Farmers feed antiobiotics to their animals because the antibiotics make them bigger. No one knows exactly why, but farmers know a more valuable pig when they see one.
This is how capitalism works. If farmers can make more money by giving antibiotics to pigs, then they are going to do it. They'll argue that they have to because the farming market is increasingly controlled by a small number of giant companies, and if one doesn't do everything possible to increase yield then all of the others will.
Of course the only bacteria left alive will be the ones that are resistant to the antibiotics. This puts all of us in more danger and over time will cause more bizarre diseases. But that tradeoff is far into the future and no farming executive is going to forgo a quarterly bonus to prevent a problem 20 years from now.
I understand the tradeoffs, too. I thinking recently about how amazing it is that we all get to eat meat every day. Just hundreds of years ago it was a rare treat. Even with that said, the idea of overusing a resource in such precious short supply as antibiotics is very disconcerting.
One of my deluded friends (who read a little too much Ayn Rand for his own good), used to say that he wishes the government would stop policing what kind of food he can buy in the store. Basically FDA should close its doors, and the better products will inevitably emerge when the free market just does its thing.
I've heard that from other people in US as well. It seems to be a common motif in some circles (even those of educated people).
Usually, I just point out that such "utopian" places, with non-existent regulation exist -- go to any undeveloped country with rampant corruption and thinly taxed government regulatory agencies, and voila -- heaven, effectively no regulation whatsoever. Can go to the market and by dog hamburgers disguised as cow hamburgers. Can buy vegetables that have been sprayed with chemicals that have been illegal in the West for 50 years now. [Now we all know everyone shops with their chemo-bio-radio micro laboratory at hand so they can clearly pick better products, right? Let me stick this hamburger meat in the slot here and see if a picture of a cow blinks or a picture of a cat blinks...]
Your argument would be stronger if you didn't have such disrespect for the people you don't agree with. The argument wouldn't be that everyone would test foods with handheld chemo whatever's, but rather that private analogs to the FDA would exist. Think consumer reports for health/nutrition vs product quality. The thinking is that one of the problems with the FDA is that since it is a government agency, it reacts to these things slowly and is prone to corruption. Most people say "I can eat anything on the shelf because the government has taken the time to make sure its not bad for me, they always go on and on about the success of the FDA after all". The problem is that oftentimes there are problems with things even if they are approved. If you instead had independent agencies doing this, there is a possibility that we would have a culture that leaned more towards research and discussion (the same way people ask all the time about which computer to buy). I'm sure you'll argue that corruption would happen here too, but the idea is that having multiple agencies, all of which are reasonably legally liable (unlike a government agency where if they make a mistake its particularly difficult to punish them), allows competition so its harder to buy out everyone when you create an interest in an upstart showing how you were wrong in your analysis. With the FDA, there may be opposing sides (e.g. let's say the "organic" lobby and the "farmers" lobby that could potentially try to convince the FDA of one thing or another), but at the end one decision is made.
I am in no way arguing that this point of view is correct, however essentially calling people with opposing viewpoints idiots doesn't convince anyone of your side, it makes you appear like you have not actually taken the time to listen to those arguments, and thus will at best only preach to the choir. Of course if this was only meant to be a rant, then carry on.
The FDA has been hesitant to tackle this in the past because it feels it hasn't had sufficient evidence. This is why we perhaps need a gradient instead of approved/disapproved. With multiple competing agencies, some would be much more conservative and be willing to speak up sooner. The point I'm trying to make is that people who disagree with you look at the current situation with antibiotics and say "see, here we have the FDA and this is still happening". Whereas you say "See, this is happening and why we need the FDA".
"The argument wouldn't be that everyone would test foods with handheld chemo whatever's, but rather that private analogs to the FDA would exist."
What's stopping these "private analogs to the FDA" from existing now? If the FDA is doing such a poor job of protecting our food, why isn't private industry stepping up to the plate?
"The point I'm trying to make is that people who disagree with you look at the current situation with antibiotics and say "see, here we have the FDA and this is still happening". Whereas you say "See, this is happening and why we need the FDA"."
These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA, not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only works in some libertarian utopia.
> What's stopping these "private analogs to the FDA" from existing now? If the FDA is doing such a poor job of protecting our food, why isn't private industry stepping up to the plate?
What's stopping them is the fact that there is a much stronger body that already has an anointed legitimacy. The "market opportunity" for doing this is gone if the government is already doing it, and on top of that is the final say on the matter (they after all do get to take things off the market).
> These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA
Should we do this before or after we make bank regulators more independent from the banks? Or before or after we make the military committees in congress more independent from the military contractors? Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Go into more or less any government agency that interacts with industry and you'll find them in bed. Its easy to say things "should" be more independent, but its hard to actually accomplish it. One reason, again, is because its hard to hold anyone liable for anything in government (who polices the police?). After all, its already the case that in theory the FDA, composed of "non-political" scientists is already supposed to be 100% independent. How exactly do you propose making them more independent? Mind you, giving them more power does not make them independent, it just makes their decisions harder to fight against (which can work against you if for example they rule against a small company since it is in the interests of a big company). Again, the "libertarian" point here is that there is no real incentive for them to do a good job. We have to rely on them wanting to be "good people" and make the right decision. Because if they make a bad decision, there are no negative consequences since there is no competition: they certainly wouldn't lose their right to decide things, whereas making a wrong decision in a private market could be devastating as no one would trust them anymore.
> not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only works in some libertarian utopia.
Please stop referring to these proposals as "pipe dreams" of "utopias", it is a really shallow straw man. No is arguing that things would be perfect, it is simply an alternative idea that some people believe would be better, but no rational person thinks would be completely without issue (just like you think the current system is better, but clearly has issues as well -- there is no perfect answer). The most important thing to realize is that by discussing these opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner, you might actually gain ideas about how to improve your own system (for example it might give you inspiration for a way to truly make the FDA independent, which I agree would be great).
"calling people with opposing viewpoints idiots doesn't convince anyone of your side, it makes you appear like you have not actually taken the time to listen to those arguments, and thus will at best only preach to the choir."
This is how capitalism works. If farmers can make more money by giving antibiotics to pigs, then they are going to do it. They'll argue that they have to because the farming market is increasingly controlled by a small number of giant companies, and if one doesn't do everything possible to increase yield then all of the others will.
Of course the only bacteria left alive will be the ones that are resistant to the antibiotics. This puts all of us in more danger and over time will cause more bizarre diseases. But that tradeoff is far into the future and no farming executive is going to forgo a quarterly bonus to prevent a problem 20 years from now.
I understand the tradeoffs, too. I thinking recently about how amazing it is that we all get to eat meat every day. Just hundreds of years ago it was a rare treat. Even with that said, the idea of overusing a resource in such precious short supply as antibiotics is very disconcerting.