January 9, 2012 |
Only 20% of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to people who are sick with bacterial infections, such as ear and urinary tract infections and pneumonia. Most of the penicillin, tetracycline and other antibiotic drugs used in this country are given to livestock that are perfectly healthy. Farmers have been putting these medicines in animal feed since the 1950s. They say the drugs help protect herds from infectious diseases and help animals grow faster. But for at least 40 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been concerned that the widespread practice may be fueling the growth of human pathogens that are no longer vulnerable to doctors' front-line drugs.
September 6, 2003
Re "Sprawling Suburbs Adding to Nation's Obesity Problem, Researchers Say," Aug. 29: Two unmentioned causes: Hours per day spent in front of a TV or computer screen and weight-gain promoters (including hormones) given to food animals. Diana Amsden Santee
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 15, 1986
Your editorial concern (Jan. 19), "Food: Keep the Faith," for the continued safety of American meat, eggs and milk products is shared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Action to eliminate deficiencies found in a congressional hearing last July is already well under way. Unfortunately, the recently published hearing report, on which you editorialized, did not reflect these improvements. Nor did the House subcommittee, in saying that a good many veterinary products are sold without pre-marketing approval; note that these include horse liniments, dog wormers, vitamins and minerals and so on--old products that have posed no danger to humans.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 15, 1993
As a vegetarian and animal welfare/rights advocate, this article struck a chord with me. While Oliver shows sympathy and sensitivity for the plight of "food animals," he stops short in the process in that he still sees no problem in using other animals' bodies for human consumption. While it's nice to say be kind and give them a few feet to turn around, my question is why bring them into the world in the first place? Not only has it been proven that the production and consumption of meat is not a healthy practice, having been linked with most of the scourges in meat-eating societies, but it is also environmentally unsound and morally degrading.
April 24, 2006 |
AVOIDING the use of antibiotics in food animals appears to reduce drug resistance in humans, according to a study published online last week in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. The study involved the use of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones in Australian poultry. Australia restricts use of the antibiotics in animal husbandry because the practice is thought to contribute to drug resistance in people who contract bacterial infections from eating contaminated food.
March 9, 2007
Re "Cloned beef: It's what's for dinner," March 4 This article presents the happy outcomes while minimizing the focus on the objections. For many, cloning one's foods is significantly different from such activities as stem cell research, which may be used to mitigate human suffering. Also, while the foods may be safe and identical, on a molecular or nutritional level, there is still a moral repugnance to this fare. Finally, the biggest objection may be that the government is willing to "stuff this down our throats" whether we approve or not. I am troubled by the Food and Drug Administration's position that there would be no need to label the cloned meats as such, depriving the marketplace of making a choice based on its own moral or ethical codes and of the opportunity to vote with its pocketbook.