This is why the Free World needs to take a time-out

[earthJoker]

But regulation is against the invisible, infallible hand of the Market. Therefore regulating is bad.

We still talk about agriculture here, right?

[Aimless]

It's not the science that needs to be judged, in this case, it's the policy.

[Dreadnaught]

You think there isn't a scientist out there who wouldn't argue that giving animals anti-biotics has helped stop the spread of infectious bacterial diseases?

I'm sure there are dozens. And some of them work at our Food and Drug Administration.

[Aimless]

I'm saying that there aren't many serious scientists out there who'd deny that giving subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics to healthy animals on a massive scale for the purpose of promoting growth constitutes a big problem. The FDA doesn't dispute that this sort of use constitutes a big problem, we've all known it for a long time. The controversy isn't with the science. They aren't suggesting regulation out of vague misgivings about the remote possibility of blah blah. They're doing it because they realise there's a problem. But god only knows why they're being so timid about it. Perhaps for the same reason you guys let Wall Street regulate itself on a voluntary basis

Regarding your claim, I'd argue the opposite has happened. We've promoted the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't disagree, but obviously there are scientists at the FDA who might. After all it's not like this is a new issue, so clearly someone there made a choice.