Staying neutral about the antibiotic resistance issue is difficult for those of us who have observed how slow adoption hurts the acceptance of proven animal health protocols. According to Rick Bergman, executive director for the Center for Consumer Freedom, physicians now frequently reach for “big gun or last resort” antibiotics, which likely contributes to antibiotic resistance. In fact, he cites a recent study that found that 30 percent of human antibiotic prescriptions may be inappropriate.
In this article, he suggests a two-fold approach to education to separate agricultural use and human use:
- Human use of antimicrobials should not be a coequal cause with agricultural use. There is a more direct link between misuse in human medicine and antibiotic resistance.
- The folks propagating myths must be exposed. They all have agendas and are not trustworthy sources of information. If they’re given a free pass, their credibility as messengers (to the media and the public) will be too high.
Source: Pork Network, November/December 2016, page 32-33.
If human misuse and agricultural use are allowed to be presented to the public as “co-equal” causes of antibiotic resistance, we will have witnessed a public relations disaster. In the public’s mind, people will wonder why the government can’t do something about agriculture first.
INSIGHTS: Bergman is right. Activists are ready to take on the prospect of eliminating antibiotic use for disease prevention in animals. It is up to each of us to understand this issue and be willing to talk about it. We should also arm employees with the knowledge to be able to discuss it matter-of-factly with clients and those who misunderstand the situation. We can choose to take control of the messaging and make it our own or let others do it for us.