Recently, within the same week, two major initiatives were launched: One by animal agriculture interests and one by a coalition of public interest, environmental, food safety and consumer groups.

Both announcements left me shaking my head.

First, the animal ag launch.

Phibro Animal Health announced it launched AnimalAntibiotics.org to provide “accurate and credible” information about the use of antibiotics in animals to help create “open dialogue.”

In my opinion it is a pretty awesome site with tons of information, but I question how helpful it will be in creating an “open dialogue” when it is so one-sided? Not to mention funded by an organization that has a pretty big footprint in this area.

For instance, one of the statements made on this sight is that “Studies have concluded that you have a one in a billion chance of treatment failure from antibiotic resistance related to the use of common animal antibiotics” in animal health.

Just what are they referring to here by the term “common animal antibiotics”? Maybe ionophores and other antibiotics used exclusively in animals raised for food? If that is the case, why not come right out and state the fact?

But if they agree that homo sapiens are animals too, then they are saying I have a one in a billion chance of dying from treatment failure brought about by the use of penicillin, sulfa, cabepenem and other antibiotics used in all animals.

In other words, the 23,000 persons in the U.S. alone who died last year from antibiotic resistant bacteria had absolutely no connection with the massive amounts of antibiotics used in animal husbandry.

That is pretty hard for me to accept.

The announcement goes on to say “to put it in context, you are thousands of times more likely to die from a dog bite or lightning strike” than you are from a resistant bug linked to the use of antibiotics in animals.

That statement will not create “open dialogue.” Instead, it is telling those concerned about the large amounts of antibiotics being used in animal husbandry to take their silly concerns down the hall and good luck finding someone who might listen and answer intelligently.

That statement says “discussion over.”

There is a “Resources Center” link to read the study that supports that statement. However, when I clicked on the link, I found dozens of worthwhile sounding links in support of the judicious use of antibiotics in animals. No way was I going to click on and read every one in pursuit of some study that my already negative thinking mind was not going to believe anyway. Why hide the link to the study that supports their audacious statement?

The more we have antibiotics being used, in animals raised for food or humans, the more resistance we are going to see. That is a fact of life, as I see it, and I will offer an “open dialogue” to anyone who wants one.

The consumer/environmental coalition and In-N-Out Burger will be the topic of my next blog.

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth

Join for free* to continue reading.