Take the antibiotics out of all food in the US, not just in Oregon

Take the antibiotics out of Oregonians' food

Statesman Journal Editorial Board12:39 p.m. PDT June 9, 2015


You might not want to read this editorial while eating. But that also is why this editorial is important: It's about your food.

If you're eating a lot of produce grown in the Mid-Valley, you probably don't have to worry much about farmers routinely spraying your future meal with preventive herbicides or pesticides. Crop agriculture has advanced to the point that farmers strive to forgo prophylactic applications of chemicals. Instead, they generally spray only if a disease or organism starts to infect a crop.

But if you're eating beef, chicken or some other meat, there is a strong chance that the animals were plied with antibiotics to prevent disease. There are several problems with that approach, despite its popularity in modern agriculture.

The most obvious is that humans and animals live in the same bacterial world and share many of the same antibiotics that are used to combat those bugs. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, whether in people or animals, has fueled the development of so-called super bugs that are resistant to most antibiotics.

Does factory farms' prophylactic use of antibiotics contribute to the development of these super bugs? Science suggests the answer is yes. It boils down to survival of the fittest; in this case, bacteria. Strong bacteria that survive the antibiotics retain their anti-antibiotic characteristics as they multiply.

And the majority of human-type antibiotics sold in the U.S. are purchased for agricultural use.

This is why many of Oregon's leading health organizations are supporting Senate Bill 920. It would ban Oregon farmers and ranchers from using antibiotics to promote growth or prevent disease in meat-producing animals, while still allowing the drugs' use for treating sick animals.

No other state has such a ban. Why? Because large-scale agriculture has been factory-ized. Antibiotics can make animals bigger, meatier. They can keep animals from getting sick, even when they live in such tight conditions that they must stand or lie in their own excrement.

Therein lies the initial financial cost for this bill. To guard against disease, farmers and ranchers should invest in better living conditions for the animals, which could increase the costs of meat production. From simply a financial standpoint, it is unsurprising that some farmers and ranchers oppose the bill.

However, SB 920 represents where society is heading. Good animal husbandry practices are attractive to consumers while overcoming the need for prophylactic antibiotics. In response to public pressure, Foster Farms recently announced that it was eliminating use of human antibiotics in its chicken. Foster Farms joins Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride and Perdue Foods in taking such steps.

Given these developments, opponents of SB 920 will say, why not let the marketplace take its course?

That would be preferable, but some agricultural companies are resisting. And the super bugs are becoming more antibiotic-resistant.

For the sake of Oregonians' health, as well as the animals', the Legislature should ban the unnecessary, non-therapeutic use of human antibiotics in farm animals.