Counter Arguments Against Pro-Antibiotic Viewpoints

The opposing side may have arguments for the pro-antibiotic points stated. It could be argued that if there are is no connection between bacteria resistance and meats, how would one explain the article by the New York Times stating pork productions causing MRSA in Camden, Indiana (Kristof). To this statement one could argue that the MRSA strain that was found was the ST398, which is an animal version of the bacterial resistance. As stated earlier by Ebner, Assistant Professor at Purdue’s Department of Animal Science, the MRSA strain ST398, has not clearly been connected to any human infections. The opposing side may also argue that withdrawal periods are not reliable and that we can not count on ranchers to take accurate records. This point is extremely valid, but the risk that ranchers are taking when they fail to take sufficient …show more content…
In regard to the third point made for pro-antibiotics, the opposing side may argue that even though the percentages are different, the types of antibiotics are the same. Because the antibiotics used are the same the FDA should eliminate the use of antibiotics in food animals. This is one of the strongest counter arguments the other side could have. There is no specific idea that could argue against this counter argument. Ultimately, antibiotic resistant bacteria should not be of concern to consumer because resistant bacteria such as MRSA has not been directly connect to meats, withdrawal date prevent residue on meats and the antibiotics used for humans and food animals are highly used in one or the other, but not both. Approximately 80% of non medically important antibiotics sold in the United States are Ionophores which are not used for human antibiotics at all (Summary Report 17). The FDA is trying extremely hard to push the use of non medically important antibiotics in livestock and as the use of Ionophores increase it will help to ease the