11 ms·
Farm animals in India and China are becoming more resistant to antibiotics
- sadmann1 7y agoI'm absolutely shocked who could have predicted this
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- StreamBright 7y agoWe need a new drug platform because the current model only satisfy the owners of the pharma corporations.
- ddeck 7y agoI recently listened to a podcast featuring Dr Matt McCarthy, who is an infection diseases physician and ethics professor and who authored the book Superbugs[1]. He did a good job (to a layperson such as myself anyway) of explaining why big pharma don't have much incentive to develop new antibiotics, possible financial interventions that may makes sense, and the alternative treatments that are being developed. I haven't read the book, but he's done quite a bit of press around it on podcasts, youtube etc. Definitely worth a listen to learn more about the topic. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42878826-superbugs https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42878826-superbugs
- Dumblydorr 7y agoThe simple reason is pharma wants to develop chronic use drugs or cancer drugs, and why would they want to make antibiotics that are carefully rationed, if profits are lower? Seems to me, we may need a socialized, international effort, an ISS of antibiotic development.
- StreamBright 7y agoYep, I agree with him. Without the right incentives we are dead in the water.
- airstrike 7y agothis has nothing to do with how Big Pharma develops drugs...
- vas777 7y agoWhy ? If new antibiotics are not profitable in the long run, then you don't do that. That was presented in the podcast. What is your explanation?
- airstrike 7y agoMy explanation is the problem lies in the food source, not antibiotics. We can't rely on the continuous increase in the use of antibiotics to prevent a food cataclysm. Presumably any newly developed antibiotic would be sold for prices similar to existing ones, if not for a premium. If this results in decreasing profits, then we must conclude development costs are rising, which suggests finding new antibiotics is increasingly harder. Sure, we can throw taxpayer money at it to have more drugs developed and introduced in the near-to-mid term, but if finding new antibiotics is indeed continuously harder, at some point it will also be too expensive for public money to finance R&D We have to aim to solve the root cause, not just mindlessly continue to throw money at it
- ddeck 7y agoI suspect the parent was referring to the lack of incentives for big pharma to develop new antibiotics, which is of course very relevant in a discussion around resistance to existing drugs. I don't believe this to be a contentious issue. It is well understood that the current model and associated costs of drug development provide little incentive for research and development of novel antibiotics. In the words of the infectious diseases physician I referenced in another comment: For the past 75 years, we've relied on a partnership between the federal government and big pharma to bring new antibiotics to market. And what we're seeing is that that partnership is dissolving, and it's dissolving for the simple reason that pharmaceutical companies increasingly are having trouble making a profit off of antibiotics. The reason for that is if you think about an antibiotic, they are prescribed in short courses. And doctors are very stingy about doling them out. And even the best new antibiotic may wear out its welcome when the bacteria become resistant. So what we're finding is that these companies say, why would we want to make a product that doctors don't want to prescribe? Now to address this, there are a number of policy proposals on the table. They're called push and pull incentives, which can entice these companies to stay in the antibiotic business. A push incentive might be something where you go to a company that's making billions of dollars and say we'll cut your corporate tax rate if you promise to invest some of those profits into new antibiotics. This is a sure-fire way to get more money into the pipeline. However, many people recoil at the idea of giving a tax break to a multi-billion dollar company. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/729120288/-superbugs-book-chronicles-rise-of-antibiotic-resistant-pathogens https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/729120288/-superbugs-book-chr...
- petre 7y agoIt would be interesting to extend the study to other regions as well. The map doesn show any data for North America, Europe, Australia and Russia.
- peterwwillis 7y ago> Van Boeckel and his colleagues analysed 901 epidemiological studies, conducted in developing nations
- prongletown 7y agoI've been a vegetarian for a few years. Part of the impetus for my choice was the lack of regulation and health code standards in this country. Recent news that the federal government is reducing inspection of meat really does scare me. How many people need to die (like in the early 1900s) before we re-realize the importance of these regulations on public life? When will the next Upton Sinclair come along?
- whenchamenia 7y agoIts simple to get to know your local rancher. You can even voice your concerns and have them heard by the person raising your beef, while walking the ranch on a nkce day. Factory farms are the bigger problem, not just meat per-se.
- kryogen1c 7y ago> Its simple to get to know your local rancher. >Factory farms are the bigger problem, not just meat per-se. Not just meat farms! One thing vegans and vegetarians often gloss over is the death per calorie involved in crop fields. Those thousands of acres have animals in them, and the machines sure dont stop for every varmit that gets in the way. It is not clear what the right answer is (assuming all you care about is number of animal lives, which is an inadequate measure anyway). The best advice i know of is to only eat well raised cow meat because 1 cow provides a lot of calories, and vegetables, chickens, and pigs etc do not and kill lots of animals.
- prongletown 7y ago>eat well raised cow meat It takes significantly more feed to raise a cow. The calories extracted from cow meat is extremely inefficient considering the high number of calories in (feed) and water. So, you could not use feed (vegetable death-per-calorie!) because it's something like a 8:1 calorie ratio for feed to a pound of beef. You'd have to pasture raise the cows. There is no feasible way to ensure that all food is pasture-grazing cow meat at a price point accessible to most Americans. There is currently no cruelty free-way to have cheap, accessible calories. If you really wanted the lowest death-per-calorie, one of the most feasible approaches would be consuming large amounts of rice. I don't think anyone would want to subsist exclusively on a diet of rice, beans, and dietary supplements.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kryogen1c 7y agoSource paper https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6459/eaaw1944.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6459/eaaw1944.ful... >From 2000 to 2018, the proportion of antimicrobial compounds with resistance higher than 50% (P50) increased from 0.15 to 0.41 in chickens and from 0.13 to 0.34 in pigs and plateaued between 0.12 and 0.23 in cattle. >Globally, 73% of all antimicrobials sold on Earth are used in animals raised for food. Jeeeesus. It sure feels like humanity is painting itself into a corner along multiple dimensions. I wonder at how many previous points in history did new technology save us from the brink of annihilation. Im not sure we've ever been powerfull enough to be truly as in danger as we are now. On the other hand, earth is still slaloming between asteroids we cant predict or stop so we've never been out of danger at all. Oh well, back to work.
- maxerickson 7y agoResistance to antibiotics would take us back to 1900, not to the brink of annihilation. My point isn't to dismiss the problem, just that it would mean things like surgery being much riskier, not massive die offs.
- pulisse 7y ago> Resistance to antibiotics would take us back to 1900, not to the brink of annihilation. You can't assume that the virulence of bacteria with evolved antibiotic resistance will be like that of the strains that existed in 1900.
- maxerickson 7y agoThere's plenty of evidence at this point, it isn't an assumption.
- throwaway-hn123 7y ago> There's plenty of evidence at this point, it isn't an assumption. Literally bullshit. Please stop with your ignorance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165128/
- wonderwonder 7y ago"the four types of antimicrobial drug most commonly used in farm animals to help them gain weight — tetracyclines, sulfonamides, quinolones and penicillins — are also the ones with highest resistance rates." It never ceases to amaze me the decisions that we as a species make with full knowledge of the consequences that seem to be geared towards implementing wide spread disaster. We as a species have very much decided that short term gains are well worth long term disaster.
- rwj 7y agoWhat's rational for the individual is not always well aligned with what's rational for the society.
- Dumblydorr 7y agoThere are negative externalities, in other words, and a truly well functioning economy would align bad behavior with higher costs, surely we can get there...?
- josephorjoe 7y agoNot without government regulation. Businesses never regulate themselves before the disaster because it is always more profitable to use the "there won't be a disaster" scenario plan.
- johnisgood 7y ago"One must distinguish regulation (which often is specific to a certain area of business) from law (which is more general). For example, there are laws against fraud, and long before governments began to regulate the US economy, people brought alleged fraud cases to court, as well as other tort action that existed under a common law system." "Private enterprise works on a voluntary basis, a business owner cannot coerce someone to do business with him. Things like loss of reputation, shoddy products, poor service and the like serve as real boundaries for business owners, who in a free market survive only by offering goods that people are willing to purchase. There are numerous private (read that, voluntary) organizations that police businesses, settle disputes, independently test products, and provide needed information for consumers and producers alike. Yes, these organizations do have a regulating effect upon the behavior of individuals who participate in private production and exchange." Edit: removed the conclusions, the rest - in my opinion - is relevant to the comment above.
- alexfromapex 7y agoCan we please stop overusing antibiotics? They are essentially dangerous organic weapons we don’t understand
- warent 7y agoThat would mean less livestock farming, which means people would have to accept a life with less meat. It's simply not going to happen. Humans are way too arrogant and inflexible to impose the smallest inconvenience on themselves unless faced with tangible, immediately harmful effects. Not to mention the complete shift in the global economy that it would demand. I've been a vegetarian for about 4 years and the cognitive dissonance you start to see is remarkable. People claim to love animals and hate animal cruelty through mouthfuls of burger and pork.
- seanwilson 7y ago> I've been a vegetarian for about 4 years and the cognitive dissonance you start to see is remarkable. People claim to love animals and hate animal cruelty through mouthfuls of burger and pork. Can you explain why producing eggs and cow milk is any less cruel than producing animals only for meat? In terms of cognitive dissonance, I have a hard time understanding the rational behind vegetarianism to be honest when a vegetarian presumably has looked into the animal farming industry more than a meat eater. Dairy cows and egg laying hens are still killed very early into their natural life span once their yields drop with the cows being killed for meat, males from dairy cows are killed within weeks as veal because males can't be milked, and any male chickens born are gassed or ground up within days of their life because they don't lay eggs.
- warent 7y ago> Can you explain why producing eggs and cow milk is any less cruel than producing animals only for meat? You're running wild with an assumption that isn't true. Of course it's just as cruel. I don't purchase dairy or eggs, and only consume eggs in restaurants on rare occasions. Really you're preaching to the choir here.
- goatinaboat 7y agoWell, if course they are. Chinese farmers use antibiotics like candy. Even the stuff that the West considers reserve antibiotics of last resort. There is zero possibility of any Western pressure making them stop. Look also at the CO2 they emit and the plastic they dump in the ocean. The CCP has only two modes, rising living standards by questionable means, and mass die-offs of the population. This is the strategy of Mao.
- johnmulaney 7y agoNo, western pressure could certainly stop the CCP, but there's no political will for it. Especially not when the west is too busy self-flagellating itself over its own real and imagined wrongdoings.
- jessaustin 7y agoAsk a Uighur how much good "western pressure" has done for the concentration camps in Xinjiang. If we're not going to war over literal concentration camps (which is acceptable; we're in too many wars already), we're not going to war over antibiotics policy.
- petre 7y agoOf course you can pressure them to slow down, just stop buying their stuff. I recommend watching "The Coming War with China" documentary on Al Jazeera. It has changed my perspective about the US, China, Mao. It's not all black and white, but rather different shades of grey.
- jessaustin 7y agoIsn't that what we're doing now with all the tariffs? ISTM Xi DGAF. I will definitely check out that documentary, thanks for the recommendation.
- petre 7y agoPrecisely. But your head of state of is also extending the tariff war to friendly nations like Japan and the EU. Although I wouldn't call the EU too friendly with the generalised anti-Trump sentiment in Western Europe and getting too cosy with Russia again, just like nothing ever happened in Crimea. Eastern Europe (except Serbia and maybe Hungary) pretty much backs the US since we had enough of Russia to last for several lifetimes.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ropiwqefjnpoa 7y agoIf only we had been warned!
- drak0n1c 7y agoIf you're curious why antibiotics are seen as necessary by farmers - I found an insightful Quora answer about US practices: "The antibiotic, not antibiotics, in question is monesin sodium, also known originally by the trade-name Rumensin. It is an anti-biotic in the truest sense- it changes the living conditions for gut flora of a ruminant animal in such a way as to promote the growth of bacteria that produce proprionic acid, and making it less favorable for other microorganisms such as those that cause coccidiosis or inefficient digestion that results in methane gas. So yes, it's an ionophoric activity. It kills off some stomach bugs by changing the environment inside the cow, promotes others, and makes the animal healthier and more efficient as a result. Yes, there are other antibiotics fed at times, as prophylactics against respiratory disease disease during severe weather or shipment, but it is illegal to sell animals containing residues, and those additives are expensive. It's not a surreal concentration-camp factory-farm shoving pills into cows so they roid-rage and turn into bloated meat-sacks, it's a finely tuned process of optimizing cow health and efficiency to get the most out of inputs and the best results. Which in turn means more profit for the farmer. Strange as it may seem, when your livelihood comes from livestock, you put a lot of attention, science, and technology into making sure they are as healthy and happy as possible, so they make you the most money when sale time comes." https://www.quora.com/How-do-antibiotics-cause-farm-animals-to-gain-weight https://www.quora.com/How-do-antibiotics-cause-farm-animals-...
- hnarn 7y ago>Strange as it may seem, when your livelihood comes from livestock, you put a lot of attention, science, and technology into making sure they are as healthy and happy as possible, so they make you the most money when sale time comes. This seems like such a huge conflation of terms -- of course there's a lot of attention, science and technology put into animal farming, because it's a huge industry. Making sure animals are healthy makes sense, because you can't sell animals that die before slaughter: but happy? Where did that come from? Since when does the happiness of animals factor in anywhere in the equation of industrial slaughter for meat? I'm by no means a vegan, and neither am I overly skeptical of markets and their value, but please let's not fall for the siren song of pretending that the market has already made animals as happy as they can be, because "of course they are, because nothing else would make economical sense". Abhorrent conditions for animals make economic sense: that's why they exist. And this doesn't even address the glaring point of the "game theory" aspect of antibiotics in animal farming.
- Lio 7y agoThat’s not a great post title IMHO and doesn’t match the article. It implies that farm animals are refusing to take their tablets... Why not just go with “Alarm as antimicrobial resistance surges among chickens, pigs and cattle” as per the Nature article?
- jessaustin 7y agoTechnically the resistance is a property of "Salmonella, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus and E. coli", not chickens, pigs, and cattle.
- babyslothzoo 7y agoHumans are squandering arguably one of the most important medical advancements in history, and ultimately it will be human health that pays for it when they stop working for us entirely.
- spiderfarmer 7y agoThere's a lot the rest of the world can learn from Dutch agriculture: https://www.allaboutfeed.net/Feed-Additives/Articles/2017/10/Dutch-antibiotic-use-continues-to-decline-195504E/?dossier=25397&widgetid=1 https://www.allaboutfeed.net/Feed-Additives/Articles/2017/10...
- cwkoss 7y agoHas the US reduced agriculture antibiotic use recently? I know we used to use tons of them as prophylactic and to help weight gain. Why aren't we on the graph? Are US animal microbes less resistant, and if so why?
- noodlesUK 7y agoPlease can this title be changed? Perhaps “antibiotic resistant bacteria surge in farm animals in China and India“. The current title plays directly into the common misconception that it’s the host that becomes resistant to an antibiotic rather than the microbes within them. This misconception confuses the narrative that antibiotic resistance is a growing global threat (which it is).
- alkonaut 7y agoIt’s time to start trade wars over the use of antibiotics in healthy livestock instead of starting trade wars for silly protectionism. There needs to be some kind of sanction.