited studies or information is a big jump, and there is no proof to link MRSA in humans to pigs and pig operations at this time, said Ching Ching Wu, professor of veterinary pathobiology and head of microbiology in Purdue’s Animal Disease and Diagnostic Laboratory.
Dr. Jennifer Greiner, NPPC Director of Science and Technology, said pork producers have a moral obligation to use antibiotics responsibly to protect human health and provide safe food.
But, Greiner said producers also have an ethical obligation to maintain the health of their pigs.
Congresswoman Slaughter’s bill is another attempt to enact public policy based on unsubstantiated scientific facts. Just like the banning of DDT in the 1960s and the banning of horse slaughter a year ago, it is a one-sided agenda that would actually endanger public and animal health and increase the cost of food.
American agriculture does not have a drug problem, but it does have an image problem. Until U.S. consumers and lawmakers see farmers as trusted and responsible food producers, we will continue to have these threats to our food production system. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication. |
