“What’s The Matter With Kansas?”
…..or Texas or Nebraska for that matter.
Most Kansans would tell you, “Nothing.” What’s more, they’d take exception to being associated with the book of the same title that appeared on the New York Times Best Seller List for 18 weeks in 2004. It’s about how the state shifted from a traditionally populist political bearing to one with a stanchly conservative bent. But that’s not the issue.
There really could be something the matter with Kansas, the nation’s top meat processing state, as well as with the other food animal production and packing states, if a federal ban on the use of some antibiotics is enacted. There could be real problems also for American meat eaters and the swelling global population demanding more protean in its diet – and not just because the costs of meat products will skyrocket when producers pass along the medical expenses of treating herd illnesses that antibiotics would have prevented.
If Congress passes the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA: H.R.1549/S. 619) in 2011, consumers will be exposed to health risks that don’t necessarily have to emerge. The CDC’s Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne and Enteric Diseases maintains that 75 percent of major new infectious diseases are transmitted to humans by animals. PAMTA legislation calls on the agriculture industry to voluntarily end the “injudicious” use of drugs to help animals grow. But the passage of PAMTA – whose more strident supporters want to do away with the “voluntary” language of the bill, making it mandatory – would limit food animal producers in their efforts to prevent, treat and control disease outbreaks.
Who Else Gets Hurt?
Consumers will feel the pain in their pocketbooks, and they will be exposed to dangerous food-borne diseases. But if PAMTA becomes law, the food animal agriculture, processing and packing industry will also suffer, which will infect the U.S. economy. An ailing economy is always hazardous to everyone’s health.
Here’s what’s at stake, or what could be endangered if unwarranted regulations were to be imposed on the food animal production and processing industry:
· A significant reduction in the $850 billion it contributes to the U.S. economy or about 6% of the GDP.
· A significant cutback of the 525,000 direct jobs it provides with a payroll of $19 billion, and of the 6.2 million more jobs it creates for Americans involved in the meat and poultry product packaging, transportation, marketing, wholesaling, retailing and food and restaurant service industries – with their payrolls of $200 billion.
· A significant pullback from the $81 billion in tax revenues it generates for the federal government and $2.6 billion to state coffers.
This commentary appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of ProfitBuilder, published by Durvet, Inc.
…..or Texas or Nebraska for that matter.
Most Kansans would tell you, “Nothing.” What’s more, they’d take exception to being associated with the book of the same title that appeared on the New York Times Best Seller List for 18 weeks in 2004. It’s about how the state shifted from a traditionally populist political bearing to one with a stanchly conservative bent. But that’s not the issue.
There really could be something the matter with Kansas, the nation’s top meat processing state, as well as with the other food animal production and packing states, if a federal ban on the use of some antibiotics is enacted. There could be real problems also for American meat eaters and the swelling global population demanding more protean in its diet – and not just because the costs of meat products will skyrocket when producers pass along the medical expenses of treating herd illnesses that antibiotics would have prevented.
If Congress passes the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA: H.R.1549/S. 619) in 2011, consumers will be exposed to health risks that don’t necessarily have to emerge. The CDC’s Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne and Enteric Diseases maintains that 75 percent of major new infectious diseases are transmitted to humans by animals. PAMTA legislation calls on the agriculture industry to voluntarily end the “injudicious” use of drugs to help animals grow. But the passage of PAMTA – whose more strident supporters want to do away with the “voluntary” language of the bill, making it mandatory – would limit food animal producers in their efforts to prevent, treat and control disease outbreaks.
Who Else Gets Hurt?
Consumers will feel the pain in their pocketbooks, and they will be exposed to dangerous food-borne diseases. But if PAMTA becomes law, the food animal agriculture, processing and packing industry will also suffer, which will infect the U.S. economy. An ailing economy is always hazardous to everyone’s health.
Here’s what’s at stake, or what could be endangered if unwarranted regulations were to be imposed on the food animal production and processing industry:
· A significant reduction in the $850 billion it contributes to the U.S. economy or about 6% of the GDP.
· A significant cutback of the 525,000 direct jobs it provides with a payroll of $19 billion, and of the 6.2 million more jobs it creates for Americans involved in the meat and poultry product packaging, transportation, marketing, wholesaling, retailing and food and restaurant service industries – with their payrolls of $200 billion.
· A significant pullback from the $81 billion in tax revenues it generates for the federal government and $2.6 billion to state coffers.
This commentary appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of ProfitBuilder, published by Durvet, Inc.
RSS Feed
