the FDA, the last line of defense?

Eating habits are personal.
Nobody likes to be told that what they eat or don't eat is good or bad for them. And we assume that the food available to us, organic or not, is alright for consumption because those kinds of things are regulated.
But what happens when the regulatory bodies, created to be watchdogs over the food we eat, start giving priority to companies' profits rather than to human health?
This disturbing question might soon be answered if the Food and Drug Administration (in the U.S) approves an antibiotic for cows that will protect them from respiratory disease. The stressful conditions in which cows live lower their immune systems and "virtually guarantee that bovine respiratory disease will be a major problem."
So heal the cows, sounds noble.
But the antibiotic, called cefquinome, is extremely potent. In humans, it is used for cancer patients and to treat "nearly invinsible infections." The last line of defense.
When antibiotics are given to living beings to treat an infection, that infection eventually mutates. This allows it to become genetically different and therefore develop a resistance to the initial drug. In the case of cattle, those mutated diseases are passed to humans who eat that meat, making humans resistant to the same antibiotics.
Even though the FDA's own science advisers and health groups have said that this will pose a problem to human health, they still plan on approving it.
"Guidance #152" lays out an assessment process on how to determine if new drugs for animals are safe for humans. Unfortunately for humanity, the language is sympathetic to pharmaceutical companies. It says "a new animal drug is safe if [the FDA] concludes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to human health."
Yeah well, when I was 14, I was reasonably certain that I wanted to be a ballerina.
The FDA will announce their decision in the spring.