New York Times Columnist Addresses Purported Link Between Pork Production and MRSA
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently published two op-ed pieces claiming that high-density pig farms have contributed to an increase in methiciliin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in rural communities. A March 12, 2009, article titled “Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health” examines the case of a family physician in northwestern Indiana, where patients reportedly began contracting MRSA at unusually high rates. Although the doctor suspected that the town’s hog farms were linked to the outbreak, he died of a heart attack or aneurysm—possibly the result of his own exposure to MRSA—before concluding his investigation.
Yet, Kristof notes that other researchers have documented cases of people developing or carrying MRSA after working on pig farms. He points to a University of Iowa study that apparently found MRSA in 45 percent of pig farmers and 49 percent of pigs tested for the disease. “The larger question is whether we as a nation have moved to a model of agriculture that produces cheap bacon but risks the health of us all,” opines Kristof, attributing the uptick in MRSA infections to “the insane overuse” of antibiotics in livestock feed.
A follow-up article, “Pathogens in Our Pork,” further lambastes agribusiness companies for adding antibiotics to animal feed despite the known risk of creating “superbugs” resistant to medication. “Public health experts worry that pigs could pass on the infection by direct contact with their handlers, through their wastes leaking into ground water . . . or through their meat,” states the March 15 commentary,
which urges legislators to “ban the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture.”
Citing several studies that identified MRSA in retail pork sold in the United States, Kristof suggests that agricultural interests have thus far stymied efforts to reform the industrial farming system. “It’s unconscionable,” he concludes, adding that, “for the sake of faster-growing hogs, we’re empowering microbes that endanger our food supply and threaten our lives.”
Meanwhile, the Pork Producers Council (PPC) has backed the use of livestock antibiotics that undergo a “very rigorous approval process” by the Food and Drug Administration. According to PPC Director of Science and Technology Jennifer Greiner, the FDA approves agricultural antibiotics for therapeutic uses pertaining to treatment, prevention and bacterial control, in addition to growth promotion.
Greiner also notes that countries with bans on sub-therapeutic antibiotics have seen a drastic increase in their use of therapeutic treatments. “We truly believe ‘nontherapeutic’ is just a bad term,” states Greiner in a March 16 press release responding to Kristof’s claims. “Any time you use an antibiotic, whether it be a lower dose or a higher dose, that antibiotic is going to kill some kind of bacteria. All antibiotics have some kind of therapeutic value.” See Scripps Howard Foundation Wire, March 16, 2009.
