3 ms·
The other half of that sentence is important too: > ... or prevent future illness The future illness that they're often protecting the animal from is the natu
by curun1r 11y ago
The other half of that sentence is important too:
> ... or prevent future illness
The future illness that they're often protecting the animal from is the natural result of feeding the animal an unnatural diet (corn, soy, etc...stuff that's cheaper than what the animal is historically fed). The illness that's being prevented isn't just possible, it's what would be expected without the antibiotic. Any controls on using antibiotics would need to include provisions for banning them in situations where the health of the animal was knowingly compromised. Otherwise, you create a loophole that allows the industry to make the animals sick and then use antibiotics to treat the sickness they caused.
- dinoentrails 11y agoDo you have any evidence that the diets fed to farm animals increase the risk of illnesses?
- curun1r 11y agoGoogling produces a ton of results, but here's one that looks pretty reputable (USDA, based off many other studies): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.ht...
- mirimir 11y agoHigh-density livestock management is a huge risk factor. Fomite alludes to this.
- bad_user 11y agoCattle is also fed with animal fat and flesh, not only corn. That's where the mad cow disease comes from. And the living conditions are also really bad. Chicken is stacked up high in boxes so small that they can't move, so it isn't a wonder that the aviary flu happened, given the high density of such operations. Industrial farms are basically subsidized with our health. But back to your point, in nature being healthy is the norm, not the exception. Any operation where cattle is getting sick regularly should be shut down, sickness being the most valuable signal you can ask for.