Up To Date Presents Food For Thought Entry 2: Bugging Out

Imagine that you are Alexander Fleming, the man who discovered penicillin. Imagine winning a Nobel Prize for this discovery, which has saved hundreds of millions of lives. Imagine hearing from beyond the grave that the miracle drug you discovered is being given to cows just to fatten them up. To make matters worse, these cows are raised on concentrated lots, packed in extremely tight quarters, and are absolutely caked in their own manure. I can only hypothesize how that exchange would go, but any sensible person would see if this is happening to other animals. It is. Pigs and poultry are farmed with incredibly similar processes and similarly dangerous conditions, and the abuse of antibiotics also remains the same. If we are to keep antibiotics as a viable treatment for future generations’ infections, we need to replace this system now.

A major initial source of this problem is how our farm animals are raised and treated. These poor animals reside in CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations. The conditions are ultra-crowded and highly unsanitary, and the lots are home to thousands of animals each (Kennedy 2010). They are also filled with the animals’ own manure, and in that manure lives a type of bacteria called E. coli. Of course, E. coli is a necessary organism for any mammal’s digestive system, but it can mutate in harmful ways, such as developing resistance to antibiotics. This is important because animals in CAFOs are routinely given mild doses of antibiotics to fatten them up and fight off any infections that may occur (Kennedy 2010). Unfortunately, this has a nasty tendency of resulting in natural selection allowing only resistant strains to survive. If only those resistant strains survive, then the antibiotics no longer work to stop those bacteria.

One common way to distribute antibiotics to animals is through their feed. There have been numerous debates about the necessity of such a practice, and both sides’ arguments can be examined through simple observations. Comparing the United States and Denmark, a pair of prominent pork producers, there are similarities and differences. The main similarity is that CAFOs full of hogs exist in both nations, but only in the US are animals given subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics made for humans (Estabrook 2011). This is ostensibly done to fatten up the animals, but statistics from Denmark show otherwise. In fact, the daily weight gained per pig there actually increased from 1992 to 2008 despite antibiotic use decreasing significantly. On top of that, the amount of resistant bacteria in hogs and humans alike decreased markedly (Estabrook 2011). This proves that there is no benefit for the food industry to continue the practice of antibiotic distribution like it is done in the United States. If we adopt a model more like Denmark’s, similar results may occur, resulting in even more money for the food industry in addition to healthier Americans. 

Denmark’s results weren’t immediate. It took time and research to discover what worked. At first the experiment did show a decrease in the weight of the pigs, but with some more time, they found success. By leaving the piglets with the sows a little longer, the animals were able to strengthen their immune systems organically and  gained weight without the use of antibodies. Success. Eventually, they produced even more piglets, and more product as well. In addition to this positive lifestyle, the Danish also cleaned the pens and cages of the animals, removing waste and creating a more positive area to grow and mature (Scientific American 2011) .  Although this may seem like it can’t work for the US, with time and patience, the US will ultimately benefit with healthier livestock and healthier consumers. 

When more sustainable alternatives are successfully implemented elsewhere, it can be puzzling as to why the system in the United States stays the same. The answer is simpler than one might think, and it’s not because this is the only way to artificially increase the growth of the animals. It’s that antibiotics are expensive drugs to develop, and the return on investment through human use alone is incredibly poor (McKenna 2019). After all, most people are on antibiotics for two weeks at a time at most, thus not providing a consistent consumer base in the slightest. As a result, to make some semblance of a profit from antibiotics, a company has to get rather creative. Often, that creativity leads the company to the feedlot, which becomes a consistent, profitable market. After all, a billion dollars were likely invested over more than a decade into any single antibiotic (McKenna 2019), so the margin for error is razor-thin. Long story short, companies are going to want more profit, and they will do anything allowable to earn that. If spiking animal feed is a viable, allowable way to make antibiotics profitable, then a well-run company will do that.

Despite decades of research indicating the deadly risks of antibiotics in animal feed, the FDA has only taken insignificant actions with massive loopholes. In 2008, the FDA finally required companies to disclose the amount of antibiotics that they sold for agricultural use (Kessler 2013). However, according to the same article, their 2011 report on antibiotics sales to agriculture was only four pages long. Meanwhile, the report on superbugs in meat was 82 pages long (Kessler 2013). To me, this shows a critical problem with the weakness of oversight in the food business, the problem being that the root causes aren’t being discussed anywhere near as much as the symptoms. What I mean by that is that the superbug issue is getting good coverage, but the misuse of antibiotics, which is a major cause of the resistance crisis, isn’t getting enough. If the FDA were doing its job properly, they would try to help reform the model so as to make antibiotic use impossible to defend. Instead, they are focusing on the effect, and not the cause.

It is nearly impossible to dispute that feeding livestock subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics does much more harm than good. As David Kessler wrote for the New York Times, eighty percent of all antibiotic use in 2011 was for livestock. That amount was around thirty million pounds (2013). In fact, the discoverer of penicillin, Alexander Fleming, had some choice words in this warning, given when he received his Nobel Prize in 1945. He said that, “there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant” (Kessler 2013). Given that this is the case with an untold amount of farm animals, and humans by extension, this prediction is already more accurate than anything Nostradamus ever published. Nevertheless, it is worth explaining why this is the case. It is because of natural selection, which allows for resistant bacteria to develop in response to nonlethal amounts of antibiotics in their environment. This can then affect humans through various means, resulting in antibiotic resistant infections in our hospitals and communities.

This has many ramifications for humans, as well. The most prominent of the superbugs that can kill humans is MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. One example from Time Magazine was written by a MRSA survivor named Chris Linaman. He took a Memorial Day vacation after an ACL surgery in 2005, and when he came back, his knee started acting up (Linaman 2017). Eventually, it was red, painful, and incredibly swollen, and that’s when the MRSA diagnosis was made. His infection cost nearly $300,000 in the end, and that’s not even factoring in that he almost died (Linaman 2017). He endured four surgeries, a spinal tap, numerous adverse reactions to the antibiotic vancomycin, and unbelievable pain (Linaman 2017). This story proves that MRSA is no joke, and is a deadly, serious disease.

However, there are other superbugs than MRSA, and some of these are even more insidious. Take, for example, the story of Richard Armbruster, which was written in the New York Times by Andrew Pollack. He died after a hip replacement surgery due to an infection of A. baumannii, a particularly worrying antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Pollack 2010). This is because, unlike MRSA, this bacteria is considered Gram-negative due to a cell structure adapted to resist antibiotics. These bacteria can cause urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and even bloodstream infections and sepsis (Pollack 2010). In fact, some infectious disease experts call Gram-negative bacteria a bigger threat than even MRSA due to the lack of currently available treatments (Pollack 2010). The reason for this declaration is that the antibiotic pipeline from pharmaceutical companies to hospitals is slowing down to less than a trickle (McKenna 2019). Hardly any new antibiotics are being developed, and the ones currently in use are losing effectiveness, as bacteria grow resistant to them. If this trend continues, we will re-enter a time when there were no antibiotics, back to when a strep throat infection, or even a papercut, could kill. 

In addition to superbugs, E. coli outbreaks in and of itself is a fear within the meat industry. Since these animals; chicken, cows, and pigs, live in their own waste and therefore E.coli, there is the very strong possibility that outbreaks may occur in the food industry and affect humans. The CDC has many suggestions regarding cooking meat and temperature to avoid spreading illness to humans, but if it does happen, ironically, one of the first suggestions is not to give antibiotics immediately. Does this go back to the animals receiving antibiotics? One such case in June of 2019 found 209 people falling ill in a matter of one month’s time. There were no deaths, but there were reports of hospitalizations due to the E. coli. In fact, some of the patients’ infections were resistant to antibiotics (CDC 2019). The condition these animals live and die in has more to do with the quality of the meat that is served than many people realize. The overall living conditions are as much a part of the product as the product itself. 

Thailand conducted a study on chickens, similar to the Danish with pigs, in which scientists studied free-range chickens and cage-bound chickens. Since it has been believed that caged and drugged animals produce a “better” product, the study challenged that hypothesis. The scientists studied 24 chickens overall. They analyzed the composition of the meat, evaluated sensory marks, and looked at the physical properties. In summation, the Taiwanese Game Commission found that the free-range game hens scored highest on the sensory markers. In addition, “both breast and thigh meat of free-range Taiwan game hens offered better sensory satisfaction and for a healthier diet choice. Free-range game hens had lower crude fat, higher collagen, crude protein contents and better texture for chewiness” ( Lin et al. 2014). What this shows, like in Denmark, an animal that lives in a situation free of squalor, drugs, filth, and unnatural situations will produce a better product. Not only will the product be tastier and healthier itself to consume, but it will not be filled with harmful antibiotics and the possibilities of E. coli poisoning. The United States can definitely learn from its peers. 

Through research it can be surmised that antibiotics and the meat industry are not a strong partnership. Although it may seem to be a scientific way to increase meat production and also allow for animal safety, it does just the opposite. By using antibiotics, the animals do not grow any fatter than without nor do they taste better. Both Denmark and Thailand studies have proven that. In addition, by using antibiotics, humans eat the meat and become resistant to using antibiotics in their own lives for their own well-being. Superbugs also occur because of the resistance to these antibiotics. So much is at stake when really, it is as simple as creating clean and humane living quarters. Humans become sick, hospitalized, lose limbs due to amputations, and even die because of tainted meat products. Superbugs and E. coli are the cause of these problems when all a person wanted was a meal. Animals who don’t live cramped in cages or large confined floors surrounded by their own waste, and possibly E. coli, become healthier animals, meatier animals, and safer food sources for humans in the public. It is not a matter of how quickly an animal can grow, but how it can be done to benefit all of the parties involved.  

Bibliography

Editors, The. “Our Big Pig Problem.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 1 Apr. 2011,
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-big-pig-problem/. 

Estabrook, Barry. “E-I-E-I-Oh No: Decades of Antibiotics in Farm Animals Lead to Deadly
 Superbugs.” Grist, 3 June 2011,
 grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-05-31-you-want-superbugs-with-that1/. 

Kennedy, Donald. “Cows on Drugs.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2010,
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kennedy.html. 

Kessler, David A. “Antibiotics and the Meat We Eat.” The New York Times, The New York
 Times, 28 Mar. 2013,
 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/antibiotics-and-the-meat-we-eat.html. 

Lin, Cheng-Yung, et al. “Effect of Free-Range Rearing on Meat Composition, Physical
 Properties and Sensory Evaluation in Taiwan Game Hens.” Asian-Australasian Journal
 of Animal Sciences, Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
 (AAAP) and Korean Society of Animal Science and Technology (KSAST), June 2014,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093180/. 

Linaman, Chris. “A MRSA Infection Cost Me $300,000-and Nearly Killed Me.” Time, Time, 1
 June 2017, time.com/4797815/mrsa-superbug-bacteria/. 

McKenna, Maryn. “The Antibiotics Business Is Broken-But There’s a Fix.” Wired, Conde Nast,
2019, http://www.wired.com/story/the-antibiotics-business-is-broken-but-theres-a-fix/. 

“Outbreak of E. Coli Infections Linked to Ground Beef.” Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 June 2019,
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2019/o103-04-19/index.html. 

Pollack, Andrew. “Rising Threat of Infections Unfazed by Antibiotics.” The New York Times,
 The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2010,
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/business/27germ.html?searchResultPosition=1.