Campaign Aims to Get McDonalds to Stop Using Antibiotics: Should corporations be allowed to feed their cattle antibiotics?

  • Yes, as long as the use of antibiotics for cattle is advertised.

    Yes, corporations should be allowed to do anything within the law as long as they are transparent about what they do. This gives the consumer the information needed to make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to purchase from the company. If a consumer is against eating cattle fed with antibiotics, then they can choose to not support McDonald's and spend their money elsewhere.

  • Some antibiotics in cattle are good

    Without the use of some antibiotics, entire herds of cattle could be sickened and the meat unusable. Some level of antibiotics protect the cattle from common diseases and infections. Doing so keeps prices affordable and prevents hunger and malnutrition for many lower income families. Corporations should be allowed to sell the meat the choose to market.

  • Antibiotics have proven to be a hazard to human health.

    The government restricts the use of certain chemicals and ingredients because of their harmful side effects, so why aren't they restricting the use of antibiotics, which have proven to be hazardous to humans? The use of antibiotics encourages the growth of antibiotic immune "super bugs" That make many people sick and can kill up to 23000 Americans per year. It is my belief that something this detrimental to human life should be restricted.

  • No, they should not.

    Feeding cattle antibiotics is dangerous for a number of reasons. The first is that these antibiotics are contributing to the increase in the number of anti-biotic strains of bacteria. The second is that these anti-biotics have adverse effects on people when they consume meat that is raised on antibiotics, and can be deadly.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.