4 ms·

Not everyone is prepared for higher animal protein prices (I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't consume them anyways). But the people most prone to ask f

Not everyone is prepared for higher animal protein prices (I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't consume them anyways). But the people most prone to ask for radical measures are often the least aware of situations and their consequences. >our ban on antibiotics for growth Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt. >I certainly don't get antibiotics prescribed for every little thing Yeah me neither yet the spectacular decrease we should see is not there yet. Maybe there are other, more exigent patients then ?! >they typically prescribe the same very narrow antibiotics for everyone and use broad spectrum ones more restrictively (which is a good thing). It would be terrible if people could buy broad spectrum antibiotics over the counter. Well luckily some are only available in hospitals or such. But when I hear war stories from a veterinarian friend who switched to human medicine and sees lastest quinolones used systematically no matter the health status of the person for benign procedures, we just facepalm. They don't want to take the 5% risk that someone will need aftercare I guess. But MRSA and nosocomial infections are the real, growing threat...

alkonaut 9y ago
> Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt. You mean countries had (or has) laws that prohibited antibiotics for its proper use (to treat infection) but allowed antibiotics in livestock for growth stimulation? Which countries were that? And what would be the reasoning behind that? As I understood it, the "bad" countries allow antibiotics for both purposes, whereas the "good" countries started restricting antibiotics for growth, and eventually banned it completely. Have I completely misunderstood you mean?
- hycaria 9y ago
  Prophylaxis (=treatment of healthy patients) antibiotics used to be a routine thing especially in younger animals more prone to infections etc. It was not stimulating growth per se, but as a coincidental effect. It is not very common anymore, and has not been for over a decade now (in the EU, I'm not sure about overseas). But it's still possible for some specific sicknesses (one is sick, you can treat others that are not sick preventively) or productions (ie poultry and pigs iirc). (Growth is still systematically stimulated through hormones injections in cattle at least in the Canada/US, and this is completely banned in the EU, maybe there's some mix up there ?) > eventually banned it completely No, luckily it's not completely banned anywhere I know of, and I hardly see this happening tbh. Even in organic productions and such its a number of treatments (or quantity per animal) limit per year. It is not banned and breeding animals would be hardly sustainable if it were.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Right. Yes I was considering the subtherapeutic use in otherwise completely healthy populations of livestock. Good to see that is also being addressed (as late as 2017 for the US). That only addresses dispensing it through, feed though so I'm unsure how common it is to simply admnister the same thing through some other means? Of course, the elephant in the room is the use in China/India/Brazil. I wonder how close we are to those countries adopting EU/US style regulation. Basically, how do we tell China/India/Brazil that they will simply have to accept protein prices that are much higher?
    - nielsbot 9y ago
      would they be much higher? what is “much” here? (not trolling)
- cageface 9y ago
  Antibiotics are still used in massive quantities in the US solely to promote growth and also to allow animals to be confined in increasingly smaller and less hygienic environments and to compensate for increasingly dirtier and more dangerous slaughterhouse conditions. None of this is necessary. From what I understand this is less the case in the EU. 80% of the antibiotics used in the US are given to animals, not people: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turning-livestock-superbug-factories http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turni...
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    While I'm sure the situation isn't improving as fast as the ambitions are, the last regulation in the US which bans the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in feed, was effective as late as jan 1st 2017. So the regulation at least seems to be catching up, whether realtity is following is another question.
    - cageface 9y ago
      Any progress in this direction welcome, of course. We have a long way to go.
fpoling 9y ago
By far the cheapest protein comes from plants so I do not see how more expensive meat can affect protein availability. If one wants to insist that poor have right to cheap protein from meat, then the present time animal agriculture is just unsustainable and the poor people in future will surfer from it disproportionally.

alkonaut 9y ago

> Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt. You mean countries had (or has) laws that prohibited antibiotics for its proper use (to treat infection) but allowed antibiotics in livestock for growth stimulation? Which countries were that? And what would be the reasoning behind that? As I understood it, the "bad" countries allow antibiotics for both purposes, whereas the "good" countries started restricting antibiotics for growth, and eventually banned it completely. Have I completely misunderstood you mean?

hycaria 9y ago
Prophylaxis (=treatment of healthy patients) antibiotics used to be a routine thing especially in younger animals more prone to infections etc. It was not stimulating growth per se, but as a coincidental effect. It is not very common anymore, and has not been for over a decade now (in the EU, I'm not sure about overseas). But it's still possible for some specific sicknesses (one is sick, you can treat others that are not sick preventively) or productions (ie poultry and pigs iirc). (Growth is still systematically stimulated through hormones injections in cattle at least in the Canada/US, and this is completely banned in the EU, maybe there's some mix up there ?) > eventually banned it completely No, luckily it's not completely banned anywhere I know of, and I hardly see this happening tbh. Even in organic productions and such its a number of treatments (or quantity per animal) limit per year. It is not banned and breeding animals would be hardly sustainable if it were.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Right. Yes I was considering the subtherapeutic use in otherwise completely healthy populations of livestock. Good to see that is also being addressed (as late as 2017 for the US). That only addresses dispensing it through, feed though so I'm unsure how common it is to simply admnister the same thing through some other means? Of course, the elephant in the room is the use in China/India/Brazil. I wonder how close we are to those countries adopting EU/US style regulation. Basically, how do we tell China/India/Brazil that they will simply have to accept protein prices that are much higher?
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    would they be much higher? what is “much” here? (not trolling)
cageface 9y ago
Antibiotics are still used in massive quantities in the US solely to promote growth and also to allow animals to be confined in increasingly smaller and less hygienic environments and to compensate for increasingly dirtier and more dangerous slaughterhouse conditions. None of this is necessary. From what I understand this is less the case in the EU. 80% of the antibiotics used in the US are given to animals, not people: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turning-livestock-superbug-factories http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turni...
- alkonaut 9y ago
  While I'm sure the situation isn't improving as fast as the ambitions are, the last regulation in the US which bans the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in feed, was effective as late as jan 1st 2017. So the regulation at least seems to be catching up, whether realtity is following is another question.
  - cageface 9y ago
    Any progress in this direction welcome, of course. We have a long way to go.

fpoling 9y ago

By far the cheapest protein comes from plants so I do not see how more expensive meat can affect protein availability. If one wants to insist that poor have right to cheap protein from meat, then the present time animal agriculture is just unsustainable and the poor people in future will surfer from it disproportionally.