Rhetorical Analysis of Veldman’s and O’Brien’s Antibiotics Arguments Since the 1940s, many arguments have been made about whether the use of antibiotics in livestock is harmful or beneficial. Another topic of discussion also includes whether these antibiotics present a negative impact to humans who consume meat, eggs, and milk from animals who are treated with antibiotics. Stephanie Veldman, who is the associate editor for Beef Magazine, wrote an article titled, The Antibiotics Argument, in October of 2005. She takes an approach towards explaining the significance of using antibiotics in livestock and how our food may be impacted by their use. Similar ideas are also used in Dr. Anna O’Brien’s article, The Argument over Antibiotics, which…show more content… Anna O’Brien starts out by saying she prescribes antibiotics to livestock animals and poultry on a daily basis. This automatically tells the reader that Dr. Obrien is a credible self-source, because she is a medical professional. Dr. O’Brien then states that, “Lots of people blame agricultural use on the growth of antibiotic resistance, but the over-prescription and over-use of antibiotics on the human side is also to blame” (O’Brien 2012). This statement informs the reader about how antibiotic resistance has been built up over time and the significance of it. O’Brien then goes on to say, “Now there are livestock feeds manufactured with low (also called subtherapeutic) levels of antibiotics for use in beef cattle, swine and poultry to aid in weight gain. This has been going on for decades and is a large part of the livestock industry in this country” (O’Brien 2012). This statement explains to the reader that farmers could be abusing the use of antibiotics in their livestock to gain a larger profit due to the weight gain. Dr. O’Brien goes on to explain to the reader why certain antibiotics are not allowed in livestock, poultry, or swine, by saying, “there are plenty of antibiotics that are allowed nowhere near food animals for two good
