I totally agree, but the problem is that not giving animals those anti-biotics is bad in a pragmatic sense as well. For example, let's say you don't give cattl

I totally agree, but the problem is that not giving animals those anti-biotics is bad in a pragmatic sense as well. For example, let's say you don't give cattle antibiotics anymore. Cattle destined for production are generally tightly packed, and while nature abhors a vacuum, nature also punishes high populations with disease. Hence the anti-biotics. The next logical step would be to stop packing cattle so tightly. But, you'd be surprised how much room cattle in a natural setting need (think orders of magnitude more room). One of the great triumphs of humanity is how incredibly accessible (good) food has become. This all goes hand in hand with price reductions. Nowadays, American's spend about 1/20 of their disposable income on food, back in the "good old days" (the 20's & 30's) they were spending more like 1/5. [1] You no doubt raise a valid point, but as usual, the reality is much more complicated. What is worse, an uptick in deaths by food poisoning or an increase of 4x in the cost of food cost? Such a decision is beyond me. [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...