7 ms·

Nice, now let's please pass laws to prohibit this being given to farm animals under high penalties and international prosecution.

by jupp0r 7y ago

darpa_escapee 7y ago
For reference, 80% of antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture [1]. Animals are fed antibiotics to prevent infection, but they’re also fed to animals as “growth promoters” [2]. 60% of infectious diseases in humans originate in animals, and 75% of emerging infectious diseases in humans originate in animals [3]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/ [3] https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html
- drivebyops 7y ago
  Are the infections happening because of the close proximity that animals are kept in?
- Pyxl101 7y ago
  It seems horrendous that we would give antibiotics to any livestock in an across-the-board way. Livestock should only get antibiotics if they come down with an infection and are diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian. If a bunch of the livestock would get sick without preemptive antibiotics then I probably don't think that method of farming should be legal, and I would be glad to pay whatever higher prices would be necessary to abolish it.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Infections were not created by greedy farmers. They occur naturally among all animal populations. Some quick googling indicates that this practice both increases meat production by 10-30%, and protects animals from a lot of suffering, as they spend their lives mostly healthy. That said, yeah, we can't keep doing this, and we have to pay the cost. Let's just not pretend there is no cost.
    - Pyxl101 7y ago
      I'm not saying we should cease treating sick animals. I'm saying only treat the sick animals individually after diagnosing them. If that's not practical then let's change farming practices until it is. (I'm not a farmer. I have no idea what the impact of this practice would be. However, as a naive person I definitely would strongly prefer to reserve the medicinal powers of antibiotics for humans or individually-sick animals, not huge animal populations.)
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        I mostly agree. This is already done in many countries, and farming goes on there. My only point is that this isn't done by stupid greedy farmers for no reason. It's a practical and profitable practice that has had a lot of short term benefits both for farmers, consumers and even farm animals. But it also has to end.
- refurb 7y ago
  There isn’t that much overlap between the antibiotics used to treat human disease and those used in livestock to promote growth. The use of human antibiotics in livestock has already been banned in the US by the FDA. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2018-12-19/antibiotic-use-falls-on-us-farms-after-ban-on-using-drugs-to-make-livestock-grow-faster https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2018-12-19/ant...
- boldlybold 7y ago
  Point (2) is no longer true as of 2017 (in the US, 2006 in the EU) [1]. I'm happy to see the FDA getting on top of this regulation. Now let's end careless spraying of antibiotics on crops. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Un... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-oranges-florida.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-orange...
  - hvidgaard 7y ago
    Re: Point (2), it's going in the right direction, but at least in Denmark it is very much used in a "preventative" manner in the pork industry. It took a dive when the regulation came into effect, but in the last few years not much have happened, and we still have a MRSA problem out of control. Independent sources say that more than 90% of all farms with pigs have an MRSA infection. The butcheries reported in 2014 that 88% of all pigs was infected with MRSA. Every 1 in 3 pack of pork is infected and weak and elderly people should be careful with pork in general because of this risk.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I've heard the opinion that most antibiotic resistance genes don't seem to originate in agricultural use. High AB usage is one factor in developing and spreading resistance, but it's way more complicated. For example the resistance genes also have to jump onto a bacterium that is pathogenic...
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > I've heard the opinion that most antibiotic resistance genes don't seem to originate in agricultural use. Maybe true but I don't see the post you're replying to saying that. If you are saying that, a reference to some research showing that would be welcome. > but it's way more complicated surely true, but it doesn't mean antibiotic overuse isn't a damn good starting point for resistance to develop.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380918/
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        This does not back up your claim. Much of it is about lack of evidence on which to draw conclusions. That's clear enough just in the abstract. I'll quote from the abstract. Selectively due to length, but I'll try to be fair: "The three mechanisms considered are as follows 1: direct infection with resistant bacteria from an animal source, 2: breaches in the species barrier followed by sustained transmission in humans of resistant strains arising in livestock, and 3: transfer of resistance genes from agriculture into human pathogens. Of these, mechanism 1 is the most readily estimated, while significant is small in comparison with the overall burden of resistant disease. Several cases of mechanism 2 are known [so it's been demonstrated to happen], and we discuss the likely livestock origins of [some bacteria] it is hard to assess in robust fashion. More difficult yet to study is the contribution of mechanism 3, which may be the most important of all." To summarise, a little, some known, and we don't know. From the summary, and again I'm quoting selectively so be warned: "The limited data available make it hard to quantify the relationship between antibiotic use in animals and the occurrence of clinical resistance. As we have shown, while there is considerable evidence associating antimicrobial use in agriculture with resistant pathogens in livestock and in the food supply, the evidence for human health risks directly attributable to agricultural antibiotics runs the gamut from speculative to scant" Summary: possible real threat, too little data to evaluate. Further, again from the conclusion: "Once these [antibiotic-resistant] strains have emerged, it might be only a matter of time before they cross the species barrier and adapt to living in humans, at which time there is very little regulation of agriculture can do to prevent their persistence in the clinical setting. The greatest value of reducing agricultural antibiotic use now may be in maintaining a status quo that, while far from ideal, is greatly preferable to the alternative." Summary: we scientists don't know but we have reason to be very concerned. These are my selective quotes and my interpretations, but I personally don't see that they support your position.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Could be done as a license from the manufacturer.
- iSnow 7y ago
  Unfortunately, at least in poorer countries, people will simply disregard the license. Indian/Chinese/Russian pharma companies are quite good at synthesizing patented compounds (after all, the relevant information is in the patent claim) and selling them for cheap. And even in industrialized countries, crooked vets have abused reserve antibiotics not intended for animals.
foobiekr 7y ago
while we are at it, let's not give them out like candy in countries known for doing so.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Not possible, politically. Antibiotic management is an ongoing topic and effort, but you can't make independent countries comply. Also, the amount of antibiotic used is not as much of a problem for AB resistance as some people using the "as candy" metaphor may think. The epidemiology of AB resistance is way more complicated, as the spreading of resistance requires multiple factors to coincide. Like the right resistance gene, the right strain, infection chains etc
- AngryData 7y ago
  Honestly I like that better than the US version of requiring you to pay a bunch of money for a doctor to sign off on something that a pharmacist should be able to give upon request. Something like an eye infection should be just a couple bucks to treat, but just going to a doctor to tell you "yeah your eye is infected, you need antibiotics" and then getting charged $100 or more for their signature is crazy. Maybe it would work fine in a free healthcare model. From the research ive seen there is very little risk from humans abusing antibiotics, especially in comparison to agricultural usage. I can go to the store and buy amoxicillian for fish for like 5-10 bucks, but to get a human prescription it could cost $200+.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
From the article we may actually want them to be used for treating animals. Apparently these molecules are very hard to build resistance against. Bacteria evolve resistances to many ABs from scratch in lab conditions. If more is discovered about the mechanism of these two drugs, one could speculate about a potential resistance gene. Is it enough to "adapt" existing genes in most microbes, like with Penicilline? Is a novel gene, traveling on a vector, required to defuse it (like with Carbapanemes)? Or is it extremely unlikely that pathogens evolve any way to counter it? The latter could be because the mechanism of action is not trivially countered. You can compare it with patching vulnerabilities. A vulnerability is sometimes not addressable without crippling a business critical feature. Then we might want to use these drugs in animals and less in Humans, because we know more about how the old drugs work and their side effects.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  The original post said farm animals. You're now apparently conflating that with animal testing, which will take place anyway. Anyway the OP makes a lot of sense. Resistance is known to increase when antibiotics are used. If we use them less (ie. not on farm animals) then it seems reasonable that resistance development will be lessened and the drugs' useful lifespan will be extended. Much as I hate to say it, speaking as a veggie, farm animals are a commodity and moderately expendable.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    I'm saying we'd want to use them in agriculture because they seem to be harder to build resistance against. Nothing about animal testing. And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work. Agreed, but you may not have that choice for much longer.
hellofunk 7y ago
Let's also pass laws prohibiting doctors from giving them out like candy because someone has the sniffles.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
I've never been convinced of the argument that using antibiotics, causes them to be less useful. Does doubling the use frequency increase the probability of a resistant bug? How much? And how much does that reduce the useful lifetime of the drug? I'm thinking, 10X the application might reduce the useful lifetime by months out of decades. Maybe not the issue its been blown up to be.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  It's a valid question. > I'm thinking, 10X the application might reduce the useful lifetime by months out of decades Possibly, sure. And possibly not. Maybe 1% extra use reduces the drug's working life by 100 times. Without data either claim could be true.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    ...and without data it seems clueless to be castigating folks for using the tools we have now, to accomplish goals we have now. If our current antibiotics are becoming less useful, then create new one. There's nothing magic about the ones we're using now. They were just the first ones we came across. Like VHS vs Betamax. Lets get on with it.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      I castigated no-one for this. I didn't suggest not developing new antibiotics. Far from it. Merely that we use new and old ones wisely. That, and make decision based on data.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Do you have an argument for this, or is it just gut feel? The argument for the standard view is simple: The more "bugs" are exposed to antibiotics, the more opportunity/reason they have to develop resistance to it.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Nice, now let's please pass laws to prohibit this being given to farm animals under high penalties and international prosecution.

by jupp0r 7y ago

Nice, now let's please pass laws to prohibit this being given to farm animals under high penalties and international prosecution.

darpa_escapee 7y ago

For reference, 80% of antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture [1]. Animals are fed antibiotics to prevent infection, but they’re also fed to animals as “growth promoters” [2]. 60% of infectious diseases in humans originate in animals, and 75% of emerging infectious diseases in humans originate in animals [3]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/ [3] https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html

drivebyops 7y ago
Are the infections happening because of the close proximity that animals are kept in?
Pyxl101 7y ago
It seems horrendous that we would give antibiotics to any livestock in an across-the-board way. Livestock should only get antibiotics if they come down with an infection and are diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian. If a bunch of the livestock would get sick without preemptive antibiotics then I probably don't think that method of farming should be legal, and I would be glad to pay whatever higher prices would be necessary to abolish it.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Infections were not created by greedy farmers. They occur naturally among all animal populations. Some quick googling indicates that this practice both increases meat production by 10-30%, and protects animals from a lot of suffering, as they spend their lives mostly healthy. That said, yeah, we can't keep doing this, and we have to pay the cost. Let's just not pretend there is no cost.
  - Pyxl101 7y ago
    I'm not saying we should cease treating sick animals. I'm saying only treat the sick animals individually after diagnosing them. If that's not practical then let's change farming practices until it is. (I'm not a farmer. I have no idea what the impact of this practice would be. However, as a naive person I definitely would strongly prefer to reserve the medicinal powers of antibiotics for humans or individually-sick animals, not huge animal populations.)
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      I mostly agree. This is already done in many countries, and farming goes on there. My only point is that this isn't done by stupid greedy farmers for no reason. It's a practical and profitable practice that has had a lot of short term benefits both for farmers, consumers and even farm animals. But it also has to end.
refurb 7y ago
There isn’t that much overlap between the antibiotics used to treat human disease and those used in livestock to promote growth. The use of human antibiotics in livestock has already been banned in the US by the FDA. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2018-12-19/antibiotic-use-falls-on-us-farms-after-ban-on-using-drugs-to-make-livestock-grow-faster https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2018-12-19/ant...
boldlybold 7y ago
Point (2) is no longer true as of 2017 (in the US, 2006 in the EU) [1]. I'm happy to see the FDA getting on top of this regulation. Now let's end careless spraying of antibiotics on crops. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Un... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-oranges-florida.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-orange...
- hvidgaard 7y ago
  Re: Point (2), it's going in the right direction, but at least in Denmark it is very much used in a "preventative" manner in the pork industry. It took a dive when the regulation came into effect, but in the last few years not much have happened, and we still have a MRSA problem out of control. Independent sources say that more than 90% of all farms with pigs have an MRSA infection. The butcheries reported in 2014 that 88% of all pigs was infected with MRSA. Every 1 in 3 pack of pork is infected and weak and elderly people should be careful with pork in general because of this risk.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
I've heard the opinion that most antibiotic resistance genes don't seem to originate in agricultural use. High AB usage is one factor in developing and spreading resistance, but it's way more complicated. For example the resistance genes also have to jump onto a bacterium that is pathogenic...
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > I've heard the opinion that most antibiotic resistance genes don't seem to originate in agricultural use. Maybe true but I don't see the post you're replying to saying that. If you are saying that, a reference to some research showing that would be welcome. > but it's way more complicated surely true, but it doesn't mean antibiotic overuse isn't a damn good starting point for resistance to develop.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380918/
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      This does not back up your claim. Much of it is about lack of evidence on which to draw conclusions. That's clear enough just in the abstract. I'll quote from the abstract. Selectively due to length, but I'll try to be fair: "The three mechanisms considered are as follows 1: direct infection with resistant bacteria from an animal source, 2: breaches in the species barrier followed by sustained transmission in humans of resistant strains arising in livestock, and 3: transfer of resistance genes from agriculture into human pathogens. Of these, mechanism 1 is the most readily estimated, while significant is small in comparison with the overall burden of resistant disease. Several cases of mechanism 2 are known [so it's been demonstrated to happen], and we discuss the likely livestock origins of [some bacteria] it is hard to assess in robust fashion. More difficult yet to study is the contribution of mechanism 3, which may be the most important of all." To summarise, a little, some known, and we don't know. From the summary, and again I'm quoting selectively so be warned: "The limited data available make it hard to quantify the relationship between antibiotic use in animals and the occurrence of clinical resistance. As we have shown, while there is considerable evidence associating antimicrobial use in agriculture with resistant pathogens in livestock and in the food supply, the evidence for human health risks directly attributable to agricultural antibiotics runs the gamut from speculative to scant" Summary: possible real threat, too little data to evaluate. Further, again from the conclusion: "Once these [antibiotic-resistant] strains have emerged, it might be only a matter of time before they cross the species barrier and adapt to living in humans, at which time there is very little regulation of agriculture can do to prevent their persistence in the clinical setting. The greatest value of reducing agricultural antibiotic use now may be in maintaining a status quo that, while far from ideal, is greatly preferable to the alternative." Summary: we scientists don't know but we have reason to be very concerned. These are my selective quotes and my interpretations, but I personally don't see that they support your position.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Could be done as a license from the manufacturer.

iSnow 7y ago
Unfortunately, at least in poorer countries, people will simply disregard the license. Indian/Chinese/Russian pharma companies are quite good at synthesizing patented compounds (after all, the relevant information is in the patent claim) and selling them for cheap. And even in industrialized countries, crooked vets have abused reserve antibiotics not intended for animals.

foobiekr 7y ago

while we are at it, let's not give them out like candy in countries known for doing so.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
Not possible, politically. Antibiotic management is an ongoing topic and effort, but you can't make independent countries comply. Also, the amount of antibiotic used is not as much of a problem for AB resistance as some people using the "as candy" metaphor may think. The epidemiology of AB resistance is way more complicated, as the spreading of resistance requires multiple factors to coincide. Like the right resistance gene, the right strain, infection chains etc
AngryData 7y ago
Honestly I like that better than the US version of requiring you to pay a bunch of money for a doctor to sign off on something that a pharmacist should be able to give upon request. Something like an eye infection should be just a couple bucks to treat, but just going to a doctor to tell you "yeah your eye is infected, you need antibiotics" and then getting charged $100 or more for their signature is crazy. Maybe it would work fine in a free healthcare model. From the research ive seen there is very little risk from humans abusing antibiotics, especially in comparison to agricultural usage. I can go to the store and buy amoxicillian for fish for like 5-10 bucks, but to get a human prescription it could cost $200+.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

From the article we may actually want them to be used for treating animals. Apparently these molecules are very hard to build resistance against. Bacteria evolve resistances to many ABs from scratch in lab conditions. If more is discovered about the mechanism of these two drugs, one could speculate about a potential resistance gene. Is it enough to "adapt" existing genes in most microbes, like with Penicilline? Is a novel gene, traveling on a vector, required to defuse it (like with Carbapanemes)? Or is it extremely unlikely that pathogens evolve any way to counter it? The latter could be because the mechanism of action is not trivially countered. You can compare it with patching vulnerabilities. A vulnerability is sometimes not addressable without crippling a business critical feature. Then we might want to use these drugs in animals and less in Humans, because we know more about how the old drugs work and their side effects.

tempguy9999 7y ago
The original post said farm animals. You're now apparently conflating that with animal testing, which will take place anyway. Anyway the OP makes a lot of sense. Resistance is known to increase when antibiotics are used. If we use them less (ie. not on farm animals) then it seems reasonable that resistance development will be lessened and the drugs' useful lifespan will be extended. Much as I hate to say it, speaking as a veggie, farm animals are a commodity and moderately expendable.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I'm saying we'd want to use them in agriculture because they seem to be harder to build resistance against. Nothing about animal testing. And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work. Agreed, but you may not have that choice for much longer.

hellofunk 7y ago

Let's also pass laws prohibiting doctors from giving them out like candy because someone has the sniffles.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

I've never been convinced of the argument that using antibiotics, causes them to be less useful. Does doubling the use frequency increase the probability of a resistant bug? How much? And how much does that reduce the useful lifetime of the drug? I'm thinking, 10X the application might reduce the useful lifetime by months out of decades. Maybe not the issue its been blown up to be.

tempguy9999 7y ago
It's a valid question. > I'm thinking, 10X the application might reduce the useful lifetime by months out of decades Possibly, sure. And possibly not. Maybe 1% extra use reduces the drug's working life by 100 times. Without data either claim could be true.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  ...and without data it seems clueless to be castigating folks for using the tools we have now, to accomplish goals we have now. If our current antibiotics are becoming less useful, then create new one. There's nothing magic about the ones we're using now. They were just the first ones we came across. Like VHS vs Betamax. Lets get on with it.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    I castigated no-one for this. I didn't suggest not developing new antibiotics. Far from it. Merely that we use new and old ones wisely. That, and make decision based on data.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Do you have an argument for this, or is it just gut feel? The argument for the standard view is simple: The more "bugs" are exposed to antibiotics, the more opportunity/reason they have to develop resistance to it.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago