The History of Antibiotics in Farming

Antibiotics are a category of drugs that are commonly used for the treatment of bacterial infections. Commercial antibiotic use in farms started in the 1940’s, and over time the uses have progressed to aid animal growth and to stop animal illness in small quarters. This development of antibiotics in farming may be a valuable economically, however there are drawbacks that have seen little attention. This emphasis on profit from antibiotic use, over animal welfare and human health, is becoming a risk. It was found that 80% of antibiotics in the U.S. are used in meat and poultry products. The risk associated with this statistic is this use of antibiotics in food is widespread, threatening public health as it builds antibiotic resistance. For example, 81% of beef contains one type of resistant bacteria [footnoteRef:0]. The use of antibiotics in farming has become an unsustainable practice because of its widely unmonitored effects on the environment and human health.To resolve this issue, action must be taken through congress, academic studies, and the FDA, in order to have more information and regulations on this issue.

The initial use of antibiotics in farms was for treating sick animals which is sustainable, as the usage is in moderation. However today farms are using unsustainable and possibly dangerous practices that are affecting the animal’s wellbeing and the environment. It is common now in industrial farming for antibiotics to be put in the animals feed and water. This is for more growth, feeding efficiency and to prevent diseases among animals. There are many FDA approved antibiotics for agricultural use such as penicillin, however almost none of the over the counter uses have been reviewed by the FDA to ensure they are safe in regards to antibiotic resistance. This is distressing as the FDA allows the use of antibiotics for the intended purpose of making sure animals are “clean” and safe, even though they have not investigated all the effects that antibiotics in food have on people[footnoteRef:1]. In effort for efficiency , antibiotics are now necessary to keep an excess of animals in one shared space healthy, since they combat the issues of the rapid spread of disease among animals in crowded spaces. This claim is reflected in the finding that as the number of farms raising animals have decreased, the amount of animals housed in them are the same[footnoteRef:2]. Another reason antibiotics are becoming crucial for efficiency is they are used as a growth supplement in animals. Since the antibiotics are regularly implemented into the feed to aid growth, the animal waste contains excessive nutrients, farm chemicals, antibiotics and hormones. The large groups of animals in small spaces, leads to a large manure output with elements that contaminate the soil, contaminate nearby water sources and threatens wildlife.

Nestle told The Nation's Health , “It is going to enforce existing environmental quality laws and regulate industrial animal farms as thoroughly as other industries to avoid public health and environmental risks.” However Nestle also notes that these facilities have been given a pass on pollution. This is a concern as it would be unacceptable if a city, home to thousands of people, chose not to treat its waste, and yet pig and cattle ranches contain open lagoons filled with untreated waste that threaten local water and land sources[footnoteRef:3]. Even though companies like Nestle make statements wanting to avoid public health and environmental damage, they will still continue unsustainable practices in these areas as long as they are meeting the regulations. In order for improvements in public health and the environment, stricter regulations are needed in order to reform big business practices.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Since antibiotic usage in farming is now standard practice, people are becoming more resistant to certain antibiotics making the treatment of an illness through alternatives to these antibiotics more expensive, as well as causing more side effects. 60 percent of all antibiotics on the farm are used in human medicine, which means humans and animals are taking the same antibiotics, resulting in resistance to this medicine. The Consumers Union has made a statement recognizing that antibiotic use in farming practices today is a threat to human health. Antibiotic resistance bacteria are called superbugs. These superbugs are found in meat and poultry, and they have the capacity to transmit their resistance to other bacteria in the environment, causing a spread of new strains of harmful bacteria. In a study of 200 American supermarket meat samples “ 20% contained Salmonella; 84% were resistant to at least one antibiotic. Another report found resistant bacteria in 81% of ground turkey meat, 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef and 39% of chicken breasts, wings and thighs found in US supermarkets Another study samples from 36 US supermarkets. Almost 25% tested positive for the resistant bacteria'. Based on this data over 25% of all bacteria found in supermarket meat had resistant bacteria. This risk of antibiotic resistance is clearly tied to accessible food and and consumers are not informed well enough to avoid this potential health threat. Cipro is an chloroquine antibiotic that treated the anthrax attack. The use of antibiotics in poultry was common from 1995 to 2005, so FDA monitored that that resistance to cipro in human illnesses was increasing from 12.9% to 21.7 percent in 2005.. In response, the FDA began the process to remove fluoroquinolones from routine use in poultry in 2000. The drug class was banned from routine poultry use in 2005 after protracted legal challenges. with 2 million people suffering from a resistant infection annually and an 8.8 percent increase in resistance. The legal use of antibiotics use has certainly shown to affect certain antibiotic resistance in people, this is especially bad for the young and old. They depend on these antibiotics to work because alternative medicines include more side effects and are more expensive.

The most effective action would be to put a ban on all antibiotics used for non-therapeutic reasons and to create stricter farm environmental laws through congress, to protect human health and the environment. Though public ad campaigns still help educate the public, it is still not enough to make an impact on the issue. Some progress is that the FDA banned the use of fluoroquinolone (class of antibiotics) in 2005, when 30% of e coli found in chicken breasts were already resistant to one or more types of antibiotics. Also, in 2012, the FDA stated “Misuse and overuse of antimicrobial drugs creates selective evolutionary pressure that enables antimicrobial resistant bacteria to increase in numbers more rapidly than antimicrobial susceptible bacteria and thus increases the opportunity for individuals to become infected by resistant bacteria.” Also in 2012, the FDA banned certain uses of cephalosporin, a antimicrobial drug in certain animals, stating “In regard to antimicrobial drug use in animals, the Agency considers the most significant risk to the public health associated with antimicrobial resistance to be human exposure to food containing antimicrobial-resistant bacteria resulting from the exposure of food-producing animals to antimicrobials(The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals Threatens Public Health, 2). The FDA is taking initiative to fix this problem but they need to study more of these antibiotics to stop more of them due to the increasing numbers of antimicrobial resistant bacteria. Another problem is that the FDA is banning antibiotics usage too late after it has already affected the health of many like the consequences of fluoroquinolones. It is necessary that congress steps in and pass the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment act to directly end antibiotic issues because the FDA’s progress to stop the overuse of antibiotics has been deterred for the past 30 years (Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,1). Denmark has successfully been raising animals using antibiotics only for medical reasons. The ban started in 1998 and the world health organization found there was no decrease in feed efficiency and the ban reduced human health risk without significantly harming animal health or farmers income. Danish government data shows that livestock production has increased since the ban which antibiotic resistance has declined (Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,3). The Danish government has set an example for America, exemplifying how a ban on antibiotics will eliminate human health risk with little consequences to farmers and the animals. If a direct ban on antibiotics in livestock was passed, this would force the farmers to put less animals in more space to prevent the spread of disease (which was originally prevented from antibiotics), this would cause less animal waste, and in result it would stop waste containing farm chemicals, antibiotics and hormones from running off into local water sources, contaminating soil, and threatening wildlife. While there is no antibiotic ban in the US, in North Carolina, environmental advocates and farmers took on issues associated with the state's 10 million hogs, which is the first state to ban new hog waste lagoons and require new waste systems to protect the environment. The law included money to fix contaminated water wells and help farmers convert existing lagoons into cleaner systems, and requiring that utilities use renewable energy provided by hog waste to combat the environmental issues caused by large amounts of animals waste.

Many other people view the use of antibiotics as not affecting human health because it is applied in small doses and most of the antibiotics used are not applied in human medicine. Even though the vast majority of antibiotics are not extensively used in both people and animals (Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture, 2)all of the drugs except ionophores are still used by both animals and humans no matter the percentage, which builds up antibiotic resistance for Americans. The industry says that 40 percent of all the antibiotics used on the farm are drugs (called ionophores) not used in human medicine, (The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals Threatens Public Health, 4) This statement does not give farmers a viable reason to use antibiotics because still 60% of all antibiotics used on the farm are used in human medicine, also supporting antibiotic resistance. Some argue that the amount of antibiotics used in food is extremely low and there is no evidence that antibiotics in food is harming people directly because humans still take antibiotics annually. However numerous studies have have demonstrated that routine use of antibiotics on a farm promotes drug-resistant superbugs in those facilities, after a long fight in the courts, FDA finally banned use of the drug in 2005, when nearly 30 percent of C. coli found in chicken breasts were ciprofloxacin resistant increasing from 20% in 1999. By 2010, resistance to ciprofloxacin had declined to 13.5 percent to 12%.(The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals Threatens Public Health, 1) This study has shown the correlation between the use of antibiotics and human health because the resistance to c.coli decrease from 13.5 to 12 percent after the ban was in act and the amount of chicken breasts that were ciprofloxacin resistant increased 10% before the ban. This goes to show that the small doses of antibiotics still negatively affect human health.

Antibiotics have become commonly used in farming which leads to negative effects on human health and the environment. Since the use of antibiotics is still legal, it encourages farmers to keep a majority of animals in small spaces because antibiotics stop the spread of disease. This leads to environmental issues such as large amounts of waste in small spaces which waste runs off into bodies of water. Antibiotics are shown by many studies to negatively affect human health, but there is no direct evidence due to a lack of constants in the studies and the controversy on if humans or animals cause antibiotic resistance. Measures such as direct action in Congress, more FDA research and environmental initiatives have not been taken. Every day that the FDA and Congress delay implementing legislation to ban antibiotic usage, the risks for human health increases unless an action is taken.