Organic...
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.
yup. I'm usually pretty reasonably in support of industry, but adding subclinical levels of antibiotics to animal feeds (even if it does increase productivity) is an unhealthy practice that needs to get phased out across the board.
I have no issue with eating the meat from such cows, or those given hormones though, fwiw. But liberal use of low levels of antibiotics is how you TRY to create resistance.
Also, not being a cattle farmer myself, can they just bring a load of cows to the slaughter house and say "these are organic, but that one's just conventional"...I'd think the actual logistics of "oh well, this animal is just conventional since we had to treat it with antibiotics" is actually a lot worse than that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.
Because I'm not in the UK and that's not the choice where I am. I mean, are we talking hypothetical la-la land preferences or being realistic based on present choices?0 -
Imagine the suffering in human populations if very sick individuals tried to remain antibiotic-free. I'm thinking of pneumonia, dysentery where the person could quickly recover with antibiotics, and may suffer needlessly trying to avoid it.0
-
Imagine the suffering in human populations if very sick individuals tried to remain antibiotic-free. I'm thinking of pneumonia, dysentery where the person could quickly recover with antibiotics, and may suffer needlessly trying to avoid it.
worse...think of someone dying of a disease that they could gain immunity to from a free vaccine...
0 -
Imagine the suffering in human populations if very sick individuals tried to remain antibiotic-free. I'm thinking of pneumonia, dysentery where the person could quickly recover with antibiotics, and may suffer needlessly trying to avoid it.
Imagine giving humans anitbiotics throughout the course of their lives to prevent sickness.0 -
Well, it's not really free. It's taxpayer subsidized. But the irrational fear of vaccines have always boggled me. I mean, it's about the most natural prevention method one could imagine. We are alerting our own body's defences on which bugs to vigorously defeat.
I blame white lab coats, needles, and Big Government, which is dreaded in some crowds.
Now, if one could get a miracle vaccination tea at the local Health Garden, perhaps people wouldn't be so nervous. And erase all internet references to a bad rat study.0 -
Well, it's not really free. It's taxpayer subsidized. But the irrational fear of vaccines have always boggled me. I mean, it's about the most natural prevention method one could imagine. We are alerting our own body's defences on which bugs to vigorously defeat.
I blame white lab coats, needles, and Big Government, which is dreaded in some crowds.
Now, if one could get a miracle vaccination tea at the local Health Garden, perhaps people wouldn't be so nervous. And erase all internet references to a bad rat study.
Interesting. But what has this to do with eating organic?0 -
I'm not talking about in what you personally buy, but in what the policy is. Simply put, would you be opposed to a policy that would allow organic to use antibiotics as actual treatment of disease as designated by a vet, instead of a blanket requirement to never in the animal's life consume antibiotics.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.
Because I'm not in the UK and that's not the choice where I am. I mean, are we talking hypothetical la-la land preferences or being realistic based on present choices?
0 -
Well, it's not really free. It's taxpayer subsidized. But the irrational fear of vaccines have always boggled me. I mean, it's about the most natural prevention method one could imagine. We are alerting our own body's defences on which bugs to vigorously defeat.
I blame white lab coats, needles, and Big Government, which is dreaded in some crowds.
Now, if one could get a miracle vaccination tea at the local Health Garden, perhaps people wouldn't be so nervous. And erase all internet references to a bad rat study.
There is work on vaccine bananas. It scares both the anti-vax and anti-gmo crowd.0 -
I agree that low-dose lifetime antibiotics is a terrible idea both for livestock and for people. But demanding that farmers avoid all antibiotic use could potentially result in unneeded suffering and death for many livestock.
The vaccine comment was a rabbit trail, I admit.0 -
I'm not talking about in what you personally buy, but in what the policy is. Simply put, would you be opposed to a policy that would allow organic to use antibiotics as actual treatment of disease as designated by a vet, instead of a blanket requirement to never in the animal's life consume antibiotics.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.
Because I'm not in the UK and that's not the choice where I am. I mean, are we talking hypothetical la-la land preferences or being realistic based on present choices?
Yes, most likely. The theory is sounds good.0 -
I'm not talking about in what you personally buy, but in what the policy is. Simply put, would you be opposed to a policy that would allow organic to use antibiotics as actual treatment of disease as designated by a vet, instead of a blanket requirement to never in the animal's life consume antibiotics.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think the USA's antibiotic free requirements for organic is cruel. Where as the UK's requirement allows medically necessary antibiotics, USDA organic requirements are that an animal must NEVER have antibiotics in its life. This means that with the premium of raising something organic, a farmer has a huge incentive to try to force an animal that is sick to get better without antibiotics, even if they're appropriate, because using them means they have to sell the animal as conventional.
A "huge incentive"? It seems it would be simply a business decision based on the odds of whether the animal will recover without antibiotics. If the odds are against it, then the meds will be administered and the cow sold as convential beef. If the odds are for it, then don't give meds and pray you guessed right. Cruel? Maybe, sometimes. But it doesn't seem any more cruel than other things that go on in the meat industry to me.
Yes, a huge incentive. If the animal has already been raised organic, that's a sunk cost. Converting to it to conventional means all that money is lost. Heck, if you're whole farm is organic, you probably don't even have the feed to save money switching the cattle to conventional. So now the business cost of the animal is organic, but the income is only conventional pricing. So the decision to treat the animal isn't based on medical necessity alone coming from the advice of a vet, it is based on fiscal incentive too.
Are you really defending this practice? And throwing relative privations on there to do so?
Defending the practice? Yeah, I guess I am, given the alternative. First of all, I can't imagine anyone letting an animal die for zero profit instead of selling it for a lower profit. That's not good business sense. But, even that were true, I would prefer it over animals routinely being pumped full of antibiotics being my only option for meat at the grocery.
Except that's a false dichotomy. Why not use the rule the UK does? Organic means you can't use antibiotics that haven't been prescribed by a vet for treating a specific illness over there. Heck, I'd agree that it should be the rule for raising animals in general instead of organic specifically.
Because I'm not in the UK and that's not the choice where I am. I mean, are we talking hypothetical la-la land preferences or being realistic based on present choices?
This seems sensible to me.0 -
I agree that low-dose lifetime antibiotics is a terrible idea both for livestock and for people. But demanding that farmers avoid all antibiotic use could potentially result in unneeded suffering and death for many livestock.
The vaccine comment was a rabbit trail, I admit.
No one is demanding that farmers avoid all antibiotic use, though. And again, what incentive would there be for allowing an animal suffer to death?
And the choices in the US right now are antibiotic free or lifetime antibiotics. So while wishing for other things is nice and something we could be contacting our representatives about, it's a little off topic from the OP's question.0 -
@Need2Exerc1se , there is incentive to sell livestock at premium rates, and to achieve those rates, the farmer has to allow the animal free-range on pasture, and avoid use of hormones and antibiotics. Even free-range livestock get sick. The farmer now has a choice. Will they treat the animal with conventional antibiotics and lose the premium certification, slaughter it on the spot to cut his losses, or try a "natural" treatment of isolation, hygiene, added feed and hope for the best? This last option has the potential for unneeded suffering. I watched a vet episode where this very dilemma came up, and the farmer lost a half-dozen calves before the disease was overcome.0
-
here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
TITLE 7—Agriculture
Subtitle B—REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED)
CHAPTER I—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Standards, Inspections, Marketing Practices), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (CONTINUED)
SUBCHAPTER M—ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT PROVISIONS
PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
§205.238 Livestock health care practice standard.
(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive livestock health care practices, including:
(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites;
(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants);
(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and sanitation practices to minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites;
(4) Provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of stress appropriate to the species;
(5) Performance of physical alterations as needed to promote the animal's welfare and in a manner that minimizes pain and stress; and
(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics.
(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness, a producer may administer synthetic medications: Provided, That, such medications are allowed under §205.603. Parasiticides allowed under §205.603 may be used on:
(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation but not during lactation for progeny that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced; and
(2) Dairy stock, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to the production of milk or milk products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic.
(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not:
(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under §205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in §205.604.
(2) Administer any animal drug, other than vaccinations, in the absence of illness;
(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion;
(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis;
(5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock;
(6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or
(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.
0 -
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions