4 ms·

It's time for a global ban on antibiotic use in agriculture. These multidrug-resistant species we're breeding are the single most likely cause of the eventual e

It's time for a global ban on antibiotic use in agriculture. These multidrug-resistant species we're breeding are the single most likely cause of the eventual extinction of the human species, far ahead of nuclear war.

Osiris 15y ago
I think a ban is a bit excessive. A ban on anti-biotics in humans would be devastating. However, more restricted and controlled use under specific circumstances, much like how it's controlled for people, may be an appropriate step. However, I admit that I don't know enough about the situation to be able to provide well informed advice on the topic.
- Judson 15y ago
  The parent comment seemed to be referring to a ban on antibiotics only in agriculture, not the human population. Which may be why you were downvoted.
  - Osiris 15y ago
    I was only using that as a comparison of how controlled use of antibiotics might be a better approach as it's worked well for us and maybe it would work well in an agricultural situation as well. I see now that I didn't word my response very well.
jaredhansen 15y ago
I'd like to see some data on what an agricultural antibiotic ban would do to the price of meat, eggs, dairy and any other animal-derived food product. It's easy to call for an antibiotic ban when thinking only about the scary evolutionary effects, but if we're talking about total human misery caused/avoided* by antibiotic use in farming, it's far from clear (to me at least) that a ban makes any sense at all. If anyone has data on this I'd be interested to read it. -- *There's a fair argument over the extent to which we should also consider animal utility, but I'm leaving that aside.
- TheFishkin 15y ago
  Why do you think an increase in the price of animal products would contribute to human misery? Animal products aren't necessary in a diet at all, and they're only useful in a fraction of the quantity that most Westerners consume. Equivalent nutrition intake can be achieved much more efficiently by directly consuming plant products. I'm ignoring the issue of taste, because I don't think that can be classified as "misery." Also, the current cost of meat is far from fair, as large farms are externalizing the cost of perhaps the largest risk of a catastrophic event for humankind. I wouldn't necessarily advocate a complete ban on antibiotic use for animals. A system that required a prescription from a veterinarian would probably be better. I think either approach would have a similar effect on large-scale farming, though.
naner 15y ago
Right. If antibiotic use in animal farming is as high as indicated here, you can't just ban it without severely impacting the food supply. I'm afraid this problem probably won't get "solved" until lab-grown meat is feasible and cheap.
- adrianN 15y ago
  Or until our eating habits change sufficiently that we don't require a hunk of meat for every meal. Once or twice a week should be enough.
  - DrStalker 15y ago
    "vegetarian with meat" is a surprisingly nice diet choice; avoid anything where meat is the focus and instead add some meat to what you're eating.
- javascriptlol 15y ago
  How are you going to ensure that "lab-grown meat" is not going to lack something important contained within farm grown meat? We already know that the composition of the meat changes depending on what you feed the animals. What about micronutrients we don't know about? Man has not supplanted nature in cleverness.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    That would be part of the definition of "feasible". Nobody is guaranteeing it even is (but my bets are on eating a lab-grown steak in my lifetime).
    - javascriptlol 15y ago
      I don't know why I'm being downvoted for a simple question, but my point was that I don't see how this it's ever going to be possible to demonstrate that these things are safe. Our ancestors ate game meat, not farm meat. And now people want to grow it in a lab? I'm not saying we can't make a trade-off here, but people focus on the things they can see and ignore the unknown (in this case, the health effects of eating a new kind of processed food).

Osiris 15y ago

I think a ban is a bit excessive. A ban on anti-biotics in humans would be devastating. However, more restricted and controlled use under specific circumstances, much like how it's controlled for people, may be an appropriate step. However, I admit that I don't know enough about the situation to be able to provide well informed advice on the topic.

Judson 15y ago
The parent comment seemed to be referring to a ban on antibiotics only in agriculture, not the human population. Which may be why you were downvoted.
- Osiris 15y ago
  I was only using that as a comparison of how controlled use of antibiotics might be a better approach as it's worked well for us and maybe it would work well in an agricultural situation as well. I see now that I didn't word my response very well.

jaredhansen 15y ago

I'd like to see some data on what an agricultural antibiotic ban would do to the price of meat, eggs, dairy and any other animal-derived food product. It's easy to call for an antibiotic ban when thinking only about the scary evolutionary effects, but if we're talking about total human misery caused/avoided* by antibiotic use in farming, it's far from clear (to me at least) that a ban makes any sense at all. If anyone has data on this I'd be interested to read it. -- *There's a fair argument over the extent to which we should also consider animal utility, but I'm leaving that aside.

TheFishkin 15y ago
Why do you think an increase in the price of animal products would contribute to human misery? Animal products aren't necessary in a diet at all, and they're only useful in a fraction of the quantity that most Westerners consume. Equivalent nutrition intake can be achieved much more efficiently by directly consuming plant products. I'm ignoring the issue of taste, because I don't think that can be classified as "misery." Also, the current cost of meat is far from fair, as large farms are externalizing the cost of perhaps the largest risk of a catastrophic event for humankind. I wouldn't necessarily advocate a complete ban on antibiotic use for animals. A system that required a prescription from a veterinarian would probably be better. I think either approach would have a similar effect on large-scale farming, though.

naner 15y ago

Right. If antibiotic use in animal farming is as high as indicated here, you can't just ban it without severely impacting the food supply. I'm afraid this problem probably won't get "solved" until lab-grown meat is feasible and cheap.

adrianN 15y ago
Or until our eating habits change sufficiently that we don't require a hunk of meat for every meal. Once or twice a week should be enough.
- DrStalker 15y ago
  "vegetarian with meat" is a surprisingly nice diet choice; avoid anything where meat is the focus and instead add some meat to what you're eating.
javascriptlol 15y ago
How are you going to ensure that "lab-grown meat" is not going to lack something important contained within farm grown meat? We already know that the composition of the meat changes depending on what you feed the animals. What about micronutrients we don't know about? Man has not supplanted nature in cleverness.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  That would be part of the definition of "feasible". Nobody is guaranteeing it even is (but my bets are on eating a lab-grown steak in my lifetime).
  - javascriptlol 15y ago
    I don't know why I'm being downvoted for a simple question, but my point was that I don't see how this it's ever going to be possible to demonstrate that these things are safe. Our ancestors ate game meat, not farm meat. And now people want to grow it in a lab? I'm not saying we can't make a trade-off here, but people focus on the things they can see and ignore the unknown (in this case, the health effects of eating a new kind of processed food).