Actually, the average is 83 per year for the US from 1990 to 2006, but your point is a valid one. However, we still allow antibiotics in animal feed in the US so we don't know what the rate would be if we banned them, and Salmonella was only one example of a food borne pathogen currently controlled by antibiotics in feed. There are studies looking at carcass contamination with various microbes with and without antibiotic use in livestock and the data shows increased risk. Furthermore, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that MRSA is not especially virulent among the healthy.

You cannot safely make such a broad generalization here.

Many farms, in my addmitedly anecdotal experience "most", only use antibiotics in a targeted way becuase of the cost associated with their use. Swine farms routinely administer them via feed or water to nursery pigs, but outside of the first month post-weaning, using is dramatically curtailed. Piglets in first couple of weeks post-weaning are very prone to clinical disease outbreaks (which require much higher antibiotic doses to treat), higher mortalities (as a result of disease challenge normally), and yes slower growth.

Sub-theraputic antibiotics can help with all three of these, but the growth factor is actually the least important, becuase by the end of the 2nd month post-weaning any differences disappear into the normal variability in animal performance. It is more about keeping more pigs alive and healthy through the stress of weaning than it is about performance. After they've made it through the most difficult period the value proposition for antibiotics is dramatically reduced, which is why sub-theraputic doses are not as common there. Bascially, they are not worth the cost to many farmers later

Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock? Antibiotics cost money and animal producers have to deal with a boom bust cycle of profitabilitlity that means unnecessary expenses must be cut whenever possible. They are VERY deliberate in their decisions regarding any feed ingredient becuase feed accounts for 60 to 80% of the cost of bringing their prouduct to market. A 5% savings in total feed costs could spell the difference between losing money and making money.

For an MD, however, the incentives are all stacked in favor of reckless use. Malpractice insurance forces MD's to side on the side of overprescription becuase they don't want to be sued for witholding antibiotics that turn out to have been necessary. Patients come in expecting to be prescribed something, and if they aren't they are more than willing to make another appointment with a doctor who will prescribe them what they want. Currently all of the negatives of antibiotic resistance development can be blamed on Agriculture (even in the EU which is rediculous considering the bans), so why risk malpractice or disgruntled patients to prevent a negative outcome no one will blame you for anyway?

I believe that use in animals does contribute. I stated as such in my post. However, it is my opinion that the relative impact of animal vs. human prescribing on the resistance problem are orders of magnitude different and banning in livestock will only make marginal improvements at best. That may be good for human medicine, but I believe that a cost-benefit analysis will show that the benefit to human medicine will be far outstriped by the cost to human food security from both a supply and sanitation perspective. I base this opinion not on my own vested interest (I'm responsible for supporting a sales force that sells antibiotic alternatives to livestock producers, so ban is good for me personally), but on attempts I've seen to model antibiotic resistance development.

Also, at the risk of sounding callous we need to keep in mind that most resistant infections are not fatal. No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they had MRSA present. As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA, becuase MRSA is not immune to antibodies, macrophages, or any other part of the acue phase response. They are only resistant to a single supportive therapy that most people don't actually need. That doesn't reduce the importance in the immunocompromized (Very young, elderly, those with other immune compromizing conditions, etc.). But it's not like MRSA is Ebola.

MRSA isn't even as bad as Salmonella, which can actually make an otherwise healthy person sick, is endogenous to poultry, and can be controlled via antibiotics in poultry feed. By banning sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics in poultry you increase the risk of food-borne salmonella infections which can kill the perfectly healthy among us... Unlike MRSA! This is why the decision to ban should have been based on a holistic cost-benefit analysis instead of the regressive "Precautionary Principle" which is motivated more by irrational fear than evidence.

The EU did ban them for almost no reason. Here is an alternative explanation for the same data. Farm workers are people (no duh right!) and like all other people they go to hospitals (visiting others, actual illness/injury, etc) those banned antibiotics are still used with reckless abandon in hospitals and MRSA is endemic to hospitals as a result. Therefore, which is more likely? That the farm workers got their MRSA from a hospital where the drugs and MRSA are both already known to be present, or on a farm animals where there is no reason for either to be present? Everyone wants to believe the second, but the US has (so far) not banned them because of the lack of any way to determine if the infections come from either of the two possible sources. I personally believe it is both, but with a greater proportion being laid at the feet of hospitals since every human in the US goes to a hospital at somepoint, but only about 1 percent of Americans work on farms of any kind.

From the USTPO website:

That the patent on round-up ready resistance "Promote[d] the progress of science and the useful arts" is not really debatable. We now have crops which require far fewer input costs in time, labor, fuel, and herbicides than would ever have been possible otherwise. If that isn't "useful" then I don't know what is, and the high uptake of the technology by farmers despite the higher upfront costs is the best endorsement I can think of. That the patent under discussion expires next year is right in line with the second half of their mandate "...by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries". Starting next year ANYONE will be able to add glyphosate resistance to their corn without having to pay Monsanto a dime in licensing. This is the system operating as designed for once. You may not like the system, but to get worked up over the company for playing by the rules is not really appropriate. Instead you should address what you see as flaws in the system.

No insult intended. As proof I offer this nugget of self incrimination: I myself suffered from a Dunning-Kruger delusion regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming for several years. I though I knew better than the climatologists precisely BECAUSE I had no training in that area. I have since corrected this by acquiring enough information to finally see that I was dramatically over-estimating my own competence in this area. I accuse you of nothing for which I have not been guilty myself.

Not really. If they did not add value, then no one would have any reason to by GM seeds. The value has been determined in numerous research papers, and by many thousands of farmers purchasing decisions. Their product would have been a blip to the market which sees thousands of new seed varieties added to the market every season. Instead they have come to achieve greater than 90% market penetration (after adding in licensees such as DeKalb, Syngenta, and others).

I have not even seen a hint to suggest that the subject of this patent will be somehow restricted after the patent expires next year. The gene is too prevelant (and has been since day 1 on the market) for Monsanto to keep the technology out of the hands of competitors, even if they wanted to. The fact that they've licensed the technology to their competitors means that the gene is already in Non-monsanto seeds. The only difference in 2014 will be that Monsanto will no longer be receiving licensing fees for the those seeds.

I've already addressed some of these issues in an earlier post, so here is the short version with links:

1. Seed breeders don't do their work willy-nilly in an open field. They use controlled conditions to prevent accidental pollinization. See here

2. Pollinization with from a neighboring GM field is not counted against you by the USDA who is responsible for the National Organics List. See here

I believe the general thrust of your argument here is that you don't trust specialists, and this lack of trust is based largely on your personal objections to the status quo in many areas of modern life such as the law and morality. Is that a fair assessment? If so, that is fair enough. The people of a society must make value judgements collectively about the type of society they want to be. However, those value judgements really should be based on the best available evidence. That evidence is going to need to be generated, usually by someone specializing in that field of study, and interpreted so that society can be reasonably sure that their value judgement will have the intended consequence. Specialists should be an integral part of that process, and the non-specialists should at least have an open mind when discussing these issues with them. My intent is not to denegrate the non-specialist for being interested and wanting a say in how their society evolves. Far from it! My intention is to point out closeminded rhetoric that is divorced from reality so that those willing can better equip themselves to make those decisions.

I am not sure what your point is here, or why you keep quoting the word "average". The topic under discussion is, for most observers, a rather esoteric section of patent and contract law. These are complicated issues, arguably more complicated than they need to be, but I don't personally believe that you or I have the necessary understanding to say what the appropriate fixes are. What we ARE qualified to do is to tell the experts (Lawyers and Legislators primarily) what we believe the problem to be, and ask them to suggest ways to address our concerns. However, they should also give us their best approximation of what the ancillary effects of any recommended change will be so that we can try to ensure that the "fix" does not cause more or worse problems.

I don't know that I made any appeals to accelerate anything, or allow anything of the sort. I made a plea to the uninformed to seek better information before passing (usually vocal) judgement on a complicated issue requiring specialized information to truely understand. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

I never claimed that they needed to, only that they should consult those who had before passing judgment. Agriculture is different from many other professions becuase everyone's life is affected by agriculture, but most don't know anyone directly involved in it. I knew many engineers, construction workers, medical professionals, lawyers, mechanics, and even a few physicist growing up, but I didn't meet my first member of the agriculture profession until I was in college. I know many people who's only direct connection to agriculture is ME. This is very serious disconnect and (I say this with no hyperbole) it breeds misunderstandings that can literally spell the difference between life and death for some people.

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Much medical research is conducted by MD's only, with no formal training in research. Formal training which would included several courses in statistical analysis. The solution here would be to require a statistician (a specialist) be involved in the design, analysis and interpretation of all trial data. However, MD's are frequently so ignorant of statistics that they are fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger Delusion, and concluded that a statistician is unnecessary. BTW, this is a good example of why we SHOULD consult specialists.

Monsanto's patent on round-up ready corn expires next year. Gene patents are not subject to the patent-continuation creep of drug patents. The gene is what it is, well characterized, and easily sequenced from any seeds bought on the open market. Even if Monsanto handn't licensed the technology far and wide, taking their patent and developing your own round-up ready seeds would be trivially simple after 30 years on the market.

At the end of 2014 anyone will be able to incorporate their technology for free. I'd argue that this is EXACTLY the scenario that patent law was designed to foster. They developed a truely novel technology, marketed it, made back their investment and subsidized further investment, and now in about a year the technology will enter the public domain for the benefit of all.

Here is an example of your own Dunning-Kruger Dilusion. Monsanto DOES add value year-on-year. Ask anyone who buys their seeds. Since Monsanto has licensed glyphosate resistance technology to just about anyone interested, for a fee of course, you don't need Monsanto brand seeds to get that trait. Therefore, Monsanto must make the same annual improvements in other, non-GM traits that producers use to decide which seeds to buy every year.

I assume from this that you have some experience writing or interpreting the law? No? Then forgive me if I believe you to be guilty of the same kind of hubris as the OP. Things may well be complicated because the issue being legislated is complicated. Have you every read a law? I have. In point of fact, I've been reading the federal register several times a week for the last month because I'm involved in several regulatory filings at work. I know just enough about the law to have a inkling of just how little I truly know. Based on what you've written, I suspect that you don't yet even have that much knowledge. (Clarification: I don't view the word "ignorant" as an insult. I freely admit my own ignorance on many topics without shame, and I intend no insult when labeling someone else that way. It is merely the most accurate word in my vocabulary)

Determining that someone is not doing a good job is not the same thing as presuming to tell them how to do their job. If the students don't learn, then you can make a case that the teacher is not doing their job. However, your average mechanic is probably not qualified to tell an underperforming teach what, specifically, they are doing wrong. Or at least they are far less qualified than another teacher. That is the point I was making and you appear to have missed.

Questioning I have no objection to. In fact, I encourage it. However, the OP was not really asking questions in the pursuit of knowledge. They were expressing an extreme opinion based on, from my perspective, a position of ignorance. That I emphatically do NOT support.

Perhaps I can't what?

You are the first person to have every accused me of being over-passive in my life. The more you learn about a topic, the more accurate a picture you achieve of your own ignorance. I refrain from telling other specialist how to do their jobs not because I am passive, but because I have decided to extend the courtesy of not presuming that their area of expertise is any simpler or easier to truly understand than my own is. At the end of my post I was making an impassioned plea for the OP to do me and my colleagues the same courtesy.

I'm a trained scientific researcher. I'ver earned a PhD in my field and been an invited speaker at prestigious conferences focused on my area of expertise. My capacity for deduction is just fine. What is in doubt is your level of humility when discussing an area about which you have not devoted your life to studying

Take that willingness to admit that you don't know me well enough to pass judgement (although you did anyway) and apply it to agriculture, something far more complicated than I am and maybe you'll see the point I was trying to make.

If you care to continue this conversation sans further insults and character assassinations (try to insult me again and I am done), I'd be interested to know exactly you are taking umbrage with in my response to the OP. I never stooped to calling him names, and I based my assessment of his knowledge on more than just the single post I was responding to. I clicked through and read all of his other posts on this thread before coming to my conclusions regarding his ignorance. I admit that I inferred the source of his animosity based on my personal experiences arguing with vocal yet ignorant critics of agriculture in the past, but I interpret the OPs lack of response as a confirmation of sorts.

I took a fair amount of genetics in college, and it is my understanding that obfuscated genes (which is what I ready your description as) is not really possible due to the rapidly decreasing time and cost associated with whole genome sequencing, or all that relevant due to the self-replicating nature of seeds.

The issue is not with Syngenta, for example, copying Monsanto's genes. They could do that very easily without gene patents, and with gene patents they simply license them at agreed upon terms. The issue here is that if there are no patent protections, then Monsanto has to make back their entire decades long investment in a single season, off of the backs of the "early adopters" since everyone would legally be able to buy the seeds from the early adopters and plant them the next year without paying Monsanto a penny. I believe that Monsanto would rather get out of the GM business due to high cost, impossibility of profitability, and the poor consumer perception of the technology.

While good in theory, current examples show that open source is not the panacea you hope it to be. Open source GMO's exist now and they are being slammed by the same anti-science fear mongering rhetoric as those GMO's from for-profit companies like Monsanto. Golden Rice is such an open source GMO. The rice has been modified to produce extra Vitamin E. Vitamin E deficiency is very common in some of the poorer nations where rice is a staple. Children not receiving enough vitamin E will frequently develop blindness which IIRC is permanent. As it is now, people in those countries must use other products fortified with Vitamin E synthesized from fossil fuels, which is incredibly complicated and has a high technological and financial barrier to entry (The company I work for is one of the few global vitamin E manufacturers). This current opposition results in a greater level of suffering of children despite no greedy corporation having developed or profited from it.

I think one important thing that everyone loses site of when talking about GMO patents is the relatively short duration of those patents. IIRC, gene patents are only good for 30 years from the date of the patent filing (possibly approval). Some of the patent time gets burned while bringing the technology to market, which means maybe 25 years of selling the trait before the patent expires. That seems like a lot to you and me, but on a "Big Picture" timescale it really isn't. Monsanto's glyphosate resistance patent expires next year. After that time anyone who wants to use the round-up ready resistance element in their seeds will be freely able to do so.

This is nonsensical. Crops have ALWAYS been the targets of pests, be it fungus, insects, birds, weeds, etc. Remember the Potatoe Famine? While among the worst in recent memory in the US and Europe, Famine was the RULE not the exception prior to the development of pesticides and herbicides.

If Glyphosate resistant crops had never been developed by Monsanto, we would still need to spray to control pests. The differences are:

1. Glyphosate is a broadspectrum herbicide. Spray once, kill everything other than the GM crop. Organic herbicides are targeted at specific weeds. That means spraying several different compounds to attack the many different weeds growing on your field. That means more pressure to develop resistance and more potential for the residues that scare everyone so much.

2. Contrary to popular opinion, Glyphosate is one of the safest herbicides for a human to ingest based on numerous toxicology studies. By contrast, most organic herbicides are far more toxic pound for pound (or acre for acre). Combine this with point one and you get an increased potential for accidental human poisoning from the use of organic herbicides.

Essentially, reality and common perception of GM crops and Monsanto in particular are diametrically opposed to each other. Much as the global warming deniers and the evidence on global warming, or the anti-jab activists and all the data on the safety of vaccines. Do you really want to be thrown into the same camp with them as deniers of evidence in favor of emotional bullshit?

I've run into this argument already today, so here goes an abbreviated description of why this isn't relevant.

1. No one breeds replacement seeds in the open. The whole point of a breeding program is control and that is achieved in a green house. Look here
2. Having your production field pollinated by GM corn on your neighbors field does not make your crop non-organic. Look here.

You don't even know how long it takes to get a PhD in nutrition and you are trying (badly) to argue nutritional science with me? Unbelievable! For the record, a MS traditionally takes 2 years and the PhD traditionally takes an additional 4 years, for (stay with me now) 6 years.

as to your baseless assertion that my degree is pseudo science, I received my degrees from Purdue University, which is nationally recognized for its nutritional science programs. It is the antithesis of pseudo-science, unlike your appeals to "common sense"

your right, there is no point in continuing. You are convinced, in the absence of any evidence, that you know the truth and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be adequate to force even a kernel of doubt into you. I've asked for evidence repeatedly and the best you've come up with is "Because I said so".

good day

For a purist, I believe it could be possible to achieve this goal by planting a buffer. Essentially you recognized that the crops on the edge of your field, closest to the neighbors fields are most likely to be contaminated, and you simply accept that the first X number of rows is going to be contaminated and sell those as non-organic but sell the interior volume of the field as organic.

However, that is not necessary based on the current USDA interpreatation of the rules.

From Page 2 of the above link:

Common sense is fraught with false positives, confirmation bias, and other logical fallacies.

Here are some examples of "common sense":

It was common sense that the world is flat for longer than it has been known to be a globe
It was common sense that bleeding and leaches were sound medical treatments at one time
it was common sense that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites only a handful of generations ago
it was common sense just a decade ago that we wouldn't see a black president in my life time.

All of these "common sense" beliefs were shown to be false based on EVIDENCE. Either provide some real evidence or just shut-up and crawl back under your bridge.

I will state up front that I am not an economist, and so an economist can correct me if I am wrong.

This strikes me as a basic economics question. Will a reduction in profits due to a low cost disruption from essentially free second generation crops with GM traits change the incentives for companies like Monsanto?

personally, I can't see how it wouldn't. The real dollar cost of getting a new GM crop to market is going up, not down. This is due to the increasing cost of generating ever more data for regulatory filings, which is a foreseeable consequence of the tone surrounding this technology. Couple that with the highly specialized skills needed by the researchers to even develop the GM crops in the first place, and I see a textbook example of changing cost structure forcing changes in incentives.

thoughts?