do you know what would happen if i used something “off-label”?

Back in July, under pressure from the citizenry and the American Medical Association, the FDA placed a ban on certain types of antibiotics that are used in the livestock industry.

The antibiotic in question is cephalosporin. This is a very powerful antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections and is structurally similar to penicillin.

The issue at hand is, first, that it is being used off label. That means that the drug has not been approved for veterinary use. However, that has not prevented Pfizer from selling it, or members of the industry from using it to treat livestock with severe infections. Many critics argue that use of this antibiotic can affect the human population by building up resistance to bacteria, making infections lethal and not treatable.

In July, the FDA placed on a ban on off label use of this drug and said it would “crack down” on ranchers that used the medication. In fact, the veterinary director for the FDA, at the time, stated: ‘We have [bacterial organisms] moving around the world that we have never seen before,’ he told a conference, according to Dairy Herd Management magazine and that “antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming more common in cattle.”

Despite this, today, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and the livestock industry, the FDA reversed its ban on the use of these antibiotics.

Many things can be said about the FDA practices and the impact this will have. What will not be mentioned and needs to be is the ongoing research into the large effect the livestock industry has on the environment and the need to reduce the intake of meat. And, not only that, but have you ever wondered why your meat is filled with disease? Why would you want to eat something that has been sick enough that it needed STRONG medication?

If humans drastically reduced, although I would prefer gave up, their intake of meat, animals could be raised in ways that do not harm the environment and are not getting sick.

to put it in simple terms: we breath animal farts

Earlier, I posted about the U.S. increase in greenhouse gases, however, I decided to leave methane for this discussion.

Methane was our second largest emission after carbon dioxide at 9.6% or 700 million metric tons. This was a 2% increase in our levels from last year. The reason for the increase: livestock enteric fermentation. Farts.

In other research released today, which many may not tie together, is the impact of livestock in climate change. The report suggests that eating a hamburger actually has a larger footprint than driving an SUV. It goes on to suggest that reducing your meat consumption can have a huge impact on climate change.

Of course, this is not being met on the friendliest terms. First off, in the United States, the meat industry is huge. It is primarily funded by government subsidies through the farm bill.

The average American eats 200 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish per capita per year, 50 pounds more than Americans did in the 1950s. Between 1970 and 2002 the average person in a developing country went from consuming 24 pounds to 65 pounds of meat annually. In all, the world’s total meat consumption in 2007 was estimated to be 284 million tons, compared to 71 million tons in 1961. It is expected to double by 2050.

Obviously, this is money they do not want to lose. However, the true cost may be more than we can afford.

Global warming is the single biggest threat to the health of the planet, and meat consumption plays a bigger role in greenhouse gas emissions than even many environmentalists realize. The production and transportation of meat and dairy, particularly if you include the grains that are fed to livestock, is much more energy-intensive than it is for plants. Animals, especially cattle, also release gases like methane and nitrous oxide that, pound for pound, are up to 30 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Internationally there is an additional cost to animal agriculture: massive deforestation to make land available for grazing, which releases greenhouse gases as the trees are burned and removes valuable foliage that absorbs carbon dioxide. As a result, according to a 2006 United Nations report, internationally the livestock sector accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the transportation sector.

Many people shun vegetarian diets because they view it from the terms of a 1960′s hippie. Getting over this stigma may be the thing that saves the world. Consumers may not have a choice about where a power plant will be built or the fact that they live in an area where they have to drive to work; but a consumer can make a choice about how much meat they eat. On study indicates that switching to a vegan diet can reduce carbon emissions by 6%.

The next question is why are people not talking about it? In fact, Nobel Prize winning Al Gore has not once mentioned eating less meat as a valid way to reduce greenhouse gases. I think the primary reason why is the meat industry has its hands in many a politicians pocket. Even though the meat industry does not get direct funding from the Farm Bill, they are the benefactors of corn subsidies. Corn is a commodity crop and is the primary feed for our livestock. As a result, the return on investment is high; it is cheap to raise meat but the industry can charge astronomical prices.

Many environmental groups use the reasoning that they are trying to attack one emission at a time and are starting with carbon. The NRDC, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters do not have an official policy on meat consumption. However, suggestions that been made that it is because they are just as political as other organizations and are doing more harm then good (see Green, Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad). And, maybe there point is valid, since it takes longer to get carbon out of our atmosphere. However, many critics site that these organizations could make a blanket statement about meat consumption, effectively lowering one greenhouse gas, and still keep fighting for the worst offender, carbon.

All in all, it is ridiculous for a person to pull up to a McDonald’s in their Prius thinking they are helping the environment. Because, it is just not true. More and more people need to come out against eating meat. Take the time to educate your friends and neighbors about the true harm being inflicted by eating these animals.

Many articles have been published on this and I recommend that you go HERE for an in depth article by Ben Adler. HERE is an article from the New York Times about what it being discussed this week at the UN conference.

deadly bacteria found in meat

In my book, there are two things at the top of my list for what you can do to help stop Climate Change. The first one, stop watching television, which requires a more lengthy discussion at another time. The second, stop (preferred option) or dramatically reduce your meat intake.

There are many reasons why I think you should get away from meat and you can go HERE for one of my articles on the topic. But it has been shown time and time again that the meat industry is, I think, the third leading cause of greenhouse gases, water usage, dead zones in soil, and the list goes on.

Yesterday, new data was released that highlights another reason that you need to stay away from meat: Tainted meats point to superbug C. diff in food, via MSNBC.

More than 40 percent of packaged meats sampled from three Arizona chain stores tested positive for Clostridium difficile, a gut bug known as C. diff.

Here is what C. diff is:
C. diff has long been a common, usually benign bug associated with simple, easily treated diarrhea in older patients in hospitals and nursing homes. About 3 percent of healthy adults harbor the bacteria with no problem. But overuse of antibiotics has allowed the germ to develop resistance in recent years, doctors said, creating the toxic new type that stumps traditional treatment.

About 80 percent of C. difficile infections now occur in hospital or health care settings — and the number of infections is rising. About 13 in every 1,000 hospital patients is infected or colonized with the bacteria, a rate between 6.5 and 20 times higher than previously estimated, according to figures released last week by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, or APIC.

Of course, the CDC says there is no link between tainted meat and the disease. This is the CDC that is under the direction of the Bush Administration and we all know their policies behind science. Meaning, don’t trust them. They are under a similar branch as the Bisphenol-A passing FDA.

One of the reasons the CDC feels so confident in their claim is that it takes weeks to get symptoms after ingesting C. diff, which makes finding it’s source nearly impossible. This bug is very hard to kill, in fact it DOES survive most cooking techniques.

In other words, this is not good and I highly recommend, if you do choose to eat meat, know where it came from.