Pork Magazine and Pigs on Drugs

Two things:

1) There is a magazine called Pork. Its website includes sections labeled Swine Practitioner and Pork Exec. This is what happens in the curly part of the Long Tail, and it is so beautiful it brings a tear to my eye.

2) Via CCF, via Pork, I am alerted to this letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune from a swine veterinarian:

You imply that overuse of antibiotics in livestock is a primary cause of antibiotic resistance, which is sapping the effectiveness of these drugs in treating human disease. To support that argument, you state as fact an estimate from the Union of Concerned Scientists that 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are given to livestock for non-therapeutic purposes. This estimate is junk science at its worst, and eight years old too. Among other things, it includes products that were licensed but never sold in this country. Two examples are oleandomycin and efrotomycin, estimated to be used in pigs at a rate of 66,000 pounds per year. Neither drug was ever marketed.

One swine veterinarian does not a peer-reviewed study make, but I bet this guy has a point. The whole penicillin-pigs-and-cephalexin-cows-are-ruining-medicine thing is such powerful conventional wisdom that it's easy to accept ever-larger and more catastrophic-sounding estimates of the magnitude of the problem. (2/3 of Americans are overweight! 4/3 of American are obese!) I'm sure we could—and possibly should—trim our barnyard drugging a bit. But it would be better if editorial writers chose to cite something more reliable than an old study from an activist group?

Comments

[John Thacker]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Hey, two out of three isn't bad.

[Hazel Meade]

The antibiotics used are generally ones that are no longer useful for treating humans, because antibiotic resistance has already been built up in the past. I doubt that the FDA would approve use of an antibiotic that it still crucial for treating human diseases.

[Stephen Smith]

This is what happens in the curly part of the Long Tail, and it is so beautiful it brings a tear to my eye.

Really? 'Cause it sounds to me like that's what happens when you massively subsidize pig inputs (i.e., corn and soybeans). Voil?, factory farming, overuse of antibiotics, and even swine flu!

[Paul]

Activist group? Activist group?!! Please, they're a union, they're scientists, and they're concerned. Very concerned. I hardly consider that activism. I consider it... concern.

[Anonymous]

This is exposing the anti-science shtick that's going to get us all killed. Instead of dealing with real issues, politicized research is going toward fabricated stories of overuse of farm antibiotics and antroprogenic global cooling global warming climate change.

[Paul]

and even swine flu!

What swine flu? The swine flu panic, or the vaccine?

[Tulpa]

For a magazine called "Pork", they sure do eschew government funding.

[Gunboat Diplomacy]

"Really? 'Cause it sounds to me like that's what happens when you massively subsidize pig inputs (i.e., corn and soybeans). Voil?, factory farming, overuse of antibiotics, and even swine flu!"

You left out tasty BBQ ribs, smoked hams and bacon.

[Joe_D]

This is what I love about Reason - the powerful investigative journalism! The author saw a lone voice challenging conventional wisdom, and she wondered, "Have we all been lied to?".

So she put on her journalism cap and set out in search of data; interviewing doctors, vets, ranchers, pig farmers; delving deep into existing data and studies, etc etc.

Finally, after many long hours of diligent work, she came to a conclusion that was surprising and fair; a science-based conclusion devoid of political bias.
------------------/dreamfairy off

So, we Libertarians agree with the lone voice because it supports our political ideology? And therefore, we sure can bet that this vet has a point, and those fruit-fly studying activists on the left, don't trust 'em. You betcha!

[David Bean]

Kind of ironic for Reason to bemoan a study from an activist group since they are an activist group that produces studies in order to help big business.... also, while "one swine veterinarian does not a peer-reviewed study make" you are apparently ready to take this person's word as pure gold since it fits with the point you ideologically need to make...

[CoyoteBlue]

But it would be better if editorial writers chose to cite something more reliable than an old study from an activist group?

HA-HA Next you'll want to do real reporting and independently collect facts, rather than troll through the press releases for the day. Dammit man, they have deadlines and hundreds of square inches to fill.

[John Thacker]

Next you'll want to do real reporting and independently collect facts, rather than troll through the press releases for the day.

And next you'll want to independently look for studies yourself, rather than troll comments sections.

There's an infinite descent here of "do some real work instead of just complaining," no?

[Kevin]

Katherine's point, as I see it, is that what we all accept as "conventional wisdom" may not be all that true. If, MAYBE it isn't true in this case, then MAYBE it isn't true in other cases, either.

If you want a 20-page policy report on the pork industry, go read Cato.

[R C Dean]

Kind of ironic for Reason to bemoan a study from an activist group since they are an activist group that produces studies in order to help big business

Example, please, of a Reason Foundation study produced in order to help big business.

[CoyoteBlue]

"There's an infinite descent here of "do some real work instead of just complaining," no?"

Please, I'm trying to avoid work here.

[lincoln]

This is what I love about Reason - the powerful investigative journalism!

Take a pamprin and reset your snarkmeter. This is a blog post on hit and run. Since there are three or four posts like yours a week I'll explain to you how hit and run works.

1. Find information you believe will be interesting to your core audience (25-50 yr old male, INTJ libertarians).
2. Come up with witty hook for said information. If no witty hook can be found use a punk rock or sci-fi reference. If all other methods fail post a pic of a hot chick.
3. Post link to 1 using 2.

And that's it. If you want more journalism read the magazine or the articles that are actually posted from the magazine on this site. If you're looking for scientific method shit look for publications from the Reason Foundation.

[Mo]

Yeah, it's a good thing that pig vet is just a random vet and not someone from a random interest group.

Rowles is a member of the National Pork Producers Council.

It seems that the only error pointed out was the inclusion of two antibiotics. How much of the 70% is made up of those two antibiotics? 5%? 10%? 70%? Does only using marketed drugs make it still sound bad?

[Paul]

Joe_d, confused much?

This is a blog, and it was a blogpost, not a hard-hitting investigative piece of journalism. You also didn't read the entire post:

One swine veterinarian does not a peer-reviewed study make, but I bet this guy has a point.

But I can see how a young, inexperienced boy just off the turnip truck might misconstrue the above statement as "It's all lies!"

We'll give you some time to catch up, but we won't wait forever. With all due respect, this is the freeway, it's for the big boys. If you can't handle it, stick to the side streets.

[peachy]

When I saw a post titled 'Pigs on Drugs', I have to admit it didn't occur to me that it might be about actual pigs.

[John Thacker]

Yeah, it's a good thing that pig vet is just a random vet and not someone from a random interest group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a an interest group too, of course.

Does only using marketed drugs make it still sound bad?

Not that you care if it is bad, just that it "sounds bad," right? How many pounds a year of animals do we go through, anyway? Looks like over 200 pounds per capita every year. That's more than even the average adult male weight, much less the entire population.

So then it seems like animal rights activists would expect that animals would use most of the antibiotics. Otherwise aren't we caring more about humans not being sick than animals?

[ChicagoTom]

This is a blog, and it was a blogpost, not a hard-hitting investigative piece of journalism. You also didn't read the entire post:

What a bullshit response to a valid criticism.

Oh it's just a blog post? So than it shouldn't be treated with any respect.

It's ok to do sloppy work so long as it's just a blog post?

Radley Balko does quite a few "mere blog posts" -- yet we don't dismiss that work as not requiring the slightest bit of research or truth in the claims that he makes or the claims of others that he reprints.

The truth of the matter is, some guy, who has an vested interest about something commented about it. And KMW reprinted his criticism without the least bit of skepticism or research -- because it lines up with ideology.

And the true believers want to pretend that it doesn't matter cuz it's just a blog post.

So is that the standard? Everything printed on the blog should basically be treated as bullshit, since it's on the blog we shouldn't expect it to actually be accurate or honest or researched in the least?

Blog post or not, I would expect a respectable magazine to do some basic vetting and basic research rather than simply reprinting whatever someone says so long as it conforms to ideology.

[John Thacker]

That's of course an underestimate of pounds of meat eaten, because it's based on retail ready-to-cook weight, which isn't going to include a fair amount of offal and such (that ends up in pet food and other places.)

[John Thacker]

The truth of the matter is, some guy, who has an vested interest about something commented about it.

Is "some guy" the UCS or the other guy?

[Gunboat Diplomacy]

Dem Donor Arrested

Hassan Nemazee, chairman of Nemazee Capital Corp. and a fundraiser for President Obama and Hillary Clinton, was arrested on charges that he tricked Citigroup Inc. into lending him as much as $74 million using phony documents.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aWy8uHSaXZB4

Nemazee was central to a large portion of the Democratic money operation. The Nation reported, in a little-noticed examination of his business, that he quietly hired Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe at one of his companies.

[Tonio (Not Tony)]

(2/3 of Americans are overweight! 4/3 of American are obese!)

4/3 = 133.3%

So Mangu-Ward is claiming that over 100 percent of Americans are overweight. Statistically impossible, descriptive stats cap out at 100%.

Epic fail, even by the shoddy standards one has come to expect of Mangu-Ward.

[Matthew]

Fucks sake, Tom, "One swine veterinarian does not a peer-reviewed study make, but I bet this guy has a point."

and So than it shouldn't be treated with any respect.
Nobody said that.

It's ok to do sloppy work so long as it's just a blog post? Yes of course it. It's because we're all silly stupid people, except for you.

They call it an opinion.
KMW is suggesting something.
For Discussion.
If that's ok with you.

RTFP next time.

[Meta4]

"Blog post or not, I would expect a respectable magazine to do some basic vetting and basic research rather than simply reprinting whatever someone says so long as it conforms to ideology."

Then what would become of Hip-Hop Libertarian Peter Suderman?

[Matthew]

And I need to learn to close my tags, next time.

[Paul]

This is a blog, and it was a blogpost, not a hard-hitting investigative piece of journalism. You also didn't read the entire post:

What a bullshit response to a valid criticism.

Oh it's just a blog post? So than it shouldn't be treated with any respect.

Nice fuckin' try Chitom, a swing and a major miss. Let's do a point-by-point deconstruction of Joe_D's post, my response, and your utter failure of a follow-up.

1. Joe_D referred to this as an investigative piece of journalism. It is NOT ANY SUCH FUCKING THING! It is a blog post. It is a commentary on another piece of journalism which, by the author's own admission was not investigative in its nature. So Joe_D has completely and utterly criticized this blogpost under ENTIRELY misconstrued circumstances.

2. My response specifically pointed out KMW's disclaimer on the scientific veracity of the originating article. Both Joe_D and you have completely and failed utterly to even address that, or acknowledge that.

3. Your response about this being "sloppy work" is a stunning, breathtaking glossing over of what we're trying to do here.

Three strikes, son, you're out!

[Tonio (Not Tony)]

And KMW reprinted his criticism without the least bit of skepticism or research -- because it lines up with ideology.

That's SOP for her. Her shining moment was several years back when she unwittingly reported an April Fool's gag (that Belgium was going to levy a carbon tax on backyard cookouts) as fact.

[Kevin]

4/3 = 133.3%

Um, that was a joke, and I got a good laugh out of it.

This seems like the sleeper post of the week. Didn't look too exciting at first, but 200 comments here we come!

[Oooops!]

The White House now expects the 10-year budget deficit to reach $9.05 trillion, roughly $2 trillion more than it estimated earlier in the year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget.

Budget office director Peter Orszag pointed to a number of measures put in place to stem the pain of the economic downturn.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/25/white-house-9-trillion-in-deficits/

[Mo]

John Thacker,

I know the UCS is an interest group. However, only the irony deficient would uncritically take the word of someone from another interest group with opposing views (in this case the National Pork Producers Council) and use it to say, "ZOMG, this guy says that interest group is wrong. We believe interest groups too willingly."

Also, re: the amount of antibiotics used in animals vs. humans referenced by the 70% number has nothing to do with sick livestock as it talks about "non-therapeutic purposes" specifically. Now, I don't know how true that number is, but your back of the envelope math re: sick animals is irrelevant, since the use is re: healthy animals.

If the 70% is old, what's the new number?

[stuartl]

(2/3 of Americans are overweight! 4/3 of American are obese!)

4/3 = 133.3%

So Mangu-Ward is claiming that over 100 percent of Americans are overweight. Statistically impossible, descriptive stats cap out at 100%.

Epic fail, even by the shoddy standards one has come to expect of Mangu-Ward.

Very meta humor? Or lacking a sense a humor altogether?

[PantsFan]

For a magazine called "Pork", they sure do eschew government funding.

So, do we drink or eat bacon on this line?

[Dagny T.]

So, do we drink or eat bacon on this line?

PantsFan, you enjoy bacon in your way, and I'll enjoy it in mine. Those so inclined may opt to both drink bacon and eat it.

[John Thacker]

And of course cattle generally live for more than one year, so the estimate is off in that direction.

So I don't really know what to think about UCS's claim that farm animals receive less antibiotics, pound for pound, than humans. Is that a lot? Is that not a lot? Most people don't have any idea how much meat people eat in a year.

The 70% is a meaningless statistic meant to grab headlines that doesn't even seem impressive in context. I have no idea what the "proper" number is, but I'm pretty sure that determining the proper amount has a lot more to do with how many animals would get sick or grow less without antibiotics versus any resistance effects, not how the total antibiotic usage in farm animals compared to human usage.

[Beggin\' Strips Dog]

IT'S BACO-N-N-N!!!!

[R C Dean]

Farmers couldn't possibly have any incentive to keep the amount of expensive antibiotics they inject into their herds to a minimum. Obviously, the Total State needs to step in.

[Pro Libertate]

WTF? I actually got what KMW is saying on the first read--sounds plausible, don't have enough to know for sure.

In any event, when I first scrolled past this posting, I thought it was on some porn magazine called Pork.

[Pro Libertate]

Why do farmers hate America?

[JW]

Very meta humor? Or lacking a sense a humor altogether?

I thought the very same thing.

[Pigatron]

I'm not sure why libertarians generally pooh-pooh the concept of "animal rights" (for lack of a better term). These poor factory farm pigs are kept in unspeakable conditions. It would be illegal to treat a dog or cat that way.

[JW]

I'm not sure why libertarians generally pooh-pooh the concept of "animal rights"

I'm sure property rights would kick in long before animal rights would. There's your pooh-poohing. (Although I am a staunch defender of Pooh rights. His treatment at the hands of Tigger is appalling.)

I'm all for the humane treatment of livestock, especially if it makes it tastier, though I suspect the brutal killing part at the end kinda makes any prior humane treatment a wash.

[Pro Libertate]

I don't pooh-pooh the idea that we shouldn't be cruel to animals. The problem is, of course, where to draw the line. I pay others to kill animals that I consume, which introduces a difficult moral question. Is the killing ipso facto cruel, or is it how the animals live before being killed that is alone the problem? And, of course, how do we measure an animal's capacity for being conscious of suffering?

< href="http://www.reason.com/images/882174de46895313ccfa23cca75aa800.jpg">If all other methods fail post a pic of a hot chick.

If all other methods fail post a pic of a hot chick.

html fail

[brotherben]

Please give this article a read through. Yes I know it's Mother Earth News. All I ask is that you read it and give me your opinions.

[Mike Laursen]

I've seen a few articles now in highly-specialized trade magazines where the editor had trouble sticking to the politically-correct line on their industry.

I remember reading in David Halberstam's "The Discoverers" about the Vatican dictating the official, orthodox maps where the world was flat, and all the measurements were wrong, and Jerusalem was always at the center. Everyone had to give lip service to the official maps, but the navigators who actually had to sail ships around without wrecking them kept their own set of unofficial maps, in order to get real work done. They had to keep it all low key, though.

[max hats]

this is the most quintessential reason post ever.

"I don't know for sure if this dude has a point and I don't really have any solid evidence to support it, but a big industry is held partially accountable for some social problem by quote unquote 'scientists' so I'm just going to assume the dude is right."

[John Thacker]

I'm not sure why libertarians generally pooh-pooh the concept of "animal rights" (for lack of a better term).

Hey, we're the ones who are in favor of animals getting just as many antibiotics pound-for-pound as humans. Go talk to the UCS, they want animals to lack equal rights for antibiotics.

[Patriot Henry]

"I'm sure we could-and possibly should-trim our barnyard drugging a bit. But it would be better if editorial writers chose to cite something more reliable than an old study from an activist group?"

Yeah, the error of an activist group is much more important than the government-corporate (aka fascist) use of incredibly huge quantities of drugs and poisons....i.e. arsenic in the chickenfeed (really! not a conspiracy theory - but don't worry, it's perfectly safe! don't believe me? you shouldn't - but you should research it and verify it from industry sources within 1-2 minutes as I did when I first read the claim a few months ago)

[SIV]

I'm not sure why libertarians generally pooh-pooh the concept of "animal rights"

They're animals and they don't have any rights.

[Joe_D]

Shoot, my response post didn't get posted... I took my regular lunch of "other stuff" to post a witty retort to the criticisms I got. It was brilliant stuff, I swear!

The gloss is -

1) I like a lot of Reason blog posts, but this one stuck in my craw because of a foolish and no-facts-needed post to bash some scientists. And so many of the Reason posts are much better.

2) Thanks, but no, to the flame-war invite.

3) Maybe I'm overly sensitive to attempts to pull at my own heart-strings ideology with inane and factual-less, emotion-driven, drivel.

4) I object to weasel phrases like "does not a peer-reviewed study make".

Huh, the gloss is longer than the original, oh well.

[Hazel Meade]

Fuckity fuck fuck.

Brotherben, I read most of that article and wrote a long response, but then the board ate my post.

So I'll try to be brief.
First off, the article launches itself right into an emotional appeal, painting industrialization as scary, and traditional farming as idyllic and aesthetically pleasing. (Springtime and birth and green pastures!!)

Secondly, the article completely fails to acknowledge the existance of, much less address, counter arguments and evidence for the safety of these practices. Yet, such evidence obviously exists, given the fact that the FDA has approved such treatments and the WTO is siding with the US against the EU.
The reader is thus left mystified as to why the FDA would approve such things. Perhaps with the intention that the reader fill in the blanks with his own imagination. (i.e. evil corporations!)

Personally, I think that's a pretty slimey tactic. The fact that they don't address opposing points, or even bother to mention their existance, implies to me that they don't really want to engage in a serious discussion. They are more interested in casting aspersions than in honestly evaluating the evidence.

Thirdly, the most scientifically detailed part of the article covers Mad Cow disease, which isn't really a problem in the US. They seem to be using mad cow to cast suspicions upon everything else, which is shoddy and unscientific reasoning.

Also, they tend to use a lot of weasel words and qualifiers like "some experts think", and "some studies suggest". I.e. there's no hard evidence, it's all innuendo and speculation. They sort of invite the industry to "prove" the safety of the treatments, but then refuse to acknowledge or address evidence that it is in fact safe.

[Space Fiend]

The friggin blog is called "Hit & Run." This is the "quintessential" post to that blog, in that it was a short anecdote the poster found interesting and invited the community to look into.

For all any of us know, KMW is currently writing a huge expose regarding this topic, which will eventually become book-length and be published with 50 pages of foot-notes.

[Abdul]

For a magazine called "Por Exec," that swine veternian's views are pretty reasonable. They should change the name to something like "Reason."

[brotherben]

Hazel Meade, thanks for taking the time to read the link and comment on it. I read the article when it came out and thought, "holy crap, this is very bad indeed." I re-read it last night before posting the link and saw a lot of the same things you pointed out. It was very emotional and didn't offer a whole lot of science. As far as the FDA and WTO agreeing with the practices, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
I saw a story a couple days ago suggesting that legislation is in the works to outlaw anti-biotics for beef cattle unless they are already sick.

[brotherben]

Hazel Meade, IIRC, the comment times out at 10 minutes from the time you start typing it. That's probably why it got ate.

[Michael Cole]

Thank you, Paul, for setting straight the naysayers! This woman's wit is one of the secret weapons of the right-headed press. We'll kill'em with cleverness.

Thanks, Katherine, for uncovering a new source of informed opinions about a soon-to-be important issue. I never imagined I might require the opinion of the pork press.