[TeMPOraL]

Regulations are a right tool for the job here. What would be a non-regulatory approach? Let the market decide? The market decided; it doesn't give a flying damn about things like loss of antibiotics for human healthcare; people want their cheap meat, the market delivers. If it involves overusing antibiotics, so be it.

[Houshalter]

The problem I think he is trying to point out, is that the regulatory agencies are controlled by those businesses in the first place. The FDA tried to regulate antibiotics in farm use decades ago, and the industry threw a fit until it stopped. They tried again awhile ago, and they fought against them until they made compliance voluntary.

If the only regulations you can have are ones which benefit big businesses, then no regulations at all might be better. You can't have a political ideology based around the idea that the government is perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Instead another alternative might be to get rid of the FDA entirely so new antibiotics can be developed faster, and we can genetically modify animals to breed them to grow bigger without antibiotics.

Well that only might work, and only in this one specific case. In general regulations can definitely be necessary. But they've proven they can't solve this problem, or at least not until the last minute when it might be too late. And even if we were successful, you can't stop other countries from doing it.

[jMyles]

Are you saying that the current situation is market-driven? Because that's ludicrous.

Big-ag is the furthest thing from a free market this side of big pharma. Have you heard of ag-gag laws? Corn subsidies? How about events like this:

http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-pr...

...which happen all the time all over the country?

Our nation's food supply is controlled by a tiny elite for the most part, and it has completely insulated itself from market effects.