In the letter, “Overuse of antibiotics might compromise human being’s health,” (SN 12/7), Margaret Marciniak makes some biased claims and raises unnecessary fear about the use of antibiotics in production animals.
Drug-resistant infections have been on the rise for the past two decades. It is also true that bacteria are able to become resistant to antibiotics.
I believe the fallacy of the argument comes into play when fingers are pointed at livestock producers and they are accused of being the main culprit in the antibiotic-resistance phenomenon.
Many sources, one being the American Veterinary Medical Association, or AVMA, still are unsure how much of an effect the use of antibiotics in production animals has on human antibiotic-resistant infections.
The AVMA estimates that humans, cats and dogs use 10 times more antimicrobials than the livestock industry does.
In Denmark, there was a ban placed on antibiotic use in animal agriculture, and antibiotic resistance in the human population continues to be a growing problem with little to no change.
Like other medications used in livestock, antibiotics have what is called a withdrawal period. A withdrawal period is the time it takes for a medication to leave the animal’s tissues.
The guidelines set forth by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, must be adhered to in order for the animal product to be placed in the human food chain.
The USDA does not allow for downed or sick animals that could be affected by antibiotic-resistant infections to be used for human consumption.
Furthermore, the AVMA states that, according to studies, “the risk to people of becoming infected with resistant organisms by consuming animal products (meat, milk, eggs) is extremely low.”
As agriculturists, our goal — in the simplest of terms — is to feed the world. With animal products, we strive to improve the quality of life. With that goal comes the responsibility to provide a safe, wholesome and healthy product.
A comfortable and healthy animal produces a healthy product, and farmers strive to provide this environment for their animals. Those involved in animal agriculture recognize the issue of antibiotic resistance.
We are taking measures against this issue by implementing vaccinations, biosecurity measures, all-in-all-out animal flow and clean living for our animals. Therefore, I, along with many others, find it offensive when people state that our animals are “crowded” and “stressed.”
They fail to remember that our goal is to provide a healthy and clean product to consumers. If our animals were stressed, crowded and consequently unhealthy, they would not yield as much of a safe and wholesome product.
Likewise, the offensive term “factory farm” implies that we as farmers fail to recognize the welfare of our food-producing animals. However, in reality, there is a direct correlation between animal welfare and healthy food production.
Keep in mind that consumers also include all of the farmers throughout the U.S. who produce the food on your table.
Do people believe that we would continue to produce unsafe products that our families and loved ones also consume?
K.C. VanFleet, animal science sophomore
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
