Christian Xu

ENG 21003

Professor Zayas

Annotated Bibliography #3 & #4

4/25/2023

 

3. KIRCHHELLE, C. (2020). Picking One’s Poisons: Antibiotics and the Public. In Pyrrhic Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food Production (pp. 17–32). Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvscxrvf.5

Summary

In Kirchhelle (2020) “Pyrrhic Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food Production”, the chapter touches on the history and reverence of some of the first forms of antibiotics, such as the discovery of Prontosil, a synthetic antimicrobial drug developed in the 1930s, and penicillin. The proliferation of antibiotics in public health thereafter led to a surge in competition in search of new antibiotics that were patentable. With this, the implementation of mass-screening techniques for antibiotic production led to the emergence of new classes of antibiotics and their innumerous forms of antibiotics derived from those classes. As competition raised, still, pharmaceutical manufacturers looked for alternative marketplaces where they could hopefully maximize their profits. Veterinary was that untapped market. The utilization of sulfonamides, a class of antimicrobial drugs that Prontosil belongs to, in cows with bacterial udder infections, was already present in the late 1930s. However, the 1950s to 60s saw the subsequent rise in concern from consumers regarding antimicrobial residue deposits in foods and especially dairy products such as milk in particular. The public’s skepticism to the foods they consumed was in part due to the exposing of the poor sanitationary conditions of the food industry from Upton Sinclair (1905) The Jungle. Although the public showed overwhelming concern about the risk of antimicrobial residues depositing into their foods, the knowledge and awareness of antimicrobial resistance diseases spreading from animals to humans and vice-versa was not widely argued or advocated compared to the former. 

Connection

Kirchhelle (2020) work illustrated the chronological timeline of antibiotics’ initial birth to their explosive use in farmland animals, and finally the outcry of consumer concern for antimicrobial drug residue within their food. However, this also reveals the limited knowledge and scope that the public possesses in terms of understanding antibiotic efficacy and risks. This source could be used in conjunction with Smith et al., 2016 consumer survey study on the behavior likeliness of purchasing antibiotic-free meat and persuading others within their social groups to do the same.    

Quotes

“On Pfizer farms, piglet mortality had declined from between 21 and 33 percent to 5 percent” (Kirchhelle, 2020).

“Curiously, widespread concern about AMR selection in medical settings did not translate into alarm about similar processes on the farm or in the environment” (Kirchhelle, 2020).

“Although William Longgood and Lewis Herber warned about AMR selection in humans as a result of residues in food and milk, they did not connect their residue-oriented criticism of agricultural antibiotics with AMR selection in the environment” (Kirchhelle, 2020).

 

4. Mayhall, T. A. (2019). The Meat of the Matter: Regulating a Laboratory-Grown Alternative. Food and Drug Law Journal, 74(1), 151–169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826975

Summary

In “The Meat of the Matter: Regulating a Laboratory-Grown Alternative” by Mayhall (2019), the writer details the extent of meat production’s implications on the environment and the economy. The most prominent effect that farmland livestocks have on the environment is through the release of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). The specific contributions that livestock have on GHGe is through carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions. Water usage and intake in farmland animals is an often overlooked resource that is mandatory for the sustainability of the livestock population. The water footprint needed to produce one ton of beef is four million gallons of water and for pigs one and a half is needed (Mayhall, 2019). One solution that the writer introduces is the research and development of laboratory grown meat, which could lessen the environmental burden caused by farm animal GHGe. 

Connection

The proposal of laboratory grown meat as a possible solution to traditionally farmed animal products could be a strong focal point for discussion in my research paper. Analysis of laboratory grown meats and their benefits, as well as limitations and drawbacks would certainly strengthen my paper’s argument. Additional solutions targeting the limitations of animal antibiotic use could be helpful in providing an unbiased comparison of each one’s effectiveness.   

Quotes

“Since laboratories can be designed as sterile environments, the incidence of meat-based disease would decrease.91 There would be no antibiotic use, because the meat would propagate under carefully controlled circumstances that do not require preventative treatment or induced growth” (Mayhall, 2019). 

“Another big drawback is the use of fetal bovine serum. For an industry that prides itself on having a positive effect for animal welfare, it is obviously hypocritical to extract blood from cow fetuses in slaughterhouses, remove the red blood cells, and use the leftover material as a main ingredient in the stem cell nutrient serum” (Mayhall, 2019).

References

KIRCHHELLE, C. (2020). Picking One’s Poisons: Antibiotics and the Public. In Pyrrhic Progress: The History of Antibiotics in Anglo-American Food Production (pp. 17–32). Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvscxrvf.5

Mayhall, T. A. (2019). The Meat of the Matter: Regulating a Laboratory-Grown Alternative. Food and Drug Law Journal, 74(1), 151–169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826975