american veterinary medical association and industrially farmed animals

We're closing out our series on animal consumption issues, which began with a post on veal calves and included reflections on faithfully-grounded vegetarianism, as well as reviews of the films Eating Mercifully and Food, Inc., and some real life 'Wilbur's'.  A good friend of not one sparrow's, Michael Epperson, passed along a post from one of his favorite veterinary bloggers which points to an important aspect of animal farming which shouldn't be overlooked.

He wrote that the post, "AVMA vs. AVMA over the Pew Commission’s report on industrial animal agriculture" by Dr. Patty Khuly (small animal veterinarian in Miami, Florida), "address(es) a subject with significant implications for the welfare of hundreds of thousands of animals suffering in the industrial world of meat production.  It concerns the prophylactic use of antibiotics within industrial animal agriculture."  'Prophylactic,' by the way, means "preventive" or "protective," or specifically "defending or protecting from disease or infection, as a drug" (Dictionary.com). 

Referring to legislation on the table in Washington to "minimize antimicrobial use in industrial animals," legislation which the American Veterinary Medical Association is lobbying vehemently against, despite its support from the Pew Commission, FDA, AMA, United Nations and World Health Organization.  Michael passed along a couple of additional quotes from the post, including a realization that the legislation is much more significant in impact upon the agriculture industry than you might think:

Predictably, perhaps, food animal veterinarians are enraged over the issue.  They believe this legislation is a Trojan horse.  Because banning antibiotics (a popular position with the public) threatens the very survival of the current paradigm that allows bigger, better, faster and cheaper animal protein to arrive at a supermarket near you.

Michael added, "I'm of the opinion that the 'current paradigm' needs to end - the sooner the better.  I found it interesting to hear of the internal argument within the AVMA, and to realize that the proposal to limit antibiotic use in farmed animals is so bitterly opposed by a portion of the AMVA."

The reason why the prevalence of non-therapeutic antibiotics in farmed animals is so dangerous, according to Wayne Pacelle, is that "this misuse of antibiotics has been proven to increase the risk of antibiotic resistance in human medicine.  It is estimated that 70 percent of all antimicrobials used are fed to animals on factory farms."  Of course, the same constantly-developing resistance takes place in the animals themselves.  Pacelle relays other significantly unfortunate stances taken by the AVMA towards livestock in his post "AVMA Off Course from Veterinarian's Oath," as well as more on their response to the Pew Commission's report specifically. 

Also see Pacelle's follow-up "Talk Back: Veterinary Conflict of Interest," and the Center for a Livable Future's "Public Health & Industrial Farm Animal Production: Setting the Record Straight."  The latter states: "The AVMA depends heavily on its relationships with the animal agriculture, pharmaceutical and other industries.  The AVMA’s attack on the PCIFAP final report smacks of being more like an industry-choreographed campaign to defeat PAMTA than a conscientious review of a hugely important document."

(Many thanks again to Michael Epperson; photo copyright Jose Manuel Gelpi Diaz and 123rf.com.)