Why should I keep eating meat?

Every year for my birthday, my parents take me out for a steak dinner. Why on my birthday? Steaks cost a lot of money. However, that cost could increase if the Food and Drug Administration implements an idea to eliminate sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, and that doesn’t sit well with me. Sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics occurs when farmers feed animals small doses of drug therapy. Food regulators should not try to ban using antibiotics because only slight health benefits would arise, and the ban would negatively impact meat-market consumers and producers.

Antibiotics play a vital role in the meat industry, and banning their use would have adverse effects. The meat industry’s main use of antibiotics should not be a surprise to anyone; farmers give their sick animals antibiotics so that the animals can be saved, salvaging their meat and making money for the farmers. Even opponents of sub-therapeutic antibiotic use in animals agree that sick animals need to be treated with medicine, much like sick people. Unfortunately, many people consider this method of medication to be the only responsible one. While this is logical and idealistic for consumers, such an approach leaves out the economic interests of producers, which seems both illogical and unfair.

Farmers naturally desire to maximize their profits from a limited number of animals, and administering sub-therapeutic antibiotics represents an excellent way to achieve that goal. According to farmers and animal experts, small daily doses of antibiotics placed in animals’ feed stimulate the growth of up to three percent more body weight than the animal would otherwise have had (Frontline). Although this may not sound like much to you or me, the fact remains that many American farmers may depend on this extra growth to keep their farms open, since the price they receive per animal could be as low as a few pennies (Frontline). The three percent increase in meat per animal also allows farmers to raise fewer animals more cleanly and safely. The Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals asserts that these cleaner conditions could prevent as many diseases as could be caused by sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics. The tradeoff seems clear: there can be more animals living in unhealthy conditions that may breed diseases, or farmers can keep fewer animals and sub-therapeutically administer antibiotics to them, which may also breed diseases. One thing remains certain: if daily, low-dosage antibiotic administration is banned, farmers will keep more animals in the same spaces where they once kept the smaller number.

Placing antibiotics in animals' feed can make them grow 3% more meat

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/akseez/2902895298/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Opponents of sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics argue that sub-therapeutic use of drugs leads to decreased resistance in humans to certain bacteria, but many experts question how much of an issue this really causes. Bacteria develop resistance through a process that includes a single bacteria escaping an antibiotic, then multiplying and therefore creating a resistant strain (“Why are bacteria”). Repeated low-level exposure to antibiotics could increase the chance of drug-resistant bacteria by 33 percent (Stiers), but exposure does not guarantee contraction of an illness. In fact, the United States has progressed in the past 20 years to now having less than one percent incidence of E. Coli in beef (Frontline). The relatively high inspection standards of meat compared to seafood, fresh fruit and vegetables may contribute to this low rate. Whatever the case may be, antibiotic-resistant bacteria pose less of a threat than many people believe they do.

In addition to disputable claims about increased resistance in bacteria, economic issues exist that make banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics a bad idea. Some analysts speculate that farmers save $60 million by having antibiotics in the animals’ feed, but stand to lose nearly $50 million if the medicine is removed (Frontline). Losing that $60 million dollars from having medicine in the feed would result in farmers not being able to grow as many animals. Since fewer animals will be available, the supply of meat shrinks. This shock in the meat market would have the following effect where P equals price and Q is the quantity demanded:

As you can see, the price will increase and the quantity demanded will decrease because fewer people are willing to pay a higher price. Naturally, we assume meat producers would love to charge a higher price, but that logic does not hold in this case because the market dictated the price increase, not the farmers choosing to raise the price. Even if the price increase was enough that the money the farmers made stayed the same even with fewer people buying the meat, the farmers would still need to cover the $50 million that they lost.

Consumers would face negative effects if this change in the meat market occurred. Fewer people would pay for the more expensive meat; this is shown where Q1 shifts to Q2 in the graph above. Eating less meat, and possibly not enough, could lead to serious health issues. Meat provides important nutritional value and contains vitamins and minerals such as protein, zinc and vitamin B12, among others (Sears). A lack of these nutrients could cause anemia or weak bones (Crawford). Of course supplements exist that provide these nutrients, but if someone can’t pay for the increased price of meat, they likely can’t pay for these supplements either. Due to health concerns, the economics of a ban on antibiotics in meat would clearly result in negative side effects for the consumer, just one more reason the ban should not be enacted.

Banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals grown for meat presents the potential for a lot of harm, and relatively few positive effects. Not only would a ban create a dramatic increase in meat prices, but it could also leave consumers on the low side of the socio-economic scale vulnerable to nutrient deficiencies currently offered in relatively cheap meats. Even if a ban was put in place, living conditions would be worse for the animals that would present just as much of a danger as antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Works Cited

Crawford, Benna. "Side Effects of Becoming a Vegetarian." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/side-effects-becoming-vegetarian-2184.html>.

Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals, , and . The Use of Drugs in Food Animals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Web.

Stiers, Joanie. "Study: Organically grown food not healthier." Galesburg: Home of the Register-Mail. N.p., 16 Sept 2012. Web. 17 Sep 2012. <http://www.galesburg.com/newsnow/x1547507599/Study-Organically-grown-food-not-healthier?zc_p=0>.

"Why are Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics." Department of Health and Human Services: CDC. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 01 June 2005. Web. 3 Oct 2012.

. "Frontline: Modern Meat." pbs.org. Public Broadcasting Service, April 2002. Web. 12 September 2012.

Sears, Alan. "Three Big Reasons Why You Don’t Want to be a Vegetarian ." International Wellness Directory. N.p., 2009. Web. 15 Sept 2012.