Comments

View comments:
1. 4 chenier says:
   December 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm

   Attilla

   For someone claiming to be supporting science, you seem remarkably reluctant to cite any science; I’ll start:

   ‘Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment

   The accelerated growth of finfish aquaculture has resulted in a series of developments detrimental to the environment and human health. The latter is illustrated by the widespread and unrestricted use of prophylactic antibiotics in this industry, especially in developing countries, to forestall bacterial infections resulting from sanitary shortcomings in fish rearing. The use of a wide variety of antibiotics in large amounts, including non-biodegradable antibiotics useful in human medicine, ensures that they remain in the aquatic environment, exerting their selective pressure for long periods of time. This process has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in aquaculture environments, in the increase of antibiotic resistance in fish pathogens, in the transfer of these resistance determinants to bacteria of land animals and to human pathogens, and in alterations of the bacterial flora both in sediments and in the water column. The use of large amounts of antibiotics that have to be mixed with fish food also creates problems for industrial health and increases the opportunities for the presence of residual antibiotics in fish meat and fish products. Thus, it appears that global efforts are needed to promote more judicious use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture as accumulating evidence indicates that unrestricted use is detrimental to fish, terrestrial animals, and human health and the environment.

   Environmental Microbiology Volume 8 Issue 7, Pages 1137 - 1144
   http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118567454/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

   It’s your turn…

2. 3 Attilla says:
   December 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

   Well said Anorak
   This just goes to show how deeply analy retentive (sic) these organic faddies are. They have these high and mighty standards (based on nothing but fantasy, no science at all) but they drop them as soon as the hard reality of finance hits home.

   As far as I’m concerned, give me food grown with a little pure ammonium nitrate any day rather than their dodgy toilet food. Ask them how many organic products were removed from the market this year alone because of either food poisoning bugs or contaminants like melamine.

   Or you could simply cough up and buy their dodgy food like you’re told to. After all, as the saying goes, “Eat crap, 50 million flies can’t be wrong”

3. 2 dairy says:
   December 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 am

   I would very much like to know what “taking a holiday from organic standards” actually means….? does it involve accepting poo which otherwise would be rejected as substandard…? what are the criteria?

4. 1 chenier says:
   December 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm

   Piss off, Anorka, there’s a good lad.

   And whilst you are doing so strive to bear in mind that, whilst you may not mind being fed a steady diet of antibiotic residue, the bugs in my lungs really do not need any help at all in their plans for world domination.

   And then there are the delights of the emerging pathogens; could we please start taking evolution seriously round here?

   If we ask nicely?

View comments: