The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
Subway, the sandwich chain, announced recently that it will no longer use meat from farms that use antibiotics as a growth enhancer. The announcement preempts several critics, such as the NRDC and Vani Hari (the self-described “Food Babe’), which were preparing a petition to demand the food chain make these changes.
From a science standpoint, Subway deserves a hat tip. There is sufficient evidence that using these drugs as growth enhancers for livestock contribute to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance.
However, it has become abundantly clear to us here at the American Council that anyone can persuade Subway to do their bidding. All that’s needed is a petition and a Facebook group.
Sure, this time food chain officials caved to pressure on a legitimate issue, which was backed by sound scientific concerns. But that hasn’t always been the case. Last year, the company bowed to pressure from Ms. Hari to remove azodicarbonamide from its bread, largely on the grounds, believe it not, that she couldn’t pronounce the chemical.
Related on the SLP
I can only imagine what absurd demand this fast food enterprise will kowtow to next. How about banning onions? They contain the hard-to-pronounce chemicals such as S-propylmercapto-cysteine?
Hyperbole aside, companies do need to make sure their products are safe, but those safety concerns must be grounded in legitimate science. The company’s decision to move away from antibiotic-raised livestock is a no doubt a good one. But when companies needlessly ban safe chemicals or farming practices — alongside banning dangerous ones — they equate the dangerous with the safe in the eye of the public and cause confusion.
Read full, original post: By Submitting Again, Subway’s Antibiotic Phaseout Good and Bad
