In the article “Growth-promoting
antibiotics: On the way out”, writes about the story of growth-promoting
antibiotics in the use of livestock. A study in the 1950s showed for the first
time that the use of potent antibiotics in livestock feed could increase meat yields
by up to 50%. This lead to the widespread use of trace amounts of these potent
antibiotics in livestock feed, which had some unexpected results. In addition
to increasing meat yields, it also had a more negative affect on humans. The
bacteria that these antibiotics were supposed to kill were able to build a gradual
resistance to the antibiotics because they were exposed to it in only small
amount. This caused many health problems for humans, because these bacteria and
their relatives can no longer be as easily fought off by these potent
antibiotics. Now, exactly 62 years after the release of the original study, a
federal judge has ordered the Food and Drug Administration to resume efforts to
outlaw the nonmedical use of antibiotics.
This
has a very large impact on the lives of all living people. The use of strong
antibiotics like penicillin is much less effective than they were in the past,
and therefore cannot fight of bacteria as easily. Because of this, it poses as a
major health issue for humankind. That is why a federal judge has ordered the
FDA to renew its efforts to ban nonmedical use of antibiotics, which has caused
this problem.
In
telling this fascinating tale, the author does use a good amount of
sophisticated vocabulary that he should have defined or not used at all, so
that it would be more easily understandable. Also, it would be nice if the
author told specific dates of when some things happened, such as the original
study showing the benefits of nonmedical use antibiotics. Other than those two
things, however, the author did a good job of relaying this story.
Peyton Elder
ReplyDeleteCore Biology
Mr. Ippolito
10/1/12
Daniel did a great job on writing a review on how growth-promoting antibiotics are used in livestock. He did a great job on relaying statistics from the article about the use of growth antibiotics on livestock. Daniel also did a great job explaining the risks that it is giving the humankind. Lastly Daniel did a great job on splitting up the information into three paragraphs and explained everything well.
Two things Daniel could have done better were talk more about how we as humans can fix this problem. Also he could have explained more on what some of the antibiotics are like penicillin and its harmful effects.
One thing that impressed me was that these antibiotics are now having negative effects on human and endangering us now, that is something I didn’t know before.
In Daniels article review on “Growth-promoting antibiotics: On the way out” I think he presented some very nice straight forward points about this new problem we’re facing in the livestock industry. He stated that since the 1950s, there has been a study shown on how a growth-promoting antibiotic used in livestock is affect the humans that eat it. On top of the negative affects being presented on humans, there has been an increase in meat yields. The antibiotic prevents bacteria from easily being fought off, causing main health issues for humans. After about sixty years of consistent use of growth-promoting antibiotics, the Food and Drug Administration has decided to resume putting in effort to outlaw the use of antibiotics. Some recommendation to make this article better would be to give a further background on the antibiotic and give details to maybe why it was first used and where. Even though this is not stated in the article, I think bringing in outside information would help the reader have a better understanding to the issue or topic being presented. In the last paragraph, I think that Daniel should have voiced his opinion more by giving more examples, though he has a clear cut opinion. I was very impressed by the choice in article because the past few articles that have been reviewed have mainly been about illnesses or genetics. This also brought more light to a new matter I knew little to nothing about.
ReplyDeleteMike Minoli 10/2/12
ReplyDeleteBIO IH #3 Comment
My classmate Daniel reviewed the article, “Growth-promoting antibiotics: On the way out.” I really enjoyed his review for a few reasons. First off, I think that it was the best review done so far. I think that it was very well written and addressed all of the criteria for writing a review in an exceptional manor. Another thing that I really liked how he explained his personal opinion of the article, and gave specific examples. A third thing that I liked was how he summarized the article. It was not too long, nor too short, it was a perfect length. I could not have written a review better myself. Having said that there was only one grammatical error in the first sentence. Since I have to mention two things that Dan could improve, I will also include that he did not indent his first paragraph. One fact that really surprised me is that penicillin is much less effective than in the past. I did not know that such things could become less effective at all. Overall, I really enjoyed the article review. In my opinion, it was the best review written so far.
My fellow peer wrote an article that has many unique facts about antibiotics. The three things that that stood out to me were, how in the 1950s were around the first time they thought about producing antibodies. The second thing is how after 62 years the federal judge at the FDA is trying to outlaw non-medical use of antibiotics. The last thing is that penicillin is not that effective now a days rather than when it was created. The two things that he could have done were, he could have included a little bit more of opinion in it, and told us a little bit more about where he got the document. The thing I learned and that I found the most intriguing was how the FDA is trying to stop the distribution of antibodies for non-medical use. This summary was very well written I really liked it.
ReplyDeleteDaniel did a great job in writing his review on “Growth-promoting antibiotics: On the way out.” He presented great info about the major problem in our livestock industry. He states that since 1950, the use of potent antibiotics in livestock could increase meat yields by 50%. A second interesting thing I learned, was that these antibiotics are not working as well as they should be. For example, the bacteria that was supposed to be killed by the antibiotics was not because only a small amount was exposed. Lastly, that there are no health problems because of the antibiotics not working. Daniel’s review was good but there are some things he could have done to make it better. First, he could have given a few examples of diseases caught by humans because of this event. Also, he could have given opinions of scientists in this field. Lastly, I learned that what you are eating might not be that safe. I knew this before, but his review really made me think about the meat I am eating.
ReplyDelete