A Love Story Called Big Pharma and the Meat Industry
In terms of agriculture, this post will focus on the relationship between meat production and pharmaceutical companies. The following fact is important to remember while reading this post: the average weight of a cow has risen from 1,000 pounds in 1975 to 1,300 pounds in 2012 (Peterson).
This significant increase in weight is associated with the agriculture industry’s heavy use of antibiotics, hormones, and other growth-enhancing drugs (Peterson). These drugs are also employed to prevent the spread of diseases in overcrowded factory farming (Rouke).
Over the past three decades, public funding for food and agriculture research and development has leveled off (Peterson). In turn, the agricultural science sector and its agricultural universities have become increasingly dependent on financing from industries for research (Petterson). One of the largest corporate contributors to the agricultural science sector are pharmaceutical companies.
Overview of the Relationship
Big Pharma contributes to animal research by funding the agricultural universities’ animal scientists (Peterson). There are no limitations on how much corporate money animal scientists may receive. Approximately two thirds of all animal scientists have admitted to collecting funds from pharmaceutical giants (Peterson).
Agricultural universities’ financial dependence on Big Pharma has resulted in a shift of focus from ensuring public health to being an additional avenue for companies to market their drugs. Animal scientists employed by these universities are encouraged to persuade ranchers into feeding their livestock drugs (Peterson).
It’s not a tough sale, however: the beef industry reportedly earns $100 more in profit for every animal that ingests the drug (Peterson). The relationship between Big Pharma and the meat industry is mutually beneficial: both entities enjoy a raise in profits due to their co-dependence.
Animal scientists commonly write scientific articles, which are financed by Big Pharma, about a particular drug (Peterson). Their findings tend to be positive due to the origins of the finances (Peterson). Additionally, findings on adverse outcomes are not made public because scientists are required to sign confidentiality clauses (Peterson).
There is a clear lack of research regarding the negative effects that the drugs have on the animals, the environment and also consumer health. Big Pharma refuses to bankroll studies that would highlight the health repercussions of such practices. This type of research is left to the whim and financial ability of the public, animal scientists and other interested parties (Peterson).
FDA’s Inadequate Regulation
The FDA and Big Pharma have always had a chummy rapport, as shown by the revolving door between the two entities and the existence of user fees. The FDA has also been sued for withholding records, on behalf of Big Pharma, pertaining to the safety of ractopamine, a drug that makes animals more muscular.
In 2013, the FDA proposed a plan to curb the use of drugs within the industry to avoid antibiotic resistance (Kar). The following three reason illustrate how the guidance was an empty gesture to confront the issue:
- Its voluntary meaning it only asks pharmaceutical companies to stop selling drugs for the purpose of animal growth (Kar).
- Allows for the use of drugs to prevent diseases. It just so happens that these same drugs speed up growth (Kar).
- Its effectiveness will be measure after three years and then the FDA will decide if stricter regulation is needed (Kar).
Kar, Avinash. “FDA announces finalization of voluntary guidance on antibiotic misuse in livestock industry.” Avinash Kar’s Blog. Switchboard: Natural Resource Defense Council Staff Blog, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. Dec. 12 2015.
Newman, Jesse. “Suit Challenging FDA Approval of Livestock-Feed products Dismissed.” Business. The Wall Street Journal, 9 Nov. 2015. Web. Dec. 13 2015.
Peterson, Melody. “As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?” Opinions & Ideas. The Chronicle Review, 15 Apr. 2012. Web. Dec. 12 2015.
Newman, Jesse. “Suit Challening FDA Approval of Lifestock-Feed Products Dismissed.” Buisness. The Wall Street Journal, 9 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
“Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).” User Fees. FDA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
Wedler, Carey. “Obama’s New Appointee To Head The FDA Is A Big Pharma Mega-Lobbyist.” MintPress news, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
“USA Agriculture Colleges & Universities.” Stackyard: Agriculture on the Web, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.