ANTI - animal antibiotics

Here's a case where the media missed the mark in an attempt to elicit fear in the wrong direction.  It annoys me when the press calls H1N1 flue "the swine flu" and then hog farmers see a 30% decrease in sales of pork products.  Authorities have clearly demonstrated that the deadly virus is not transmitted by eating pork but still people are not pacified.  The media outlets are also unrelenting.  Apparently it's easier to say "swine flu" and scare people because they picture angry sick pigs on the rampage...  I dunno.  It's just depressing.  (My theory is - most news reporters are complete morons and H1N1 is too difficult to say - proof here, here, here, or here)

Now - where there IS something to talk about - the media usually misses the mark.  They miss the fact that while pigs have nothing to do with the vogue flu - there are things in the food system that are genuinely impacting (or potentially impacting) the health of the world.

For instance, our very own distasteful (D) representative from New York, Rep. Louise Slaughter, has asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a new study on the federal government’s tracking and monitoring antibiotic use in animals and the government’s efforts to assess and mitigate "human health risk related to antibiotic use in animals".¹ That's a good thing shes doing (for a change) - too bad this topic hasn't been a pubic heath terror news story.

Or - what about the fact that back in June it was reported that antibiotics such as cephalosporin used in chicken hatcheries in Canada are causing human resistance to the medicines, according to a report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.² Where's the fanatical media coverage about "what's in your omelet"?

One MIGHT be led to believe that the folks who report on "the news" prefer catchy names and actual deaths as opposed to things that slowly cause quantifiable public health issues...  you know - things that make you think as opposed to just reacting.  What do you think?