When Food Kills

As we keep feeding our livestock antibiotics, we are creating a breeding ground for bacteria that can lead to untreatable ailments. Full Story »

Posted by Lynn Caporale - via Nicholas Kristof, New York Times (Most Emailed), New York Times (Opinion), Josh_Young (t), serbian models (t), Donica Mensing (t), Umbreen Bhatti (t), Rachel Fus (t), Marc Dangeard (t), Jon Mitchell (t), Wil Kristin (t), Joey Baker (t), George Moga (t)
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics, Health
Member Tags: Medical costs, agriculture, antibiotic resistance, Emerging Pathogens, factory farming, food contamination and poisoning, e coli (bacteria), methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, United States, Antibiotics
Stats Help
# Diggs: 21 (as of 2011-06-13)
# Tweets: 6 (as of 2011-06-11)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Lynn Caporale - Jun 11, 2011 - 2:41 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Lynn Caporale - Jun 12, 2011 - 4:22 AM PDT
Dwight Rousu
4.2
by Dwight Rousu - Jun. 12, 2011

The system is corrupt, as big agribusiness is deemed too big to regulate, as politicians maneuver for dollars and votes in the farm belt. Kristof uses the E. coli incident to draw attention to the bigger problem of massive illness and deaths from MRSA, which could well explode further from the bio-abusive overuse of antibiotics in corporate farming gone mad.

Prophylactic antibiotics are a very dangerous game.

in the United States, the agribusiness lobby still has a hold on Congress. The European outbreak should shake people up. β€œIt points to the whole broken system,” More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Fred Gatlin
3.1
by Fred Gatlin - Jun. 13, 2011

As I reviewed this commentary reading the facts do not meet as good journalism. Many facts overly broad and some are hard to say that were caused by low-level antibiotics. To work on the problem all need to try to hear and listen to each other.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Ellie Kesselman
3.6
by Ellie Kesselman - Jun. 12, 2011

I agree with the central point of this opinion piece. But it was sensationalist which diluted the impact of the underlying message.

See Full Review » (9 answers)
Steven K Samra
4.0
by Steven K Samra - Jun. 13, 2011

Kristof provides numerous links to support his claims and raises awareness about an issue that doesn't seem to garner much attention when competing against more sensationalist news available at just about any hour or any day. Although it is written in an informal style, this may indeed be a plus in that it has the potential to reach a larger audience, including people who ordinarily may not open a newspaper or spend much time laboring through formally crafted "investigative" pieces.

Given that the US experiences cancer rates of 1:3, as well as the fact that antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria surface daily, understanding where the barriers are in changing our food industry are essential. Kristol's piece brings us this information and helps us understand not only who, but why as well.

We have an industrial farming system that is a marvel for producing cheap food, but its lobbyists block initiatives to make food safer. More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Don Bertschman
4.2
by Don Bertschman - Jun. 12, 2011
See Full Review » (17 answers)
Lynn Caporale
4.5
by Lynn Caporale - Jun. 12, 2011

Identifying clear solutions to significant problems (in this case, the spread of infections untreatable by antibiotics and the effect on medical costs), and the barriers that prevent implementing effective solutions (in this case, agribusiness lobbying) are an essential role of journalism. Today, Nicholas Kristof is one of the all too few journalists who plays this important role.

We need more microbiologists and other scientists in Congress.

Louise Slaughter, the only microbiologist in the United States House of Representatives, has been fighting a lonely battle to curb this practice β€” but industrial ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 7 reviews (70% confidence)
Quality
3.9
Facts
3.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Insight
3.8
Style
4.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
2.5
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
5.0
Expertise
3.8
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.3
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
4.2
Popularity
3.4
Recommendation
3.3
Credibility
3.6
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
2.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!