Organic...
Replies
-
0
-
In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.0 -
There are also chemicals the EU authorizes that prohibited in the US. There are chemicals and processes prohibited in the EU that their own scientific advisers tell them they are wrong about.In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.
0 -
There are also chemicals the EU authorizes that prohibited in the US. There are chemicals and processes prohibited in the EU that their own scientific advisers tell them they are wrong about.In the area that I live there is a huge community of clean eating/organic eating. Do you think that eating organic is important?
There are a number of chemicals in food in the U.S. That are banned in the EU. Eating too many chemicals just can't be a good thing. I'm all for organic, although it is important to note that it unfortunately can be cost prohibitive.
People like to confuse politics with scientific fact.0 -
Re: the OP question "Do you think that eating organic is important?"
I think it may be, but with some caveats. As has been said, both conventional and organic produce have chemicals of some kind or another used on them, so the idea that organic produce, by virtue of the label 'organic,' has no chemicals used on it is simply not true. I had the benefit, if you want to call it that, of developing a rare disorder that makes it so my body can't deal with a LOT of different chemicals. And I react to organic produce as often as conventional, honestly. I eat produce from local farmer's at farmer's markets, who I interview to determine what they've used on their produce. My main supplier uses 'chickens and hope' to control insects and grows only food that grows relatively well in this climate.
So in re: to the comment a while back in this thread, about how boring it would be to only eat food that grows locally? Yeah, it is. I can tell you that from personal experience. But at the same time - you get creative. I live in a desert, so I've been slowly hunting down heirloom fruits and veggies from around the world that grow in similar climates and started growing them myself. So...it can be done, I guess I'd say.
However, there are some issues re: organic foods that hasn't been brought up yet: the use of antibiotics. Organic animal products (milk, meat) cannot come from animals where antibiotics were used regularly, and the use in conventional animal products is poorly documented (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/). Considering the problem we are having with antibiotic resistant, world-wide, I think there can be a benefit to buying organic animal products for this reason alone.
With organic produce...this is another issue where the organic label doesn't always mean what one might hope, at least last I looked, because antibiotics can be used on conventional AND organic fruit trees, it seems.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/04/08/176606069/surprise-organic-apples-and-pears-aren-t-free-of-antibiotics
Another issue for organic produce is a bit of an odd one, but still valid. It's re: studies looking at pesticide residue levels, what levels are safe, what impact they can have on the human body, and so on.
The problem is that right now, most medical studies, including those on safety for substances, are done primarily on men (about 80% of them or so). This is a big issue as women have been shown to react differently than men, sometimes significantly so, on some basic physiological levels (here's a quick example: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11932336_Gender_differences_in_carbohydrate_loading_are_related_to_energy_intake ).
So making safety guidelines for our population, in this case on safe levels of pesticide residues, using data that may only apply to half the population? Possibly not as valid for us on the other half. They MAY apply to us too, don't get me wrong. But we don't actually know right now. So in this situation, it comes down to whether one wishes to not worry about it, or to take a 'better safe than sorry' approach.
...I should add that this same issue applies for safety guidelines for chemicals and pest control agents used for organic produce, too. Sometimes, seems the safest way to do things is to start interviewing your farmers and find out what is used, and decide how safe you feel it is, based on what information you know. Which is, I can personally attest to, a ginormous pain in the behind, so I don't think most people would be willing to do this.0 -
-
What's important to me is growing my own fruit and vegetables. Eating them really fresh. And getting small doses of good garden bacteria (when gardening or eating).0
-
However, there are some issues re: organic foods that hasn't been brought up yet: the use of antibiotics. Organic animal products (milk, meat) cannot come from animals where antibiotics were used regularly, and the use in conventional animal products is poorly documented (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234384/). Considering the problem we are having with antibiotic resistant, world-wide, I think there can be a benefit to buying organic animal products for this reason alone.
This was brought up earlier in the thread. And I totally agree, but would note that while meat must be antibiotic free to be organic, meat doesn't have to be organic to be antibiotic free. And for this reason, I think looking for meat from animals raised without antibiotics or hormones is more important than organic.0 -
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.0
-
krissydelrio wrote: »Personally, I would rather be safe than sorry. I eat as much organic as I can, mainly with meats, dairy, and fruits/vegetables. It's alarming to see an organic piece of fruit next to a conventional piece of fruit, the conventional looks like it is on steroids...why risk it if you don't know what you're putting into your body? I must say that I feel better when I eat organic, my skin has improved, and I feel energized rather than drained. So I will spend the extra money so that one day I at least won't have to say to myself, "I wish I would have done this or that."
This is an amazing side effect experienced by all sorts of things: eating paleo, "clean" eating, juicing, doing "Master Cleanses," Shakeology, Plexus, and curiously enough, simply drinking more water and exercising.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
yeah, totally why "organic" wouldn't matter to me as much as pasture raised vs. grain finished if I were going to choosing meat.
Also, any local beef to me that is pasture raised is typically a land owner leasing some land to a cattle rancher so the owner gets an ag exemption on their land and avoids some property taxes. So it's just cows being cows typically with a lot of land to roam on (as most of the time the "minimum" number of cows is used to qualify).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?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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions