Cleere 1

Bailey Cleere
Mrs. Davis
Comp. II (MWF 8:30)
16, November 2015
The Good, The Bad, and The Misinformed
Evolution is a naturally occurring change which is taught in all basic educational schools.
Science books inform us how and why it occurs. The theory that humans evolved from monkeys
or apes to the forms we are today have been accepted world-wide. Studies and experiments
prove every being, including animals, plants, humans, and bacteria, naturally transform and
adapt to constantly changing environments. Agriculturalists have used this knowledge to
improved food production and stabilize the worlds food supply. Although these systems have
been successful, consumers have not been properly educated in order to accept the concept of
altering food production methods. Antibiotics and genetically modified crops, also called GM
crops or GMOs, have been developed and altered in order to produce food more efficiently and
less expensive, which directly preserves life on Earth. Consumers assume these agriculture
methods are unhealthy and unsafe due to receiving misinformation. Good and bad are present in
all situations, but it is the consumers job to determine if the good outweighs the bad in the
agriculture industry. Their final decisions in the grocery store can carry significant consequences
for farmers and the economy. Proper decisions can be made if they are educated on the costs as
well as the benefits of antibiotics in meat animals and genetically modified crops.
Animal and human rights activists, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
or PETA, are dedicated to protect the health and welfare of living beings. Part of their mission is
to evaluate the meat available to consumers, including the treatment of those animals before they

Cleere 2

are shelved at the grocery stores. In fact, Subway chains have recently announced their ten year
plan to remove all meat from their stores that have been treated with antibiotics in order to
satisfy consumer demand. Activists are concerned with residue of antibiotics left in the meat.
They claim in the article Keep Hormones and Antibiotics Off the Menu a medication called
Ractopamine, which is administered to help livestock produce larger quantities of leaner meat
with less food, is not approved for human use, but because its added to feed in the weeks
immediately prior to slaughter, traces of the drug remain in the meat from treated animals
(Keep). Other pharmaceuticals have been said to yield the same results. Hormones given in
favor of beef animals growing faster and producing leaner meat is said to leave hazardous
residue in the meat which is offered to consumers. Six of these hormones, including those that
are naturally produced such as estradiol and testosterone, are currently approved to use on meat
animals (Keep). Activists groups are concerned with the consequences accompanying these
medications. Human ingestion of meat contaminated with drug residue can have devastating
effects, the most common being a built up resistance to antibiotics (Cogliani). Because tainted
meat can cause humans to be resistant to antibiotics, it will be difficult to treat illnesses which
could ultimately end in an epidemic of deaths world-wide. Knowing this, consumers confidence
in the choices farmers make pertaining to the safety of meat has been shattered.
Consumer confidence is linked to the limited knowledge provided by a corrupt media and
misinformed activists groups. All individuals, rather they are a part of the media or members of
activists groups, are consumers. If further research would be done by these consumers, they
would discover the vital role antibiotics play in the stability of the economy and the worlds food
supply as well as the safety of that food. Antibiotics are used to treat ill livestock. Some of these
illness can undoubtedly carry food-borne bacteria, which is dangerous if consumed. Antibiotics

Cleere 3

are administered to prevent and control deadly bacteria and other matter that otherwise would
come in contact with consumers. An increase of E-coli, Salmonella, and various food poising
outbreaks will occur without the use of antibiotics. Although antibiotics are used often to control
and prevent these possible epidemics, there is no antibiotics in meat offered to consumers. Every
antibiotic available to farmers with meat animals carries a withdrawal time. LA 300 is a general
antibiotic given to cattle and swine. It is used to treat infections such as hoof rot. The label on
the box states the withdrawal time is twenty-eight days. That means once an animal has received
this antibiotic, they are not allowed to be slaughtered for meat until after the twenty-eight days
have passed. This time permits the antibiotic to fight off the infection and leave the animals
system so when the animal is slaughtered there is no antibiotics in the meat. The withdrawal
time is strictly enforced, especially in large meat production operations. It is illegal in the
United States to market food animals that carry unsafe antibiotic residue. This is a nonnegotiable fact of food production (Subway). Because government agencies thoroughly
monitor antibiotic residue, the meat sold at Subway was already antibiotic free prior to the plan
calling for non-antibiotic meat and therefore, safe to consume. It is true antibiotic free meat does
not solve the concern of antibiotic resistance in humans, but logic may shed some light on the
matter. Draxxin is another antibiotic used to treat infections in cattle and swine, including foot
rot and bovine respiratory disease. The recommended dose is between five and ten milliliters. A
bottle containing 500 milliliters of Draxxin is sold for approximately 2,000 dollars. Due to the
high costs, it does not make sense for farmers to overuse this product (Peterson). Therefore,
activists claim that overuse of antibiotics causes antibiotic resistance in humans is invalid.
Furthermore, these activists preach to people regarding the treatment of animals, including
animals produced for meat. They undermine famers and the methods they use to provide food

Cleere 4

for the world. They rally, hold up signs, pass out fliers, and perform sit-ins. They spend
countless hours fighting for the rights of animals as well as consumers. They push for antibiotic
free meat for consumers but do not understand the issue or the impact that would have on the
animals and the farmers. Without antibiotics, sick animals would suffer, which is exactly what
activists groups shout they are trying to prevent. If their demands are met, that leaves the farmer
with two options; put down the sick animals or let the animals suffer with the hopes of their
immune systems curing them. In most cases, the animals will die before they had the chance to
regain their health, which means they suffered for no reason. Either way, that animal would go
to waste. A farmer would not consider slaughtering a sick animal for fear of meat contamination.
If a sick animal that goes without treatment is slaughtered, then the meat could possibly carry
dangerous bacteria which would expose consumers to that bacteria. By reducing the number of
livestock being slaughtered due to illnesses, the price of meat will increase making it less
available to those with lower income. Because sick animals are not slaughtered, meat that could
be used to feed those in poverty would be thrown away. Additionally the wasted food would
negatively affect the farmer. For example, a farmer owns 5500 head of cattle in a twelve month
period and treats 7.8 percent of those cattle. If the farmer is not allowed to use antibiotics, then
approximately 430 of those cattle would suffer and probably die. That would waste roughly
352,600 pounds of meat, assuming each of those weigh nearly 820 pounds, a year from only one
farm (Subway). If no farm was allowed the use of antibiotics, then the reduced quantity of meat
would greatly increase poverty level and collapse the economy.
Not only are activist groups targeting antibiotics in meat animals, but also genetically
modified crops, known as GMOs or GM crops. They allege scientifically altered crops pose a
risk to human health. In fact, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges doctors

Cleere 5

to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage,
gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility (Smith). If
genetically modified crops have caused these horrific problems in cattle, then the results on
human health could be devastating. Furthermore, it is said the GMOs increase the use of
herbicides, which in turn harms the environment and increases the exposure of consumers to
hazardous chemicals. Overuse of Roundup results in superweeds, resistant to the herbicide.
This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year (Smith). The excess
chemicals can not only seep into the ground, contaminating water and soil, but also endangering
wildlife. For example, birds, deer, and rabbits, among other wildlife, enjoy grazing farmers
fields. Consuming crops that are overloaded with chemicals can potentially cause illness and
death, which in turn will decrease the amount of wildlife. This could endanger various species
and lead to their extinction.
Similar to antibiotics in meat animals, the image of genetically modified crops is flawed
due to incorrect information. It has been proven on numerous occasions that GM crops comes
with no added health risks. One instance is a study that has been conducted over the well-being
of animals since 1996. The study concludes that since farmers began feeding animals GM crops,
their livestocks health has remained constant (Entine). Therefore, the claim that GM crops have
caused organ damage, infertility, and death is unsound. Logically, farmers would not continue to
feed GM crops to their source of income if these crippling problems arose. The purpose of a
farmer owning a cow is for her to produce. If she is a dairy cow, her job is to produce calves as
well as milk. If she is a meat animal, her job is to reproduce in order to build the herd with
heifers or provide meat with bull calves. The purpose of bulls are to reproduce. By collecting
semen from a well-balanced bull, the farmer can have a potential steady source of revenue.

Cleere 6

Other purposes for a bull can include his job as a herd bull or clean up bull. Whether the
livestock is female or male, they play a valuable role in the success of a farmers operation. The
farmer would not risk an incapacitating blow to his operation, and ultimately his income, by
feeding his herd harmful elements that cause infertility and other appalling health problems.
This point is supported by the number of farmers that feed their animals GM crops. After all,
globally, food-producing animals consume 70 percent to 90 percent of genetically engineered
(GE) crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture
produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95 percent of these
animals consume feed containing GE ingredients (Entine). These statistics indicate that GM
crops are harmless. If they posed a danger to the livestock, then it would be evident in the
enormous increase of sick and dead animals across the United States. This would sky rocket the
costs and decrease the quantity of meat available to consumers, which would not go unnoticed.
It would be painfully obvious if this had occurred, but it has not happened which further
damages activists case on why GM crops are dangerous. As for their claim regarding the
increase of herbicide use, scientists have partnered with farmers to create GM seeds requiring
less herbicides and pesticides. My GMO seed takes care of insects and disease problems just by
adding a protein in the genetics of the plant. If I wanted to control these pests and insects
without a GMO product, I would have to spray my fields multiple times. That creates more
expenses and using more pesticides that could enter ground water (Brandt). This farmers
experience aids in destroying the thoughts that GMOs increase the volume of herbicides and
pesticides. From a business standpoint, it does not make sense to plant seeds that require more
chemicals to maintain. A two gallon bottle of herbicide can costs over 100 dollars. If this bottle
recommends a use of two pints per acre, then that bottle only covers four acres. Therefore, a

Cleere 7

farmer with 100 acres has an expense of nearly 2,500 dollars to spray his field one time. It is not
logical for that farmer to plant seeds that he must spray several times a year. The costs of
producing those plants would in turn raise the costs of products such as fresh fruits and
vegetables along with bread, rice, clothing, and nearly every other product accessible to
consumers. This would cause an uproar due to the inevitable crash of the economy, which would
also increase the poverty level. Not only would the poor economy increase poverty level, but the
lack of reasonably priced food would also send people into poverty. It has been reported by
population experts that roughly an additional three billion people will occupy the planet by the
mid-twenty first century (Fedoroff). With an increase of people comes an increase of developed
land. In order to sustain life, individuals will construct more houses, shopping malls, restaurants,
and other businesses. Potential farmable land will be used for the foundation of these structures.
A benefit of GM crops is it takes less land to produce the same amount of crops. With less farm
land available, the worlds population will rely on GM crops as a dependable supply of food.
Education is a valued asset throughout the world, rather basic education such as a high
school diploma or advanced education such as a college degree. Teachers along with scientists
inform people on important stances like evolution, but where they fall short is enlightening
people on the truth about methods used to provide the world with food. By hearing only the
false accusations of dangers that accompany antibiotic use in meat animals and GM crops,
consumers are making misinformed decisions that will harm the economy and the stability of the
worlds food supply. It is vital that consumers are aware of the consequences that accompany
those decisions and that they take the initiative to research the source of their food. If research is
done, consumers will be knowledgeable on the costs and benefits of antibiotics in meat animals

Cleere 8

and of GM crops. It is up to them to determine the future of agriculture and ultimately the future
of this nation.

Cleere 9

Works Cited
Brant, Daniel. Farmers Want to Share Their Reasons for Using GMO seeds. Post Bulletin.
19 September 2014. 24 October 2015.
Cogliani, Carol, Herman Goosens, and Christina Greko. Restricting Antimicrobial Use in Food
Animals: Lessons from Europe. Microbe Magazine (2011): 274-279.
Entine, Jon. 29-year study of trillions of meals shows GE crops do not harm food-producing
animals, humans. Genetic Literacy Project. 10 September 2014. 24 October 2015.
Fedoroff, N.V., D. S. Battisti, R. N. Beachy, P. J. M. Cooper, D. A. Fischhoff, C. N. Hodges, V.
C. Knauf, D. Lobell, B. J. Mazur, D. Molden, M. P. Reynolds, P. C. Ronald, M. W.
Rosegrant, P. A. Sanchez, A. Vonshak, and J.-K. Zhu. Radically Rethinking Agriculture
for the 21st Century. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2010): 833-834.
Keep Hormones and Antibiotics off The Menu. Healthychild.org. 1 October 2013. 25
October 2015.
Peterson Farm Bros. Facebook.com. 22 October 2015. 22 October 2015.
Smith, Jeffrey. 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs. Institute for Responsible Technology. 25 August
2011. 22 October 2015.
Subway Announces That a Bullet Is Their Treatment Of Choice For Sick Animals.
Feedyardfoodie.wordpress.com. 22 October 2015. 22 October 2015.