Effects on the Economy
First, banning antibiotics would save a consumer money without the consumer’s knowledge. Eliminating antibiotics from livestock production would decrease the price of meat in the grocery stores. According to the article “Reducing Antibiotics on Farms Has Proved Successful,” in the poultry production process the cost of feed containing antibiotics is higher than the amount lost through the culling of chickens due to health reasons ( par. 17). The culling of chickens is caused by the chickens being rejected at slaughter due to disease, death, and variability in size. These losses can be expected when the antibiotics are not used in production. The antibiotics help produce a consistent product in the animals. This proves that producers use the antibiotics for reasons other than lowering their expenses. In addition, the expenses of antibiotics are normally not paid for by producers themselves, but usually by the corporation supervising the production process. In the article "The Nontherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Food Animal Production Should Be Banned" by Jay Graham, the author explains, “These costs are usually "externalized" to the larger society [companies] and not captured in the price of the meat and poultry sold to consumers” (par. 11). The large companies fit the bill because they are receiving the animal for processing and require a uniform carcass. In short, antibiotics are expensive and banning them in livestock production would decrease the prices consumers pay.
On the other hand, the opposition argues that the use of antibiotics increase the cost of production and, therefore, increase the cost that consumers pay at the grocery store. The opposition argues that the animals would become sick and weak because of the lack of antibiotics, and the producers would lose money because the animals are not as healthy. In the article "Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture Is Dangerous and Unnecessary," the price increase is justified by claiming, “An unsubstantiated industry estimate of the costs associated with a total ban on the widespread feeding of antibiotics to farm animals in the United States would be an increase in the price of poultry from 1 to 2 cents per pound and the price of pork or beef between 3 to 6 cents a pound. This could cost the average U.S. meat-eating consumer as much as $9.72 a year” (par. 33). In other words, the opposition claims that the consumer price would increase if a ban occurs, therefore, the antibiotics should continue to be used. This is incorrect because if antibiotics were not used, then the costs for the producers would decrease. When the cost of production decreases, so does the price of the product. If antibiotics were banned, then the consumers could spend less at the grocery store. All in all, antibiotics have unseen effects on the economy such as affecting prices that consumers pay for their products.
On the other hand, the opposition argues that the use of antibiotics increase the cost of production and, therefore, increase the cost that consumers pay at the grocery store. The opposition argues that the animals would become sick and weak because of the lack of antibiotics, and the producers would lose money because the animals are not as healthy. In the article "Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture Is Dangerous and Unnecessary," the price increase is justified by claiming, “An unsubstantiated industry estimate of the costs associated with a total ban on the widespread feeding of antibiotics to farm animals in the United States would be an increase in the price of poultry from 1 to 2 cents per pound and the price of pork or beef between 3 to 6 cents a pound. This could cost the average U.S. meat-eating consumer as much as $9.72 a year” (par. 33). In other words, the opposition claims that the consumer price would increase if a ban occurs, therefore, the antibiotics should continue to be used. This is incorrect because if antibiotics were not used, then the costs for the producers would decrease. When the cost of production decreases, so does the price of the product. If antibiotics were banned, then the consumers could spend less at the grocery store. All in all, antibiotics have unseen effects on the economy such as affecting prices that consumers pay for their products.